A very British problem

[wesw]

that s how colonization works isn t it , RR? there were no empty lands for any great power to colonize were there?

[liberty]

We shoot a lot less of our blacks too.

That hasn't always been the case...

Jim, if you remembered the British were a little desperate at the time; in my opinion, it was a miracle that they were able to fight off the Zulu and survive even with superior weaponry.

The battle of Isandlwana was different there they should have defeated the Zulu Militia rather easily.

The Battle of Rorke's Drift, also known as the Defence of Rorke's Drift, was a battle in the Anglo-Zulu War. The defence of the mission station of Rorke's Drift, under the command of Lieutenant John Chard of the Royal Engineers, and Lieutenant Gonville Bromhead immediately followed the British Army's defeat at the Battle of Isandlwana on 22 January 1879, and continued into the following day, 23 January.
Just over 150 British and colonial troops successfully defended the garrison against an intense assault by 3,000 to 4,000 Zulu warriors. The massive, but piecemeal,[9] Zulu attacks on Rorke's Drift came very close to defeating the tiny garrison but were ultimately repelled. Eleven Victoria Crosses were awarded to the defenders, along with a number of other decorations and honours.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Having read widely on the Anglo-Zulu wars and visited iSandlwana and Rorke's Drift twice, I think you're repeating Chelmsford's mistake.

He too was rather dismissive of a native "militia" and thought the force he left behind at iSandlwana was more than sufficient to deal with an enemy he considered inferior and unlikely to offer open battle. He was wrong on all counts as the numerous cairns marking the burial spots of 1,300 British and native auxiliary soldiers prove to this day.



Cairn imitates mountain

[Big RR]

that s how colonization works isn t it , RR? there were no empty lands for any great power to colonize were there?

That depends; post-US British "colonization" involved the British coming in to run things and setting up British only zones to keep away from the natives; the Spanish (and the French to a large extent) tolerated living with the natives and even intermarried or at least had children with them (often leading to a culture distinct from that back home); we (the Americans) moved in and, rather than set up apartheid like zones, just cleared the native out of where we wanted to live by a combination of extermination and expulsion until there was nowhere for us to push them. I do think what the US practices now is more akin to imperialism as we just go in, install (or support) a friendly government (often turning a blind eye to how they treat their people) that is supportive of US business interests, and then just sit back and pull the strings (until we cannot any longer).

[Sue U]

Colonialism (i.e., the establishment of settlements, economic/trade interests and governance in foreign territories) is one tool of imperialism (broadly, the expansion of control and influence for the benefit of the dominant/imperial power). From the 16th to the 18th Centuries, colonialism worked hand-in-hand with mercantilism to further the imperialist goals of European nations to achieve world dominance economically, politically and militarily.

American expansionism was (particularly after the Louisiana Purchase) primarily a 100-year war of conquest and removal of indigenous peoples.

[wesw]

anyway....,

seeing as how we started as colonies, and expanded westward after independence, I d say we we re very much a "colonial enterprise"

[Sue U]

Then you would be wrong.

[wesw]

how so?

[Sue U]

Because colonialism is a specific practice, but not the only method, of imperialism. "Manifest Destiny," while an imperialist philosophy and justification for expansionism, was not colonialism. It was effectively a war of conquest, as I pointed out above.

ETA: Although the U.S. had its origin as (primarily) English colonies, independence made the colonies into states and ended their colonial status. The fact that former colonies united as states and pursued an expansionist agenda of their own doesn't make that expansion "colonial."

[wesw]

well, just because our practices did not fit a cookie cutter definition of "colonialism", that does not mean that we weren t practicing, and were not a product of colonization. texas and Cherokee lands were effectively colonies . there are many more example.

so, if we were established as colonies, and practiced colonization, we were a colonial enterprise, unless you use a very narrow definition of coloninial enterprise.

[Big RR]

Sue--are you saying that colonialism involves/requires some sort of trade or relationship with the indigenous peoples? If so, would the post 19th century apartheid-like practices of Great Britain be colonialism or something else? I think the northern European practice has generally been to colonize in this way, even before the 19th century, while southern Europeans "fraternized" more with the locals, while imposing much of their culture on them (creating interesting hybrid cultures and religions). Even post 19th century US expansionism in the continental US was not always a "war"; often treaties were negotiated (even if they were later abrogated) and land was purchased from the indigenous people, rather than taken by force. But I think the difference between us and the post 19th century Brits is that we eventually did want to take it all for ourselves, while the Brits were content to send small temporary contingents (maybe they learned from what happened with the colonists in America?) and rule more at a distance (reaping the economic benefits).

But I'm not certain where colonialism ends and other forms of expansion begin; is it in the ultimate goal?

[Sue U]

well, just because our practices did not fit a cookie cutter definition of "colonialism", that does not mean that we weren t practicing, and were not a product of colonization. texas and Cherokee lands were effectively colonies . there are many more example.

so, if we were established as colonies, and practiced colonization, we were a colonial enterprise, unless you use a very narrow definition of coloninial enterprise.

"Colonialism" is a specific thing with a specific definition. The fact that you are sloppy with your usage doesn't mean that American expansionism, particularly in North America, was colonialism. The most obvious reason being that the western territories were not "foreign lands" (although the Sioux, Cheyenne, Comanche and Navajo may have disagreed).

True US colonialism can be seen in the territorial cessions resulting from the Spanish-American War (Philippines, Guam, Cuba, Puerto Rico) and the annexation of Hawaii.

[Big RR]

although the Sioux, Cheyenne, Comanche and Navajo may have disagreed

I would think so. Indeed, while we didn't recognize it, those indigenous peoples had a claim to the land they owned and settled. It's silly and arrogant to pretend they did not, even though that's what the US did at the time.

And Texas may also have been part of Mexico.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Interesting debate. Sue, you hit on the easiest differentiator re "colonialism". It involves a foreign land which the colonizer recognizes is foreign and, historically, has set up so-called native governments to (ahem) rule under an imperial administration. India is the classic example of the co-option of native princes (for want of a better term) to keep "their" people happy as long as they followed the mainstream banks of the imperial river. The USA experienced the same - local "rule" subject to imperial governance - sail your own boat as long as you keep it roughly on the right bearing.

US expansion westward did not involve a "foreign" land - USians considered it all theirs from east to west once the French, English and Spanish were dislodged. As with any other country, there was a need to fill the space to accommodate all these new arrivals. And need for profit etc. I think it's incorrect to say the land "belonged" to Amerinds - it's a modern white man's errant assumption and neither the invaders nor the invaded saw it that way themselves. One of the biggest treaty errors of the USians was thinking that an Amerind promise to observe any agreement at all meant the same to both parties. It didn't.

The European model of leadership and rule over one's country did not apply to Indians (I'm going to use that word). They had no paramount heads of state, even within subdivisions of tribes, and the idea that one chief could commit anyone else to obey a rule was sheer lunacy to them.

The early Laramie treaty 1851 with the Sioux is a splendid example of the whites agreeing to supply the Sioux with an annual tribute of goods in return for the right to travel west unmolested (and the Indians were required to stop fighting amongst themselves). As it happens, the whites kept the promise but the Indians were only amused at the sheer idea they should halt their normal life to stop robbing each other and the travelers on the "Holy Road" to Oregon. They simply did not believe it was seriously meant. They'd rob a family on the way into Laramie; show up at the fort to get their allowance; then rob families travelling on the way out - killings were rare (as they were amongst the Indians themselves) - it was all sport and adventure.

In turn, the whites could not understand why THEIR choice of chief to be responsible for ALL the Sioux was unable and unwilling to do anything about it. He was a Brule and the Brule paid him scant attention because no one man ruled - much less did the Miniconjou, the Sans Arcs, the Oglala etc. care for his opinion. The US government never did get over that kind of misunderstanding and after gold was found in the Black HIlls, the whites got pretty adept at breaking treaties, always persisting in the notion that Indians shared with them the same territorial idea of borders and boundaries. If an Indian said "this is our land", what he meant was "I am here at this moment; you may be here also; I won't be surprised if at some point we don't steal each other's horses". That changed once the Indians realized that the white man was not just another tribe of travelling villages but a permanent, fencing, guarding, taking and "ruling" power.

Anyway - sorry, bit of a ramble.

Big RR posted pretty accurately I thought. I'd say that British imperialism worked in the key areas much the same as he attributes to Southern Europeans (I suppose, the Latins). The British in India, after overcoming their Victorian prudery (which they did if they stayed) were very happy to intermarry and to interact with the "better" class of Indian (that word again!) socially. This happened less frequently in British Africa and not at all in British Australia and New Zealand (which more closely mirror US experiences in dealing with native peoples).

Colonialism of the British kind was, in general, beneficial to the countries that the British eventually left or were kicked out of. It certainly was not kind to individuals but the course of history is not measured that way. WW2 was a disaster for Germany but the Marshall Plan was a huge leg-up compared to what happened in the UK or France. That's not to say that WW2 was a good thing - it wasn't. But it created tremendous advantages to so many people and countries - especially the USA which founded an industrial dynasty upon it.

History is not some kind of victory march - it's a cold and very broken hallelujah

[wesw]

well, I haven t read meade s above post, yet. I will do, but I ll respond to the poke first.....

your exact words were, "we have never been much of a colonial enterprise", which does not mean the same thing as, we never really practiced colonialism. if you had not sloppily (italics) stated what you meant....

....never let a good discussion get in the way of a few clever pokes....

...now to meade s post, which is sure to educated and well thought out...., and possibly wrong....

[wesw]

meade, may I recommend a book?

the Delaware Indians

a history


C A Weslager.

I read this book about three yrs ago. well researched, well written, enlightening..., right up your alley, I think

wes

[MajGenl.Meade]

Thank you, wesw

[Gob]

we (the Americans) moved in and, rather than set up apartheid like zones, just cleared the native out of where we wanted to live by a combination of extermination and expulsion until there was nowhere for us to push them.

I think you'll find that it was us Brits that did that in America, not "the Americans".

[wesw]

you are welcome

[Lord Jim]

Meade, I didn't find that post "rambling" at all...

I found your exploration of the asymmetry in the ways of thinking and organizing society between the Indians and the European settlers, and the effect this had on the course of historical events quite interesting.

Mutual misunderstandings driven by mutual projection...