Colonization All Over. So Why So Bad?

It goes without saying that colonization was a terrible thing, whine those who want to look good to themselves and other whiners. Colonization was a crime, they insist. At least that’s what PC people howl on every roof, as part of their unwitting campaign of rage against civilization. Because civilization, which was not civilized, caused colonization, this evil of evils, they crowe. Right.

We the descendants of the colonized shall howl from every roof what victims we are.

We the descendants of the colonizers, shall howl on every roof what criminals we are.

We the bipolar paranoid schizophrenic stand as accused, and may as well be mowed down by Islam driving SUVs, trucks, jumbo jets, and non sense, all over us.


Indeed, ladies and gentlemen, who does not descend from colonialists and colonizers?

All the Americas were colonized.

All of Oceania was colonized (twice at least).

Was the colonization of Australia by aborigines (who are part Denisovans), 50,000 years ago, a bad thing? It killed a lot of marsupials!

Sénégal: Organized, unified, but never really colonized! A very rare case!

Japan was colonized (twice at least). Japanese civilization started for real, when the archipelago was colonized. By the Chinese.

Some will say China was never colonized. Well, there used to be 100 nations with 100 languages in China, as recently as three centuries ago (the emperor himself recognized then, in a very sophisticated intellectual exchange with the Jesuits; and he expressed both his will to respect that, and his incapacity to do otherwise). However, nowadays, Mandarin (just one language) is taking over, all over. And all Chinese are forced to assimilate with the Borg in Beijing. That’s colonization therein. Is it bad? My daughter is learning Chinese, or, more exactly, Mandarin. She will be able to talk all over.

Madagascar was colonized (thrice; from Indonesia, Africa, France). Even Greenland was conquered by the Inuits, who pushed away the Vikings… (On their way, the Inuits had annihilated previous denizens in the northern Canada archipelago…)

Most of Africa was colonized multiple times. By descendants of Neanderthals (!), Bantus, Phoenicians, Greco-Romans, Arabs, etc.

All of Russia is a huge colony, all the way to Kamchatka. “Russ” initially means Eastern Swedes.  The Eastern Swedes, Viking style, invaded the huge placid rivers of Eastern Europe, all the way down to the Black Sea (where they could trade with the Romans). In the Tenth Century, Vladimir of Kiev conquered Crimea from the local Khan (Mongols who had themselves conquered centuries earlier the Greeks, who had conquered a millennium prior, etc.)  

Even China was momentarily (a few centuries here and there) conquered by Buddhists, Tibetans, Mongols, Mandchous…

Arabia was greatly colonized by Persia, much later Turkey (Ottomans) for centuries.


Europe, shortly before Rome rose, was invaded by the Celto-Germans, who covered up the entire continent, all the way to Anatolia. When Caesar invaded, Gaul (“Gallia”) was made of 60 nation-states.

Much of India was invaded, colonized by white men coming from the north, central Asia, four thousand years ago, or more. That’s why India and Europe enjoy the same Indo-European language family.

Egypt was invaded by the Arabs, more exactly by Caliph Omar’s army. Never recovered (whereas Egypt had recovered from colonization by Black Pharaohs, Nubians, Sea People, Libyans, Greeks and Romans). Egyptians themselves had to decolonize the Sahara desert and concentrate on the Nile Valley and adjoining oases.


A real question is: which places in the world were not colonized?

Paradoxically, much of West Africa is one of the most pristine, uncolonized places.

West Africa is generally viewed as having been a French, British, Portuguese colony, and that’s superficially true.

West Africa also exported a lot of slaves (to the Americas).

However, West Africa was one of the much untouched places. (Contrarily to whiny repute!)

Not like Europe: all old European languages were wiped out by the Indo-European, Celto-German invasion (or close to it: Basque is a tiny remnant of what once was.)

And don’t brandish southern Europeans as old stock: the Middle Easterners came from the Fertile Crescent, with their futuristic crops (wheat, etc.) and their genes, 9,000 years ago. Another invasion to run over the many Sapiens invasions all over Europe, in the last 100,000 years. Neanderthals made it to North Africa, big time, and their genes to South Africa, but apparently not to West Africa.


A real question: when is colonization good, when is it bad?

From the point of view of the invaded, one will guess that colonization is often bad. Yes, but not always. The invasion of Gallia by Caesar would end up creating the strongest part of the Roman empire, Francia, and the Birth of the West. Viewed that way, it was a good thing. And it sure is a good thing if there was no other way to get that good thing. Was it? We don’t know. Was Caesar innocent of the invasion? We don’t really know.


“Colonization” in West Africa was mostly a joke, or more exactly, civilizing: ten French officers ordered around 5,000 Senegalese soldiers who, truly, conquered Sénégal. So, in truth, Senegal conquered Senegal under French management. In truth, there were basically no colons in Senegal: the land stayed property of the Senegalese (compare with the USA, where Indian lands were nearly completely distributed by the colonial government in Washington to the European colons!)

A big argument for the “colonization” of Africa was the eradication of slavery, which was endemic, pandemic, chronic, extensive and ubiquitous in Africa (the globalization of African slavery to the Americas, escaping the long arm of European law, has not been properly characterized…)

Here are the national languages of Senegal:

Some of these languages are tonal, some are not (making them a different as latin and Chinese!) It goes without saying that packing such different nations in so tight a space (less than 200,000 square kilometers), result in mayhem, just to keep the population stable. So Senegal has, rightly so, just one national language.


Colonization is good when it brings lots of progress, and less mayhem:

This should go without saying. However, the usual interpretation of (hard) multiculturalism is that all cultures are equally worth of respect. This thesis implies that progress does not exist. So we may as well regress, and have plutocracy.

So we see who these proponents of hard multiculturalism were trying to seduce: the powers that be.

By refusing to see when, how colonization has been, and could be, good, they refuse to bring reason to judge destiny. A silly attitude, considering how fast destiny moves these days.

But of course fundamentally hypocritical.

At least, nobody can accuse me to be a hypocrite. I don’t under (hypo) criticize. It’s much more fun, to over-criticize… And criticize all over… Colonization: assess, but don’t deny, its crimes, just as its merits. And remember the fine lines between colonization and immigration.

Patrice Ayme’

Tags: , , ,

9 Responses to “Colonization All Over. So Why So Bad?”

  1. hazxan Says:

    “It goes without saying that colonization was a terrible thing, whine those who want to look good to themselves and other whiners. ”

    A pseudo-intellectual whining apology for those with the most might to steal the lives and property of others.

    Replace the word “colonization” with the word “murder” and the article reads just like the defence murdering psychopaths use. That they are superior beings improving the species by destroying the weak. Murder isn’t always bad, surely a bad guy must get murdered too once in a while?

    Eradication of slavery? Western civilisation is creating a whole new world of virtual and physical slaves to serve the wealthy elite.

    Would you be happy when a species with instant human eradication potential turns up from the stars and decides to colonise earth? Apparently they assess “civilisation” according to least destructiveness and least wastage of energy and damage to the system overall. Bad news for the West.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      “Replace the word “colonization” with the word “murder” and the article reads just like the defence murdering psychopaths use.”
      So let’s see: Japan was the fruit of murder by China? (I just replaced “colonization” by murder).
      Madagascar was the fruit of murder by Indonesia? (I just replaced “colonization” by murder).

      From Wikipedia:
      The history of Madagascar is distinguished clearly by the early isolation of the landmass from the ancient supercontinents containing Africa and India, and by the island’s late colonization by human settlers arriving in outrigger canoes from the Sunda islands between 200 BC and 500 AD. These two factors facilitated the evolution and survival of thousands of endemic plant and animal species, some of which have gone extinct or are currently threatened with extinction due to the pressures of a growing human population. Over the past two thousand years the island has received waves of settlers of diverse origins including Austronesian, Bantu, Arab, South Asian, Chinese and European populations. The majority of the population of Madagascar today is a mixture of Austronesian, Bantu, North Indian, Arab and Somali settlers.[1] Centuries of intermarriages created the Malagasy people, who primarily speak Malagasy, an Austronesian language with Bantu, Malay, Arabic, French and English influences. Most of the genetic makeup of the average Malagasy, however, reflects an almost equal blend of Austronesian and Bantu influences, especially in coastal regions.[2] Other populations often intermixed with the existent population to a more limited degree or have sought to preserve a separate community from the majority Malagasy.

      So we, the murderers of Madagascar?
      My maternal grandmother was from Madagascar, where, she indeed was born…
      There are differences between invasion, settlement, colonization, missions, etc.
      This was what the essay was about.
      Just saying “colonization” is eradication, annihilation, or as the leading candidate for the French presidency put it “a crime against humanity”, makes us not just all descendants of criminals against mankind, but hypocritical accomplices of said criminals.
      Intelligence is about making distinctions. Thus so is morality.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:


      late Middle English (denoting a settlement formed mainly of retired soldiers, acting as a garrison in newly conquered territory in the Roman Empire): from Latin colonia ‘settlement, farm,’ from colonus ‘settler, farmer,’ from colere ‘cultivate.’

      Examples: Middle Eastern farmers’ descendants establishing themselves, as colons, in Italy. Phoenicians establishing themselves in present day Tunisia. Franks establishing themselves as farmers in northeast “Gallia” (probably because they had superior steel tecxh, enabling better deeper ploughs…)


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      In one of its most pacific forms, “colonization” is not different from “immigration”. Arguably colons coming with capital such as know-how (like Phoenicians to Africa) are the highest, best, most rewarding form of immigration.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      You say: “Western civilisation is creating a whole new world of virtual and physical slaves to serve the wealthy elite.”
      Excuse me, my point for decades has been that the plutocratic effect (rise of a wealthy elite turning others into slaves) is the main way for civilizations to perish. Let’s not confuse the cancer and the patient.


  2. Gmax Says:

    Looks like Hazxan missed your main point! Instead he thinks you are a homicidal maniac. I guess that’s why they killed philosophers, and always will: make a point and those who hate philosophers take it for its exact opposite.

    Why did you want to provoke the PC crowd with colonization, anyway? It’ s like telling them they are idiots, which they are, and invite them to make a show of their prejudice


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Well, the points are rather simple. Most peoples on Earth and their regimes descend from some sort of colonization (in contradistinction with “colonial rule” whatever that means). Colonization has gone from admirable to abominable, with everything in between…

      Well, the election of Trump was interesting personally: several people who had claimed, in the past, to have great interest in my ideas and were friends turned against me with extreme rage and prejudice (to the point I could sue them, even in the US, for difamation with the avowed, published aim to hurt me by lying deliberately by presenting me basically as a KKK member! Non white family, half African KKK member, yeap…).


  3. pshakkottai Says:

    Wrong concepts and greed is Imperialism.

    In Christian thought it follows the sequence

    God (has absolute power) …..King (has power of life and death)…subjects don’t own land…nature has no rights.

    Indian thought is different.

    King ( only responsible for protection)….Councilors (make policy)…subjects (own land and can’t be asked to sacrifice life)…nature is sacred and can be used wisely.

    Divine right of kings – Wikipedia gives many examples. It is mostly from Abrahamic religions, not polytheist Indian gods and goddesses.

    Christianity also produced a cooked-up theory of races (eg. Blacks are Satanic!) from its Bible stories from its “we know it all” arrogance. This was enough to create Imperialism, wars in Europe and all over the World.

    Pondicherry in India was where the French were and lost out to the British by not being barbaric enough. They lost in USA too.


  4. pshakkottai Says:
    is the site reference above.


What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: