Which of the colonizers were the "nicest" to the indigeneous people?
Belgians
Definitely not the Belgians or the Portugese
>>610332
kek
French weren't too bad i think.
Amerindians liked us a lot
>>610330
In the Americas the French for sure, mostly because they didn't even bother to colonize like the Iberians and the British. After them, from my experience on Brazil, the Portuguese did a nice job in assimilating the natives that didn't drop dead from smallpox.
I don't have much idea about natives in colonial Africa, except it sucked.
France probably
>>610330
Funnily enough: Spain.
>Intermarried with the locals
>Banned enslaving natives.
>Made local chieftains lesser nobility.
All those revolutions in Latin America? Local elites wanting to control everything.
The revolutions in the Philippines & Cuba? Locals pissed off that the last two colonies of Spain weren't granted status as formal Spanish provinces and representation at court for all their loyalty.
It just suffers from LE BACKWARD CATHOLIC Anglo propaganda.
>>610330
I am gonna say Spain, just cause apparently they didnt care too much.
Italians, they were the ones who suffered at the hand of the natives for most of the time
>>610424
The perfidious albion...
>>610424
>Locals pissed off that the last two colonies of Spain weren't granted status as formal Spanish provinces and representation at court for all their loyalty.
Hold up, got any source for that?
>>610330
By indigenous I'm going to assume you just mean the natives of any colonized areas and not specifically the kind of primitive tribes that word tends to link to.
The answer is none, European colonization went on for a long time and the manner in which those states colonized changed over time.
France is the common meme response to this question, but you would really rather live under British rule in the gulf than under French rule in Algeria, but at another time and another place you would rather live under the French.
Britain is a strong contender because of its ordinarily hands-off approach, maintaining local notables in their lands and being happy to leave natives to their business so long as commercial-maritime security was ensured. But the colossal exception to this rule was obviously India and some others and so to say that Britain was the "nicest" to the indigenous people would be nonsense.
It might just be a case of that government which governs least, governs best. So the pointlessly inadequate imperial systems of the late Spanish empire might be said to be the "nicest" simply because they could not impose their authority over indigenous populations in the way that other European states could.
>>610468
Tocqueville writing years after his support for the colonization of Algeria
>>610330
depends on the indigenous people and where they lived some tribe of a few hundred out in the middle of of the bush away from the westerners would probably have more cordial relations with the imperial power than the tribe of a few thousand who lived on top of a potential diamond mine and controlled the best farmland that happened to be a stones throw from the fort of the expedition company.
>>610330
The Belgians
>>610424
>The revolutions in the Philippines & Cuba? Locals pissed off that the last two colonies of Spain weren't granted status as formal Spanish provinces and representation at court for all their loyalty.
Nope, they were considered provinces even though they didn't the legal status - yet
Then American imperialism happened
>>610458
top zozzle
>>610330
>All of Somalia Italian
>Any of northern Somalia Italian
>https://italosomali.wordpress.com/2014/06/14/italo-somali-war-campaign-of-the-sultanates/
Somalia was only colonized from 1925 to 1941.
>>610464
Look up the Philippines' "Propaganda Movement."
Basically literati and elites demanding for legal recognition of the Philippines as a Spanish province.
>>610424
>It just suffers from LE BACKWARD CATHOLIC Anglo propaganda.
To be fair, a number of conquistadors were brutal even by contemporary standards
But it's important to remember that these were private ventures that only received royal backing after they establishing something of a Spanish presence and finished any firsthand messy business with the natives
>>610613
>But it's important to remember that these were private ventures that only received royal backing after they establishing something of a Spanish presence and finished any firsthand messy business with the natives
Precisely.
In fact the Church complained to both the Spanish King and the Pope for conquistadors to stop their shit, especially amongst already converted natives.
>>610330
Of all, I'd say the Portuguese. Literally trying to assimilate all the colonized. The settlers mingled with the locals, and there was no system of racial castes, as was in the case of Spanish colonization.
Second, the Ottomans. Yes, they were quite brutal when people rebelled - no doubt. But in peacetime, they had a very humane and fair system, and which aimed at maximum efficiency, stability and harmony.
>>610330
>Which of the colonizers were the "nicest" to the indigeneous people?
The French.
They actively encouraged assimilation of colonial people into French society while allowing colonial people to keep their native culture (though admittedly, this is biting them on the ass nowadays).
Now this is not to say the French weren’t “racist” (like all human beings are) but they didn’t see their colonies as nothing more then a source of raw materials to be exploited.
>>610330
Germans were pretty good, Namibia is pretty nice as a result. Actual Belgium, not Leopold, was pretty good. Quite a few reforms were pushed after seeing what granddaddy leo had been doing
>>612748
>Making Algeria official departements of the country.
>Massacres left and right along the usual abuse of local and their ressources for the sole (small) profit of the capital.
>Encouraging population settlements by Pieds-Noirs, Creoles, Acadiens and Cajuns.
>Fighting disastrous and costly wars to keep the few colonies they didn't lost in war (Dien-Bien-Phu or Sabra & Chatila?).
>Maintaining neo-colonialist power in Francafrique by supporting dictators and keeping armed forces on the ground.
>Still has so much colonies it's the countries with the most timezones.
>Still ignoring or treating like shit its current colonies (Guyane, Martinique, Mayotte have become neo-colonies where metropolitan French come in holiday to be served by local servants with the locals still being dirt poor -- refusing to grant French Polynesia the independence it asked for) and their representatives are LITERALLY the recordmen for most corrupt elected officials of the Fifth Republic.
t. Educated Frenchman.
>>612771
>Germans were pretty good,
except the whole genocide thing
>>610330
In Africa? The Germans. Mostly because all their colonial holdings were pretty much economically useless and they only existed so Germany could say "we have colonies too, we're relevant just like Britain and France", meaning that the Germans pretty much let the natives do their own thing as opposed to exploiting them.
Relevant.
>>613023
The Germans literally committed genocide in Africa. You are however correct that their colonies were pretty much useless.
>>613024
I've seen this image before and I've never been able to tell if the "German" panel is supposed to be knowing satire or a hilarious lack of self-awareness.
>>613055
You do know that the Germans experimented with colonial genocide under the Kaiser?
>>612985
oy pierre, what happened to pondicherry and chandanagore?
>>613024
>OUGA BOUGA, OU SONT LES FEMMES NOIRES
>>613094
Fuckin' Brits man... Almost worse than the Prussians.
>>612985
>Sabra & Chatila
What?
>>613102
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre
>>613106
I wouldn't really call that a disastrous and costly war, or anywhere near the same level as dien bien phu
>>613111
>The Algerian War for Independence wasn't long, costly and a disaster.
I figure you're not french uh?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_War
It caused the downfall of the IVth Republic, a coup, numerous deaths and wounded, a huge divide in the french society and spending beyound reasonable.
>>613124
Ah yes, the Sabra and Shatila massacre
A famous event of the Algerian continuation war in Lebanon
>>610468
>>610477
Ok this is going to sound completely bizzare, but are you studying 'Middle East in the Age of Empire 1830-1970' at Oxford Uni? Because I literally just had a lecture yesterday at St Anthony's college on British/French colonialism in the Gulf/North Africa, and the Tocqueville quote you posted was the exact fucking same one that the lecturer used in explaining French invasion of Algeria, which is the craziest fucking coincidence if you weren't in the same lecture.
>>613086
Yes, but I don't see how that's remotely relevant to my post.
>>610330
Japan
>>613095
ouais bix nouds nigga
n'alles pas chez moi muhfuckuh
Un meme nouveau
>>610332
>>610468
>So the pointlessly inadequate imperial systems of the late Spanish empire might be said to be the "nicest" simply because they could not impose their authority over indigenous populations
And allowed for massive exploitation of the natives and mestizos by the upper crust population, bad example.
>>613106
Sandniggers massacring each others? How unexpected!!
What does it have to do with France though?
>>610332
t. Leopold
>>613147
>Nanking Slumber Party.jpg
NOICE
O
I
C
E
>>610458
delete this
>>610424
i mean to be fair, the people who used to run shit rebelling because now theyre the deputy person who runs shit seems like a pretty typical thing, dont know if 'le catholic meme' really applies/even exists.
>>610330
Depends, on the actual place being administered. For example I was going to say "Germany" and then I remembered Nambia.
>>613106
If anything, this has more to do with the UK and Israel's creation.
>Israel is created
>conflict with Palestinian ensue
>palestinians get rekt
>Palestinians are displaced to the former predominantly Christian Lebanon
>Muslims become a majority and try to start shit
>Christian vs Muslim war
>Muslims get massacred with direct Israeli support
>>610330
If only Portugal honoured Tordesillas and messed with Africa instead of the Americas...
>>610401
>the Portuguese did a nice job in assimilating the natives that didn't drop dead from smallpox.
The approach was mixed. Some Amerindians were simply wiped out, some were allowed to coexist.
>>612748
Frenchmen didn't allow even Frenchmen to keep their native culture - see La Vergonha for example.
>>613134
Not him, but the picture implies Germans didn't even deal with the natives. If it was the last panel, and the Belgian wasn't there to imply the other side, I'd say the genocide would be obvious.
The British without question.
>>610330
The US. Puerto Rico, Philippines, Guam, All those island territories, and Hawaii. Most of them are still being treated good.
>>613985
at Second Boer War (1899—1902) British people invent Concentration camps
>>613995
But what about Liberia and Haiti?
>>613995
>philippines
top kek. The fact that they were a colony at all was poor treatment to begin with.
>>613023
Lol the natives lost all their land and possessions and were pretty much turned into a labour force who's sole purpose was to serve the settler's.
Lots of massacres and 1 clear cut genocide. After that they setup an island in a camps where they did messed up experiments on the children of the natives as well as mulatto kids.
>>613995
>Philippines.
>USA literally quashes Asia's first democratic republic because it wants to play Empire like the cool European empires that it supposedly despised.
Truly USA's first Bad Guy/Imperialist War.
>>614758
Are you kidding me Leopold's Congo was awful!
Belgian Congo was like any other colony so it was shoddy either way.
>>614765
But to be honest he just did shit other colonies did in Africa but he was excessive, over the top and he couldn't hide his shit well like the other powers did or make up a more bs narrative to trick people.
>>614727
> it wants to play Empire like the cool European empires that it supposedly despised.
Are you kidding me? if the USA wasn't a playing empire before that the US western border would have never left the Mississippi
>>614842
>the US western border would have never left the Mississippi
>>614842
By Empire I meant the notion of being a colonial empire.
They always lambasted Europeas for being Colonial Empires who are anti-freedom.
>Ugh, The Austro-Hungarians wont give their component nations freedom.
>What the Brits do to Indians are abominable.
And so on.
And here they are, occupying republics such as Cuba and the Philippines.
European states dogpiled on Americans for that. Like KEK YOU DID IT AS WELL. SO MUCH FOR LIBERTY AND ALL THAT
>>614727
US did a good job saving the Philippines from itself. It would most likely be conquered by the Japs before WWII had the US let it go
>>614945
>US did a good job saving the Philippines from itself.
All I see is a republic dependent on America for everything. America sure left it but it left behind unequal treaties such as free exploitation of its resources plus the US Bases with its niggerous troops molesting local children.
Literally the region's laughingstock. Even the Muslim bits of Southeast Asia are well off.
>>610468
>happy to leave natives to their business so long as commercial-maritime security was ensured.
>But the colossal exception to this rule was obviously India
you do realise that half of India wasn't even under the direct rule of the British? A lot of the princely states had real autonomy
>>615007
the major population centers of india had direct bong rule and the princely states had residents IIRC
>>610330
The Portuguese
They actually traded with the people of Benin and treated them as equal trade partners until the British came along.
>>615037
forget to add link
https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-content/british-museum/africa1/benin-bm/a/benin-and-the-portuguese
>>615007
still, hardly a 'colossal exception' given that the Indian nobility was very much still involved in running the country
![public-opinion-survey-US-Asia[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/zHU9arM.jpg "public-opinion-survey-US-Asia[1].jpg")
>>614936
well we did something right over there
>>615037
Portuguese were pretty thuggish to the Kingdom of Kongo.
>>610330
Belgium.
And before I get yelled at, I am NOT referring to the Congo Free State. Belgium had fuck all to do with that, as it was the personal property of Leopold II and eventually they took it away from him because he was such a shitty landlord.
>>614842
>if the USA wasn't a playing empire before that the US western border would have never left the Mississippi
Settlers moving into a literally empty wilderness doesn't qualify as building an "empire".
>>615093
Belgian Congo was pretty shitty.
>>615037
Just because they were nice to the Beninese doesn't excuse the fact that they started and pretty much dominated the transatlantic slave trade.
>>615047
>very much involved
>tiny ass city state tier kingdoms
>while the majority of india was ruled directly via viceroy
>>615107
No, it really wasn't. They took the Congo from prehistory to the first world in less than 50 years and everything was going absolutely swimmingly until blacks started whining about "muh democracy" despite the fact that there was no democracy at all - whites didn't get a say in what the government did either, they had to put up or shut up. But all the cool kids were doing it so Belgium decided to try out democracy and in less than two years the Congo was a failed state because all of the tribal and ethnic bullshit that had successfully been suppressed by the government came roaring back when people got the chance to advance their own interests.
>>610500
>assmad spaniard detected
We won the war, get over it. We gave you way more than we should have for the Philippines considering we won.
>>615131
>tiny ass city state tier kingdoms
ah, the final stage of arguing on the internet - just make shit up
>>615122
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1842&dat=19610428&id=9JctAAAAIBAJ&sjid=zMYEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1227,6181859&hl=en
Whites had a say in Belgian politics.
Congolese had no say in the politics of the motherland as well as policy back home. Congo had 19-30 university graduates compared to the much more abundant France and the UK pushed at the time of independence. Belgium only really did shit after WW2 when it started improving some things but native education was shit because Secodnary schools were so sparse. They had 50 fucking years and 30 graduates was all they could get.
>>615198
>the doab
>punjab
>bengal
>bombay
>the coromandel coast
oh yeah, the princely states were ruling significant numbers of india's population, and major parts of it's industry
Sorry
>>615235
is meant for >>615149
and Congo got into conflict because of the Cold War on top of the Katanga Civil War which was completely supported by Belgian interest. None of the people living their even knew they "split" until Moise Tshombe came out with a
"We is indepentant and Shiet"
*pensively caresses bribe money* .
>>615098
>kicking the shit out of the mexicans
it's harder than killing dindus
What about austria with franz ferdinand land? Ever heard polar bears complain?
>>610330
The French, at least as concerns the Native Americans.
>>615063
What the hell is Pakistan's problem with the US? Also India got a lot of people who go either way/don't care much for the US in there.
>Korea beating Japan.
Kek
>>610343
That's because you sold them guns to fight the British.
>>615657
>region infested with sandniggers
>US bombs sandniggers
>how dare you disrespect the sovereignty of my festering sore of a country that actively encourages the murder of civilians around the world
>this is an outrage
I think they are reconsidering
>>613847
>If only Portugal honoured Tordesillas and messed with Africa instead of the Americas...
But Portugal respected Tordesillas. Until losing its independence in 1581, to Spain. Since then, the treaty has become a venerable memorial to uselessness, considering that not ruled the limits of jurisdiction of the Councils of the Spanish Empire.
>The approach was mixed.
>Some Amerindians were simply wiped out,
[citation needed]
>some were allowed to coexist.
All within reach, as far as I know.
>>610458
>Italian
Okay, I am Italian and I have the proof this is 100% bullshit.
Problem is in the 60s there was some Christian Democratic historiography that marketed the idea of "Italian Colonialism" as "the good colonialism".
E.g. "The English were harsh and imperialists. French just assholes. Belgians were genocidal. Germans... don't talk to me about Germans".
The thing became famous because it is the kind of shit Indro Montanelli, who was very conservative, used to broadcast in his books and newspapers.
Guess what. Italians murdered tons of people. Yeah, they got their butt kicked hard by the Abyssinians. But in Eritrea and the like they got e.g. one isolated terrorist attack, so they got trigger happy and slaughtered some 5,000 people.
Just to say the least.
The ridiculous theory Italians were "good" is supported just by the fact they didn't stay long enough to carry on the massacres at a genocidal level. But as long as they were there, they tried hard to match the bloodshed of other superpowers.
This bullshit about Italians being good is so widespread there are some fascists in Affile who managed to have the Township pay for a mausoleum dedicated to one of the "monsters" who carried on the massacres: Rodolfo Graziani.
Source is here:
http://www.wumingfoundation.com/giap/?p=9360
But it's in Italian. So good luck with that.
>Be France
>Just liberated your own country
>Slaugther 50k colonials
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9tif_and_Guelma_massacre
France.
There was even a discussion about this on the /mena/ thread on /int/, and they all agreed it was France. The one thing France gets blamed for is trying to assimilate everyone and turn them French, but compared to other colonisers that was an extraordinary generosity.
>>610330
twist:
the Englsh, because they drug the africans, kicking and screaming, into the colonial era, where they still are today.
>>610330
French would have been the nicest but I think in the long run you really have to ask, did it pay off? The British colonies turned out the best in the long run, with Spanish colonies in a distant second
>>617410
Maybe if you compare Canada for Britain with Colombia for Spain with Senegal for France, but maybe you can see how that's not exactly a fair comparison.
Ottomans
>>617449
I think a fair comparison would be comparing them in two categories: Colonies that a country controlled but did not try to heavily populate with their own people and Colonies in which people migrated to in larges numbers to establish new civilisations
Of course most of the Spanish colonies or the latter category are far better than most of the British colonies of the former but on a category alone basis the UK wins out both
>>610330
Netherlands
>>615389
But it isn't harder than fighting other European nations for control of a colony.
>>617466
That's retarded. So you think you can compare Canada or USA for example, where the native population was all but genocided and replaced with white people, with Mexico where it mixed with a few Spanish settlers, or Haiti where it was replaced with African slaves? Or that you can compare Neolithic societies of Africa with civilisations like the Middle East or India?
Compare countries of the same situation in the same region. Compare British Uganda, French Gabon, Belgian Congo, and Portuguese Angola for example. Compare British Burma with French Cambodia. Compare British Iraq with French Syria. You'll find that there a few differences, although British colonies tend to be more on the poor and unstable side, but other factors come into play as well (for example the main reason French Africa is much more stable and less prone to war and genocide than British Africa is probably mostly that France maintains a hold on it).
The British because they often gave the locals a limited form of government.
>Indian Princely States
>Any and all African tribes and their kings
>Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa
Not only that but they also built the best infrastructure and massacred the least amount of innocents (Amritsar wasn't sanction by the government).
>>613028
>>614707
>>612990
yeah but look at these roads
>>617513
Leaving local elites in charge wasn't done out of niceness, it was done so the British could easily pit them against each other and divide and conquer, and because it was a much cheaper way or running a colony. And while said chosen rulers profited from it, it sure as fuck wasn't better for the local people.
>Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa
lel, yeah the native populations of those countries sure seem happy about colonialism.
>they also built the best infrastructure and massacred the least amount of innocents
That's obviously France.
>>617522
It's almost as if Namibia was under control of British South Africans longer than it was a German colony
Russia.
They still own most of Siberia (You'd be hard pressed to find a Russian without Mongol blood!)
They were hilariously incompetent elsewhere.
>>612985
>Encouraging population settlements by...
>Acadiens and Cajuns
Wot?
You mean people who were mostly exiles of France who built their own society, separate from France, that peacefully coexisted with the American Indians and developed a dike system that converted shitty swamp land into fertile land?
>Cajuns
Exiles of Acadie that were dispersed amongst the other British colonies of America in an attempt to ethnically cleanse them in Canada, and/or enslaved by the British, or murdered by the British, because they refused to bend the knee to the British Crown and give up their faith?
This is like saying that the Irish who left Ireland for the United States were settlers for the British government, colonizing the US.
Most of these people were vastly different from the French settlers who traveled to North America for the fur trade or any other activities for the French Crown.
>>615657
They are closet Talibans culturally, overt juntas politically.
