By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Question to non-Americans

 

My Countries Education System Teaches our history accurately.

Strongly Agree 16 21.62%
 
Somewhat Agree 29 39.19%
 
Neutral 7 9.46%
 
Somewhat Disagree 14 18.92%
 
Strongly Disagree 8 10.81%
 
Total:74
Eagle367 said:
Ka-pi96 said:
Eagle367 said:

You just contradicted yourself mate. Ghana was a former colony. So was Palestine and Syria and Pakistan. The British and French basically made the modern middle Eastern map because most of the places there were colonies and they drew squiggly lines how they saw fit. That's how the  mess of the modern middle east was made. Hong Kong was a British colony and that's why one country two systems exist(ed). Pakistan and Bangladesh probably wouldn't exist if India wasn't a British colony. Mass genocide and population replacement aren't qualifiers for a place to be a colony.

The dictionary definition of "colonise" is to settle your own people somewhere, so yeah I don't consider a lot of countries former colonies since the "colonists" aren't there any more and weren't ever there in any great numbers in the first place

They were no more colonies than all of the places that the Mongols conquered. Unless you want to start talking about the Mongolian "colonial" empire too? Or how about the Greeks? Would you call Ptolemaic Egypt a Greek colony just because it was ruled by Greek people, despite the Egyptians still being the majority of the population? I wouldn't. I would call Syracuse a Greek colony though, since it was set up by the Greeks and was basically 100% Greek.

But you just called Ghana a colony and I find my description more consistent

It was part of the British colonial empire, but it was never really colonised. Although I suppose it didn't really even exist back then, since it was known as the Gold Coast. But the main point is that Ghana isn't a country of former colonists, it's a country of Africans, so I wouldn't consider it to be a former colonial country.

Or for a more recent example, how about Ireland? Northern Ireland was definitely colonised by the English (and is why the political situation there is messed up and has been for ages), while the rest of Ireland was conquered, but not colonised. I would say Ghana is much more like the Republic of Ireland than it is Northern Ireland.



Around the Network
Ka-pi96 said:


The dictionary definition of "colonise" is to settle your own people somewhere, so yeah I don't consider a lot of countries former colonies since the "colonists" aren't there any more and weren't ever there in any great numbers in the first place

They were no more colonies than all of the places that the Mongols conquered. Unless you want to start talking about the Mongolian "colonial" empire too? Or how about the Greeks? Would you call Ptolemaic Egypt a Greek colony just because it was ruled by Greek people, despite the Egyptians still being the majority of the population? I wouldn't. I would call Syracuse a Greek colony though, since it was set up by the Greeks and was basically 100% Greek.

First of all, they did that. They sent Europeans to those places and remnants of Europe remain even if the people don't.

Google (Oxford): send a group of settlers to (a place) and establish political control over it; come to settle among and establish political control over (the indigenous people of an area).;

Merriam: to establish a colony

Cambridge: to send people to live in and govern another country.



 

My Real Redneck friends


Ka-pi96 said:
Eagle367 said:

But you just called Ghana a colony and I find my description more consistent

It was part of the British colonial empire, but it was never really colonised. Although I suppose it didn't really even exist back then, since it was known as the Gold Coast. But the main point is that Ghana isn't a country of former colonists, it's a country of Africans, so I wouldn't consider it to be a former colonial country.

Or for a more recent example, how about Ireland? Northern Ireland was definitely colonised by the English (and is why the political situation there is messed up and has been for ages), while the rest of Ireland was conquered, but not colonised. I would say Ghana is much more like the Republic of Ireland than it is Northern Ireland.

I have to remind you that you called Ghana a colony, not me. And if you have to do these mental gymnastics to keep your definition consistent, maybe think more about it. Personally, I'm getting more and more confused by your definition and I do not know what a colonial country even is. Is it the colonizer or colonized. In my definition Ghana, India, US, Mexico, etc were all colonized. It's clear, consistent and easy to understand in my view what a colony is then. I don't need to really explain it beyond when an invader took control and ruled over a region in anyway. 



Just a guy who doesn't want to be bored. Also

Eagle367 said:
Ka-pi96 said:

It was part of the British colonial empire, but it was never really colonised. Although I suppose it didn't really even exist back then, since it was known as the Gold Coast. But the main point is that Ghana isn't a country of former colonists, it's a country of Africans, so I wouldn't consider it to be a former colonial country.

Or for a more recent example, how about Ireland? Northern Ireland was definitely colonised by the English (and is why the political situation there is messed up and has been for ages), while the rest of Ireland was conquered, but not colonised. I would say Ghana is much more like the Republic of Ireland than it is Northern Ireland.

I have to remind you that you called Ghana a colony, not me. And if you have to do these mental gymnastics to keep your definition consistent, maybe think more about it. Personally, I'm getting more and more confused by your definition and I do not know what a colonial country even is. Is it the colonizer or colonized. In my definition Ghana, India, US, Mexico, etc were all colonized. It's clear, consistent and easy to understand in my view what a colony is then. I don't need to really explain it beyond when an invader took control and ruled over a region in anyway. 

Not really any mental gymnastics required. When I say former colonial countries I'm exclusively talking about countries that were founded by colonists. ie. Canada and Australia. Other countries were colonies at one point, yes, but I wouldn't consider them a former colonial country. eg. Korea was colonised by Japan, but I would NOT call Korea a former colonial country since it was founded by Koreans, and NOT Japanese.

That's why I wouldn't consider a country like Ghana to be a former colonial country, it was founded by Ghanaians. Sure, we (the UK) may have influenced their culture and that's the reason English is still their official language and they're a part of the Commonwealth, but they are still their own people. While a country like Australia would've been founded by British people that colonised the land there. They're our distant cousins.

That's also why I said former colonial countries should learn European history, because they have European origins. Australians should learn European history too, since it's literally their history. Ghanaians? They should learn their own history, if anything from Europe is relevant then sure, but otherwise they should focus on learning about their local area and history instead.



Eagle367 said:
Majora said:

Why do you get angry about what people did “back then”? Utterly pointless, unhelpful and nonsensical. I’m afraid getting angry about anything in history will do nothing to change it, so you’d be better off simply learning what is good to do and not so good to do and moving forward. Origins of science and maths and literature and art etc etc are all fascinating yet if you’re learning the core subject (maths for example) it’s utterly irrelevant who, what and where “discovered” the equations etc - it matters only that those who are learning it understand it now, in the present, to be able to do something useful with the knowledge. It’s good to keep the knowledge alive of who, what and where, for historical and cultural purposes, but pressing home the ethnicity or culture of the time of the supposed discoverers of anything is unhelpful and time consuming. Furthermore, being through the education system in the UK, I was never taught about the wonderful, magical European discoverers of everything under the sun; I was simply taught the core subject. I really don’t know where people get this idea that Europeans dance about the place thinking they’re the greatest species of anything ever in the whole universe, but it’s not the reality at all and most people are just trying to live their lives the best they can today. 

Don Ferrari disagrees hahaha. But to be serious, you clearly haven't taken university classes of maths and physics and other sciences. They mention a lot of people who discovered things. Also, the ancestors of those Europeans aka Americans now still mess with most of the world. Not most Americans, but the government. They can't keep to themselves and do shitty things like invading nations, dropping drone strikes on weddings, supporting terrorists , etc. 

But the reason I got angry was because someone said that the former colonies of Europe should have eurocentric studies. I don't have a problem with most Europeans today but history and how it's taught matters a lot. The way history has been taught for a while makes it seem like Africans were doing nothing before the European invasion which makes people in many regions have the misconception that Africans are lesser than somehow. Sorry but knowing history and how it's taught is very important.

I'm an Aeronauthical Engineer.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
Ka-pi96 said:
Eagle367 said:

I have to remind you that you called Ghana a colony, not me. And if you have to do these mental gymnastics to keep your definition consistent, maybe think more about it. Personally, I'm getting more and more confused by your definition and I do not know what a colonial country even is. Is it the colonizer or colonized. In my definition Ghana, India, US, Mexico, etc were all colonized. It's clear, consistent and easy to understand in my view what a colony is then. I don't need to really explain it beyond when an invader took control and ruled over a region in anyway. 

Not really any mental gymnastics required. When I say former colonial countries I'm exclusively talking about countries that were founded by colonists. ie. Canada and Australia. Other countries were colonies at one point, yes, but I wouldn't consider them a former colonial country. eg. Korea was colonised by Japan, but I would NOT call Korea a former colonial country since it was founded by Koreans, and NOT Japanese.

That's why I wouldn't consider a country like Ghana to be a former colonial country, it was founded by Ghanaians. Sure, we (the UK) may have influenced their culture and that's the reason English is still their official language and they're a part of the Commonwealth, but they are still their own people. While a country like Australia would've been founded by British people that colonised the land there. They're our distant cousins.

That's also why I said former colonial countries should learn European history, because they have European origins. Australians should learn European history too, since it's literally their history. Ghanaians? They should learn their own history, if anything from Europe is relevant then sure, but otherwise they should focus on learning about their local area and history instead.

I would say they understood your argument but prefered to keep discussing a kind o strawman.

Your point is simple, countries that today have a government and people mostly formed by european descendant learning about european history makes a lot of sense, countries that even if were conquered, occupied or colonized by Europeans but have its people mostly being originally from that land or other non-european place don't have as much relevance learning european history. I would say some are just trying to fight like Don Quixote.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari said:
Eagle367 said:

Don Ferrari disagrees hahaha. But to be serious, you clearly haven't taken university classes of maths and physics and other sciences. They mention a lot of people who discovered things. Also, the ancestors of those Europeans aka Americans now still mess with most of the world. Not most Americans, but the government. They can't keep to themselves and do shitty things like invading nations, dropping drone strikes on weddings, supporting terrorists , etc. 

But the reason I got angry was because someone said that the former colonies of Europe should have eurocentric studies. I don't have a problem with most Europeans today but history and how it's taught matters a lot. The way history has been taught for a while makes it seem like Africans were doing nothing before the European invasion which makes people in many regions have the misconception that Africans are lesser than somehow. Sorry but knowing history and how it's taught is very important.

I'm an Aeronauthical Engineer.

Umm.......... Good for you mate



Just a guy who doesn't want to be bored. Also

Eagle367 said:
DonFerrari said:

I'm an Aeronauthical Engineer.

Umm.......... Good for you mate

I think the point he’s making is he’s clearly had university education to a high level...



Majora said:
Eagle367 said:

Umm.......... Good for you mate

I think the point he’s making is he’s clearly had university education to a high level...

And?



Just a guy who doesn't want to be bored. Also

Eagle367 said:
Majora said:

I think the point he’s making is he’s clearly had university education to a high level...

And?

Well you made quite an assumptive comment about having not had an education in the sciences or maths - can’t you put two and two together? Ok, I’ll point it out to you - I think an aeronautical engineer has been educated in these areas. Ta dah!