今天所有白人国家的财富都是因为殖民主义吗？
正文翻译
Are all "white" countries rich today because of colonialism?
今天所有白人国家的财富都是因为殖民主义吗？
Are all "white" countries rich today because of colonialism?
今天所有白人国家的财富都是因为殖民主义吗？
评论翻译
Susanna Viljanen
No. My own country, Finland, for example, suffered from 668 years of colonialism - first as a colony of Sweden from 1249 to 1809, and then one of Russia, from 1809 to 1917.
Estonia became a colony of the Teutonic Order in 1227, and after that, under various other colonizers until she got her independence after the collapse of the Czarist Russia in 1918. Estonia was re-colonized by the USSR 1940 to 1991, but she is again independent.
不。例如，我国芬兰遭受了668年的殖民主义——首先是1249年至1809年作为瑞典的殖民地，然后是1809年至1917年作为俄罗斯的殖民地之一。
爱沙尼亚在1227年成为条顿骑士团的殖民地，之后，在其他殖民者的统治下，直到1918年沙皇俄国解体后获得独立。1940年至1991年，爱沙尼亚被苏联重新殖民，但后来再次独立。
No. My own country, Finland, for example, suffered from 668 years of colonialism - first as a colony of Sweden from 1249 to 1809, and then one of Russia, from 1809 to 1917.
Estonia became a colony of the Teutonic Order in 1227, and after that, under various other colonizers until she got her independence after the collapse of the Czarist Russia in 1918. Estonia was re-colonized by the USSR 1940 to 1991, but she is again independent.
不。例如，我国芬兰遭受了668年的殖民主义——首先是1249年至1809年作为瑞典的殖民地，然后是1809年至1917年作为俄罗斯的殖民地之一。
爱沙尼亚在1227年成为条顿骑士团的殖民地，之后，在其他殖民者的统治下，直到1918年沙皇俄国解体后获得独立。1940年至1991年，爱沙尼亚被苏联重新殖民，但后来再次独立。
Ismail Bashmori
I would definitely never call the Russian or Soviet rule of Estonia colonialism. Colonialism, including modern variants like Israeli colonialism, has many features that were completely missing in Russian Estonia. For starters, Estonians were not Russian subjects or a subjugated population. They were Russian citizens, same as ethnic ones. In fact, many Russian nobles came from Estonia. No European colonial power ever gave its colonial subjects citizenship.
我绝对不会把俄罗斯或苏联对爱沙尼亚的统治称为殖民主义。殖民主义，包括以色列殖民主义等现代变体的许多殖民特征，在俄罗斯治下的爱沙尼亚都是没有的。
首先，爱沙尼亚人不是俄罗斯的臣民，也不是被征服的民族。他们是俄罗斯公民，和少数民族公民一样。事实上，许多俄罗斯贵族都来自爱沙尼亚。
没有任何一个欧洲殖民国家给予它的殖民臣民公民权。
I would definitely never call the Russian or Soviet rule of Estonia colonialism. Colonialism, including modern variants like Israeli colonialism, has many features that were completely missing in Russian Estonia. For starters, Estonians were not Russian subjects or a subjugated population. They were Russian citizens, same as ethnic ones. In fact, many Russian nobles came from Estonia. No European colonial power ever gave its colonial subjects citizenship.
我绝对不会把俄罗斯或苏联对爱沙尼亚的统治称为殖民主义。殖民主义，包括以色列殖民主义等现代变体的许多殖民特征，在俄罗斯治下的爱沙尼亚都是没有的。
首先，爱沙尼亚人不是俄罗斯的臣民，也不是被征服的民族。他们是俄罗斯公民，和少数民族公民一样。事实上，许多俄罗斯贵族都来自爱沙尼亚。
没有任何一个欧洲殖民国家给予它的殖民臣民公民权。
Andrew Fedyszak
Well, you are talking total bollocks.
Estonians didn't want to be part of Soviet unx.
How is it different from Kenians or Indians not wanting to be part of British Empire?
Difference is, that uk decided to allow colonial nations to have their independence.
Whereas Soviet unx decided to kill people for them to stay in Soviet Empire.
Like in Berlin 1953, Hungary 1956, Chechoslovakia 1968, Poland 1981.
你说的全是胡话。
爱沙尼亚人不想成为苏联的一部分。
这与Kenians或印度人不想成为大英帝国的一部分有什么不同?
不同的是，英国决定允许殖民地国家独立。而苏联决定为了让他们留在苏联帝国而杀人。
比如1953年的柏林，1956年的匈牙利，1968年的车臣/斯洛伐克，1981年的波兰。
Well, you are talking total bollocks.
Estonians didn't want to be part of Soviet unx.
How is it different from Kenians or Indians not wanting to be part of British Empire?
Difference is, that uk decided to allow colonial nations to have their independence.
Whereas Soviet unx decided to kill people for them to stay in Soviet Empire.
Like in Berlin 1953, Hungary 1956, Chechoslovakia 1968, Poland 1981.
你说的全是胡话。
爱沙尼亚人不想成为苏联的一部分。
这与Kenians或印度人不想成为大英帝国的一部分有什么不同?
不同的是，英国决定允许殖民地国家独立。而苏联决定为了让他们留在苏联帝国而杀人。
比如1953年的柏林，1956年的匈牙利，1968年的车臣/斯洛伐克，1981年的波兰。
Ismail Bashmori
Doesn't make a bit of difference. I didn't say Estonians wanted to be part of the USSR. I said Estonians were equals within the USSR, legally and politically. They were citizens with the same treatment as ethnic Russians. And many prominent people within imperial Russia and within the USSR came from Estonia.
None of the indigenous population of any country colonized by Britain was ever a British citizen. There was a permanent, official, and huge difference between a British citizen and a British subject. British subjects had none of the rights or privileges of British citizens. You fail to see this crucial distinction.
Even Hong Kong in the 90s just before its liberation did not have any Chinese given British citizenship.
Britain didn't “decide to allow" any country to have its independence, it was fucked up after World War II and totally finished, bankrupted, exhausted, its own soldiers and sailors rebelled when given new military missions, it couldn't have maintained control of its victim countries even if it wanted to. Many asshole statesmen like Churchill and Anthony Eden tried to preserve the empire, yes, by “killing people” until the bitter end, but they were fighting a global process beyond their control.
The USSR did not conquer or colonize East Germany in 1953, nor Hungary in 1956, nor Czechoslovakia in 1968, nor Poland in 1981. Those were regime change operations to protect friendly governments in its vicinity. The absolute king of all regime change operations, which carries them out not only in its vicinity but across the ends of the earth, is the United States, which I'm guessing you have a golden opinion of.
没什么区别。我没说爱沙尼亚想成为苏联的一部分。我说的是，爱沙尼亚人在苏联内部在法律和政治上都是平等的。他们是与俄罗斯少数民族享有同等待遇的公民。俄罗斯帝国和苏联的许多杰出人物都来自爱沙尼亚。
在被英国殖民的任何国家，没有一个土著居民是英国公民。英国公民和英国臣民之间存在着永久的、正式的、巨大的差异。英国臣民没有英国公民的任何权利或特权。你没有看到这一关键区别。
即使是在90年代解放前的香港，也没有当地人获得英国公民身份。
英国没有“决定”允许任何国家独立，它在第二次世界大战后被搞砸了，完全完蛋了，破产了，筋疲力尽了，它自己的士兵和水手在接到新的军事任务时造反了。即使它想，也无法维持对受害国的控制。许多像丘吉尔和安东尼·艾登这样的混蛋政治家试图通过“杀人”来维护帝国，但结局终归是痛苦的。他们是在与一个他们无法控制的全球进程作斗争。
苏联没有在1953年征服或殖民东德，没有在1956年征服或殖民匈牙利，也没有在1968年征服或殖民捷克斯洛伐克，也没有在1981年征服或殖民波兰。这些都是为了保护周边友好政府而进行的政权更迭行动。所有政权更迭行动的绝对之王，不仅在其附近而且在地球的另一端，就是美国。我猜你对它有值得一听的看法。
Doesn't make a bit of difference. I didn't say Estonians wanted to be part of the USSR. I said Estonians were equals within the USSR, legally and politically. They were citizens with the same treatment as ethnic Russians. And many prominent people within imperial Russia and within the USSR came from Estonia.
None of the indigenous population of any country colonized by Britain was ever a British citizen. There was a permanent, official, and huge difference between a British citizen and a British subject. British subjects had none of the rights or privileges of British citizens. You fail to see this crucial distinction.
Even Hong Kong in the 90s just before its liberation did not have any Chinese given British citizenship.
Britain didn't “decide to allow" any country to have its independence, it was fucked up after World War II and totally finished, bankrupted, exhausted, its own soldiers and sailors rebelled when given new military missions, it couldn't have maintained control of its victim countries even if it wanted to. Many asshole statesmen like Churchill and Anthony Eden tried to preserve the empire, yes, by “killing people” until the bitter end, but they were fighting a global process beyond their control.
The USSR did not conquer or colonize East Germany in 1953, nor Hungary in 1956, nor Czechoslovakia in 1968, nor Poland in 1981. Those were regime change operations to protect friendly governments in its vicinity. The absolute king of all regime change operations, which carries them out not only in its vicinity but across the ends of the earth, is the United States, which I'm guessing you have a golden opinion of.
没什么区别。我没说爱沙尼亚想成为苏联的一部分。我说的是，爱沙尼亚人在苏联内部在法律和政治上都是平等的。他们是与俄罗斯少数民族享有同等待遇的公民。俄罗斯帝国和苏联的许多杰出人物都来自爱沙尼亚。
在被英国殖民的任何国家，没有一个土著居民是英国公民。英国公民和英国臣民之间存在着永久的、正式的、巨大的差异。英国臣民没有英国公民的任何权利或特权。你没有看到这一关键区别。
即使是在90年代解放前的香港，也没有当地人获得英国公民身份。
英国没有“决定”允许任何国家独立，它在第二次世界大战后被搞砸了，完全完蛋了，破产了，筋疲力尽了，它自己的士兵和水手在接到新的军事任务时造反了。即使它想，也无法维持对受害国的控制。许多像丘吉尔和安东尼·艾登这样的混蛋政治家试图通过“杀人”来维护帝国，但结局终归是痛苦的。他们是在与一个他们无法控制的全球进程作斗争。
苏联没有在1953年征服或殖民东德，没有在1956年征服或殖民匈牙利，也没有在1968年征服或殖民捷克斯洛伐克，也没有在1981年征服或殖民波兰。这些都是为了保护周边友好政府而进行的政权更迭行动。所有政权更迭行动的绝对之王，不仅在其附近而且在地球的另一端，就是美国。我猜你对它有值得一听的看法。
Werner Hermann
Another example is Germany which pursued colonialism much later than the UK and France and hence controlled only a very small number of colonies which are practically worthless in economic terms (1 or 2 countries in Africa plus a coupled of god-forsaken islands in the Pacific and the Liaodong peninsula in China all of which were taken by Japan during WW1). Germany became rich because of heavy investment in technical and science education which made it a powerhouse in innovation and research and economic development.
另一个例子是德国，它比英国和法国更晚进行殖民主义，因此只控制了非常少的殖民地，这些殖民地在经济上实际上毫无价值。（非洲的1到2个国家，太平洋上的几个被遗弃的岛屿和中国的辽东半岛，所有这些在一战期间都被日本占领了）
德国之所以变得富有，是因为在技术和科学教育方面的大量投资，这使它成为创新、研究和经济发展的强国。
Another example is Germany which pursued colonialism much later than the UK and France and hence controlled only a very small number of colonies which are practically worthless in economic terms (1 or 2 countries in Africa plus a coupled of god-forsaken islands in the Pacific and the Liaodong peninsula in China all of which were taken by Japan during WW1). Germany became rich because of heavy investment in technical and science education which made it a powerhouse in innovation and research and economic development.
另一个例子是德国，它比英国和法国更晚进行殖民主义，因此只控制了非常少的殖民地，这些殖民地在经济上实际上毫无价值。（非洲的1到2个国家，太平洋上的几个被遗弃的岛屿和中国的辽东半岛，所有这些在一战期间都被日本占领了）
德国之所以变得富有，是因为在技术和科学教育方面的大量投资，这使它成为创新、研究和经济发展的强国。
Atanas Arnaudov
And for most of history Finland and Estonia were of the dirt poor persuasion. All while France, England and Spain were wealthy and overpopulated before the first colonist was even born.
在历史的大部分时间里，芬兰和爱沙尼亚的信仰都是极其贫乏的。而在第一个殖民者诞生之前，法国、英国和西班牙都很富裕，人口过剩。
And for most of history Finland and Estonia were of the dirt poor persuasion. All while France, England and Spain were wealthy and overpopulated before the first colonist was even born.
在历史的大部分时间里，芬兰和爱沙尼亚的信仰都是极其贫乏的。而在第一个殖民者诞生之前，法国、英国和西班牙都很富裕，人口过剩。
Anna Hag
Not Estonia neither Finland had never existed before 1917 and were a result of ww1 launched by Germany. These countries don't have much history and had never been colonized by anyone
爱沙尼亚和芬兰在1917年之前都不存在，都是德国发动的第一次世界大战的结果。这些国家没有多少历史，也从未被任何人殖民过。
Not Estonia neither Finland had never existed before 1917 and were a result of ww1 launched by Germany. These countries don't have much history and had never been colonized by anyone
爱沙尼亚和芬兰在1917年之前都不存在，都是德国发动的第一次世界大战的结果。这些国家没有多少历史，也从未被任何人殖民过。
Nikolay Ivanov
There’s a difference between a country and a state.
Country和State是不一样的。
There’s a difference between a country and a state.
Country和State是不一样的。
Jenny Kim
Standard of living in Europe rose drastically after decolonisation and so did standard of living in most colonies so decolonisation was in many ways a win-win.
去殖民化后，欧洲的生活水平大幅提高，大多数殖民地的生活水平也大幅提高，因此去殖民化在很多方面都是双赢的。
Standard of living in Europe rose drastically after decolonisation and so did standard of living in most colonies so decolonisation was in many ways a win-win.
去殖民化后，欧洲的生活水平大幅提高，大多数殖民地的生活水平也大幅提高，因此去殖民化在很多方面都是双赢的。
Kenny Broadbent
Was it really a colony of Sweden? Or was it not just part of sweden?
Is Wales a colony of England? Is Andalusia a colony of Castile?
曾经的芬兰真的是瑞士的殖民地吗？
或者它只是瑞典的一部分?
威尔士是英格兰的殖民地吗?安达卢西亚是卡斯提尔的殖民地吗?
Was it really a colony of Sweden? Or was it not just part of sweden?
Is Wales a colony of England? Is Andalusia a colony of Castile?
曾经的芬兰真的是瑞士的殖民地吗？
或者它只是瑞典的一部分?
威尔士是英格兰的殖民地吗?安达卢西亚是卡斯提尔的殖民地吗?
Andy Ryan
Yes absolutely.
Wales is/was a colony of England for sure. Ireland even more damningly.
Andalusia… not so much, rather than engage in colonialism, Castille ethnically cleansed the population which didn’t flee and it became a conquered and integrated province ( ~ integration in Spain was very much not finished, and it remains to this day a patchwork-kingdom )
In Finland you had the typical colonialism of exploitation, discrimination and oppression.
But you also had settler colonialism ( which is far rarer when we speak of colonialism), most of the coastal regions and of course native Swedes having priviliges, i.e. fishing and trade became a swedish privilige.
绝对是的。
威尔士无论过去还是现在，无疑是英格兰的殖民地。爱尔兰更是如此。
安达卢西亚没有那么多殖民主义，而是对那些没有逃离的人进行了种族清洗，它成为了一个被征服和整合的省份（西班牙的一体化还远远没有完成，直到今天它仍然是一个拼凑而成的王国）。
在芬兰，剥削、歧视和压迫是典型的殖民主义。
但也有“移民殖民主义”(当我们谈到殖民主义时，这种情况要少见得多)，大多数沿海地区，当然还包括瑞典本土人拥有特权，例如捕鱼和贸易成了瑞典的特权。
Yes absolutely.
Wales is/was a colony of England for sure. Ireland even more damningly.
Andalusia… not so much, rather than engage in colonialism, Castille ethnically cleansed the population which didn’t flee and it became a conquered and integrated province ( ~ integration in Spain was very much not finished, and it remains to this day a patchwork-kingdom )
In Finland you had the typical colonialism of exploitation, discrimination and oppression.
But you also had settler colonialism ( which is far rarer when we speak of colonialism), most of the coastal regions and of course native Swedes having priviliges, i.e. fishing and trade became a swedish privilige.
绝对是的。
威尔士无论过去还是现在，无疑是英格兰的殖民地。爱尔兰更是如此。
安达卢西亚没有那么多殖民主义，而是对那些没有逃离的人进行了种族清洗，它成为了一个被征服和整合的省份（西班牙的一体化还远远没有完成，直到今天它仍然是一个拼凑而成的王国）。
在芬兰，剥削、歧视和压迫是典型的殖民主义。
但也有“移民殖民主义”(当我们谈到殖民主义时，这种情况要少见得多)，大多数沿海地区，当然还包括瑞典本土人拥有特权，例如捕鱼和贸易成了瑞典的特权。
Kenny Broadbent
So Wales then. And Kent and Cornwall.
But then you have to think that being part of a larger country helps protect against being slaughtered by raiders from over the seas. So, on balance, a good thing.
那么威尔士也是啰，还有肯特和康沃尔。
但随后你不得不想到，作为一个更大国家的一部分，这有助于防止被来自海外的入侵者屠杀。所以，总的来说，这是件好事。
So Wales then. And Kent and Cornwall.
But then you have to think that being part of a larger country helps protect against being slaughtered by raiders from over the seas. So, on balance, a good thing.
那么威尔士也是啰，还有肯特和康沃尔。
但随后你不得不想到，作为一个更大国家的一部分，这有助于防止被来自海外的入侵者屠杀。所以，总的来说，这是件好事。
Leonard Calin
Well, the raiders usually stop the slaughter when they occupy and colonize the land.
当入侵者占领并殖民这片土地时，通常会停止屠杀。
Well, the raiders usually stop the slaughter when they occupy and colonize the land.
当入侵者占领并殖民这片土地时，通常会停止屠杀。
Lasse Häggman
Finland was not a colony. It was just a bunch of Swedish provinces with exactly the same rights and obligations as the other parts. Being a victim is sweet and popular these days, but there is this thing called facts.
芬兰不是殖民地。它只是瑞典的一个省份，拥有和其他地区完全相同的权利和义务。现在做个受害者很甜蜜，也很受欢迎，但有个东西叫事实。
Finland was not a colony. It was just a bunch of Swedish provinces with exactly the same rights and obligations as the other parts. Being a victim is sweet and popular these days, but there is this thing called facts.
芬兰不是殖民地。它只是瑞典的一个省份，拥有和其他地区完全相同的权利和义务。现在做个受害者很甜蜜，也很受欢迎，但有个东西叫事实。
Daniel Forero
It was kinda the same as Ireland and Great Britain, officially, Ireland was an integral part of the UK, but its inhabitants were considered not british enough, so, they were subject to assimilation and settlement, just as Sweden did in western Finland. Finns were considered swedish peasants that spoke another language, but in order to become successful and be part of the administration, they had to become swedes themselves.
它有点像爱尔兰和大不列颠，官方上，爱尔兰是英国不可分割的一部分，但它的居民被认为不够英国。因此，他们被同化和移居，就像瑞典在芬兰西部所做的那样。
芬兰人被认为是会说另一种语言的瑞典农民，但为了获得成功并成为政府的一员，他们自己必须成为瑞典人。
It was kinda the same as Ireland and Great Britain, officially, Ireland was an integral part of the UK, but its inhabitants were considered not british enough, so, they were subject to assimilation and settlement, just as Sweden did in western Finland. Finns were considered swedish peasants that spoke another language, but in order to become successful and be part of the administration, they had to become swedes themselves.
它有点像爱尔兰和大不列颠，官方上，爱尔兰是英国不可分割的一部分，但它的居民被认为不够英国。因此，他们被同化和移居，就像瑞典在芬兰西部所做的那样。
芬兰人被认为是会说另一种语言的瑞典农民，但为了获得成功并成为政府的一员，他们自己必须成为瑞典人。
Krzysztof Krowicki
I like how 90% of humanity thinks wealth come from striking down and murdering the natives. Can not they say they want revange?
我喜欢90%的人认为财富来自于打击和谋杀土著人。你就不能直说你想复仇嘛？
I like how 90% of humanity thinks wealth come from striking down and murdering the natives. Can not they say they want revange?
我喜欢90%的人认为财富来自于打击和谋杀土著人。你就不能直说你想复仇嘛？
Leonard Calin
Because people usually don't really want for stuff like that to stop. They want for them to be on top.
因为人们通常不希望殖民和被殖民的事情停止。他们希望自己处于顶端。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Because people usually don't really want for stuff like that to stop. They want for them to be on top.
因为人们通常不希望殖民和被殖民的事情停止。他们希望自己处于顶端。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Erik Stevenson
Well said. It's why equality is never good enough. They don't want equality. They want the inequality enjoyed by the elite in the past.
说得好。这就是为什么平等永远不够好。他们不想要平等。他们想要的是过去精英阶层所享有的不平等。
Well said. It's why equality is never good enough. They don't want equality. They want the inequality enjoyed by the elite in the past.
说得好。这就是为什么平等永远不够好。他们不想要平等。他们想要的是过去精英阶层所享有的不平等。
Henriikka Keskinen
Finns are visually some of the whitest people on Earth. If we ticked the box saying “white” in a census questionnaire in the USA or the UK today (yeah, they still do that) we'd probably pass as “white”.
However, according to prevailing racial theory in Europe and the USA until the 1950s or so, Finnish speakers weren’t considered “white” but “an oriental mix”.
从视觉上看，芬兰人是地球上最白的人群之一。如果我们今天在美国或英国的人口调查问卷中选择“白人”(是的，他们仍然这么做)，我们可能会被认为是“白人”。
然而，直到20世纪50年代左右，根据欧洲和美国盛行的种族理论，说芬兰语的人不被认为是“白人”，而是“东方混血儿”。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Finns are visually some of the whitest people on Earth. If we ticked the box saying “white” in a census questionnaire in the USA or the UK today (yeah, they still do that) we'd probably pass as “white”.
However, according to prevailing racial theory in Europe and the USA until the 1950s or so, Finnish speakers weren’t considered “white” but “an oriental mix”.
从视觉上看，芬兰人是地球上最白的人群之一。如果我们今天在美国或英国的人口调查问卷中选择“白人”(是的，他们仍然这么做)，我们可能会被认为是“白人”。
然而，直到20世纪50年代左右，根据欧洲和美国盛行的种族理论，说芬兰语的人不被认为是“白人”，而是“东方混血儿”。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Maxim Nesterenko
Hmm. I don’t necessarily think Finns were treated worse in Finland than Russians were in Russia under the Russian empire.
Occupied? Yes. Colonized? No. There’s a difference. The difference would be like making entire population of Finland enslaved.
嗯。我并不认为芬兰人在芬兰受到的待遇比俄罗斯人在俄罗斯受到的待遇更差。
占领?是的。殖民?不。
有区别，区别就像让整个芬兰的人口都沦为奴隶。
Hmm. I don’t necessarily think Finns were treated worse in Finland than Russians were in Russia under the Russian empire.
Occupied? Yes. Colonized? No. There’s a difference. The difference would be like making entire population of Finland enslaved.
嗯。我并不认为芬兰人在芬兰受到的待遇比俄罗斯人在俄罗斯受到的待遇更差。
占领?是的。殖民?不。
有区别，区别就像让整个芬兰的人口都沦为奴隶。
etu Saloranta
Russian rule was much shorter and mostly much more lenient than Swedish rule. Swedish rule was colonization plain and simple.
俄国的统治比瑞典的统治要短得多，但大多时候要宽容得多。
瑞典的统治是简单明了的殖民统治。
Russian rule was much shorter and mostly much more lenient than Swedish rule. Swedish rule was colonization plain and simple.
俄国的统治比瑞典的统治要短得多，但大多时候要宽容得多。
瑞典的统治是简单明了的殖民统治。
John Miller
Oh, you were not really colonised by us.
We just tend to treat every area outside of Stockholm like a exploitable backwater to be ridiculed, blamed and looked down upon. That is even true today.
You happened to be further away and also speak funny, so of course we treat you even worse.
你们并没有被我们殖民。
我们只是倾向于把斯德哥尔摩以外的每一个地区都当作可剥削的死水，嘲笑、指责和看不起。甚至在今天也是如此。
你碰巧离得更远，说话也很搞笑，所以我们当然对你更糟了。
Oh, you were not really colonised by us.
We just tend to treat every area outside of Stockholm like a exploitable backwater to be ridiculed, blamed and looked down upon. That is even true today.
You happened to be further away and also speak funny, so of course we treat you even worse.
你们并没有被我们殖民。
我们只是倾向于把斯德哥尔摩以外的每一个地区都当作可剥削的死水，嘲笑、指责和看不起。甚至在今天也是如此。
你碰巧离得更远，说话也很搞笑，所以我们当然对你更糟了。
Jens Böttiger
No, many “white countries” never participated in any form of colonialism, and others who did participate did not benefit financially from it.
Finland, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Austria, and the rest of Eastern Europe did not participate in colonialism, and did not gain wealth through it.
Others like Germany and Italy attempted colonialism for a short spell from the late 19th century until WWI, but they didn’t get a return on investment, because they started late and did it wrong.
The most successful were the Dutch, British, French, Spanish, and Portuguese.
A lot of Europe was busy fighting wars against these ultra wealthy polities, so they did not benefit from colonialism at all, but were rather harmed by it.
不，许多“白人国家”从未参与过任何形式的殖民主义，而其他参与过殖民主义的国家也没有从经济上受益。
芬兰、波兰、罗马尼亚、保加利亚、奥地利和其他东欧国家没有参与殖民主义，也没有通过殖民主义获得财富。
其他国家，如德国和意大利，从19世纪末到一战都曾尝试过殖民主义，但他们没有获得投资回报，因为他们起步晚了，而且做错了。
最成功的是荷兰人、英国人、法国人、西班牙人和葡萄牙人。
许多欧洲人忙于与这些超级富有的政治团体斗争，所以他们根本没有从殖民主义中受益，相反受到了相当大的伤害。
No, many “white countries” never participated in any form of colonialism, and others who did participate did not benefit financially from it.
Finland, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Austria, and the rest of Eastern Europe did not participate in colonialism, and did not gain wealth through it.
Others like Germany and Italy attempted colonialism for a short spell from the late 19th century until WWI, but they didn’t get a return on investment, because they started late and did it wrong.
The most successful were the Dutch, British, French, Spanish, and Portuguese.
A lot of Europe was busy fighting wars against these ultra wealthy polities, so they did not benefit from colonialism at all, but were rather harmed by it.
不，许多“白人国家”从未参与过任何形式的殖民主义，而其他参与过殖民主义的国家也没有从经济上受益。
芬兰、波兰、罗马尼亚、保加利亚、奥地利和其他东欧国家没有参与殖民主义，也没有通过殖民主义获得财富。
其他国家，如德国和意大利，从19世纪末到一战都曾尝试过殖民主义，但他们没有获得投资回报，因为他们起步晚了，而且做错了。
最成功的是荷兰人、英国人、法国人、西班牙人和葡萄牙人。
许多欧洲人忙于与这些超级富有的政治团体斗争，所以他们根本没有从殖民主义中受益，相反受到了相当大的伤害。
Jakub Handlíř
No
Firstly not all “white” countries had colonies. Most countries in the Northern, Central and Eastern Europe never had colonies. Quite the opposite in fact; most of them were parts of large empires themselves. And even a superpower like Germany had only a very small number of not so very rich colonies which it lost in 1918/19 (practically even earlier). And yet it’s one of the richest countries in the world.
Colonialism in the modern times (last e.g. 200 years) was basically limited to UK, France, Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Russia and USA.
Secondly many former colonial powers are quite poor. Spain or Portugal had massive colonial empires. But both were relatively poor and unimportant for centuries. And even today while both countries are definitely richer than most of the world they aren’t that rich by “white” countries standards. Russia basically lost its colonial empire in 1991 but it’s even more poorer than Spain.
Fourthly there are “white” countries that were direct colonies but are rich. Canada and Australia come to mind. And South Africa was politically controlled by whites until the end of Apartheid in 1990s.
Fifthly there are many rich “non-white” countries that never had colonies. Singapore, South Korea or various Arab countries in Persian Gulf to name a few.
Sixthly there are also rich “non-white” countries who had colonies. Japan is the first that comes to mind. Turkey could also be considered quite rich in global comparison.
Colonialism wasn’t limited to white people. It’s a global practice that’s thousands of years old. It was never nice and it was exploitative.
But the statement that all the “white” countries are rich only because of colonialism is used often by various corrupt dictators who want to put blame for their countries’ sorry state on someone else.
首先，并不是所有的“白人”国家都有殖民地。北欧、中欧和东欧的大多数国家从未有过殖民地。事实恰恰相反，他们大部分都是大帝国的一部分。
即使是像德国这样的超级大国，在1918/19年(实际上更早)也只有很少数量的不太富裕的殖民地。但它却是世界上最富有的国家之一。
近代的殖民主义(最后的例子是200年)基本上局限于英国、法国、荷兰、比利时、意大利、西班牙、葡萄牙、俄罗斯和美国。
其次，许多前殖民国家都很穷。西班牙和葡萄牙都有庞大的殖民帝国。但这两个国家几个世纪以来都相对贫穷和无足轻重。即使在今天，尽管这两个国家绝对比世界上大多数国家富裕，但按“白人”国家的标准来看，他们还没有那么富裕。俄罗斯在1991年基本上失去了它的殖民帝国，它比西班牙更穷。
第三，有些“白人”国家曾直接沦为殖民地，但很富裕。我想到了加拿大和澳大利亚。南非在政治上一直由白人控制，直到20世纪90年代种族隔离制度结束。
第四，有许多富裕的“非白人”国家从未有过殖民地。新加坡、韩国或波斯湾的许多阿拉伯国家都是如此。
第五，也有富有的“非白人”国家拥有殖民地。首先想到的是日本。与全球相比，土耳其也可以被认为是相当富裕的。
殖民主义并不局限于白人。这是一个有几千年历史的全球惯例。这从来都不是好事，而且是一种剥削。
但是，“所有的白人”国家之所以富有，仅仅是因为殖民主义，这种说法经常被各种腐败的人使用，他们想把自己国家的糟糕状况归咎于别人。
No
Firstly not all “white” countries had colonies. Most countries in the Northern, Central and Eastern Europe never had colonies. Quite the opposite in fact; most of them were parts of large empires themselves. And even a superpower like Germany had only a very small number of not so very rich colonies which it lost in 1918/19 (practically even earlier). And yet it’s one of the richest countries in the world.
Colonialism in the modern times (last e.g. 200 years) was basically limited to UK, France, Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Russia and USA.
Secondly many former colonial powers are quite poor. Spain or Portugal had massive colonial empires. But both were relatively poor and unimportant for centuries. And even today while both countries are definitely richer than most of the world they aren’t that rich by “white” countries standards. Russia basically lost its colonial empire in 1991 but it’s even more poorer than Spain.
Fourthly there are “white” countries that were direct colonies but are rich. Canada and Australia come to mind. And South Africa was politically controlled by whites until the end of Apartheid in 1990s.
Fifthly there are many rich “non-white” countries that never had colonies. Singapore, South Korea or various Arab countries in Persian Gulf to name a few.
Sixthly there are also rich “non-white” countries who had colonies. Japan is the first that comes to mind. Turkey could also be considered quite rich in global comparison.
Colonialism wasn’t limited to white people. It’s a global practice that’s thousands of years old. It was never nice and it was exploitative.
But the statement that all the “white” countries are rich only because of colonialism is used often by various corrupt dictators who want to put blame for their countries’ sorry state on someone else.
首先，并不是所有的“白人”国家都有殖民地。北欧、中欧和东欧的大多数国家从未有过殖民地。事实恰恰相反，他们大部分都是大帝国的一部分。
即使是像德国这样的超级大国，在1918/19年(实际上更早)也只有很少数量的不太富裕的殖民地。但它却是世界上最富有的国家之一。
近代的殖民主义(最后的例子是200年)基本上局限于英国、法国、荷兰、比利时、意大利、西班牙、葡萄牙、俄罗斯和美国。
其次，许多前殖民国家都很穷。西班牙和葡萄牙都有庞大的殖民帝国。但这两个国家几个世纪以来都相对贫穷和无足轻重。即使在今天，尽管这两个国家绝对比世界上大多数国家富裕，但按“白人”国家的标准来看，他们还没有那么富裕。俄罗斯在1991年基本上失去了它的殖民帝国，它比西班牙更穷。
第三，有些“白人”国家曾直接沦为殖民地，但很富裕。我想到了加拿大和澳大利亚。南非在政治上一直由白人控制，直到20世纪90年代种族隔离制度结束。
第四，有许多富裕的“非白人”国家从未有过殖民地。新加坡、韩国或波斯湾的许多阿拉伯国家都是如此。
第五，也有富有的“非白人”国家拥有殖民地。首先想到的是日本。与全球相比，土耳其也可以被认为是相当富裕的。
殖民主义并不局限于白人。这是一个有几千年历史的全球惯例。这从来都不是好事，而且是一种剥削。
但是，“所有的白人”国家之所以富有，仅仅是因为殖民主义，这种说法经常被各种腐败的人使用，他们想把自己国家的糟糕状况归咎于别人。
James Flack
No.Let us take two simple examples- the UK and New Zealand. Two sets of medium sized islands with far too much weather. One colonised, one a coloniser. Yet both are rich now.
If being colonised was the thing that made New Zealand rich, why isn’t Africa rich, as it was also colonised?
Alternatively, how about the idea historic colonisation isn’t important to present day wealth?
让我们举两个简单的例子——英国和新西兰。两个都是中等大小的岛屿，气候恶劣。一个被殖民，一个是殖民者。然而现在他们都很富有。
如果被殖民是新西兰富有的原因，为什么非洲不富有，因为它也是被殖民的?
或者，历史上的殖民经历对今天的财富并不重要?
No.Let us take two simple examples- the UK and New Zealand. Two sets of medium sized islands with far too much weather. One colonised, one a coloniser. Yet both are rich now.
If being colonised was the thing that made New Zealand rich, why isn’t Africa rich, as it was also colonised?
Alternatively, how about the idea historic colonisation isn’t important to present day wealth?
让我们举两个简单的例子——英国和新西兰。两个都是中等大小的岛屿，气候恶劣。一个被殖民，一个是殖民者。然而现在他们都很富有。
如果被殖民是新西兰富有的原因，为什么非洲不富有，因为它也是被殖民的?
或者，历史上的殖民经历对今天的财富并不重要?
Gary Brewer
It’s a big factor, but not the only one. Keep in mind not all white countries had colonies but they do benefit from not being targeted while non-whites were targeted for invasions. Let’s walk through how it worked.
The obvious:
lots of land
lots of natural resources to use and sell (eg petroleium, minerals, timber, etc)
enslave non-white people for free labor
rich getting richer / poor getting poorer
Less obvious:
Lots of free time, stability, and resources to invent
control trade routes, markets
first mover advantage is a mixed bag. I think we Whites should get credit for the innovations though. We did invent machines, products, services that benefit humanity (at huge cost to the people we wiped out). Nonetheless, these inventions created industries and brands which grew and dominated. The computing giant IBM started as cash register machines.
forcing English down people’s throats. This allowed our marketing, our PR, our hollywood films, tv shows, propaganda, etc to reach the masses.
As our wealth grew so did our clout. This is huge. We could buy political influence and we did (Confessions of an Economic Hit Man: John Perkins: 8580001045009: Amazon.com: Books). We could brain drain to keep places like China backwards while accelerating our own development. Some 50% of Silicon Valley is Asian. Some 50% of “American” patents are filed by foreigners, many non-white. It’s not American genius that makes us so innovative. It’s that we’re literally vacuuming the world’s talent.
Military - we have the world’s most powerful military and we use it to violently shape geopolitics in our favor Amazon.com: Killing Hope: U.S. Military and C.I.A. Interventions Since World War II--upxed Through 2003 (9781567512526): William Blum: Books
Semi-related:
You will notice that White countries do work together. To deny the racism is absurd. There are institutions like the Anglo-five eyes spying network, NATO that illegally invade countries and commit war crimes, ICC the International Caucasian Court that find some unknown war crime but don’t dare to hold American war criminal presidents accountable for overthrowing countries, etc.
USA organizes global tech embargoes and sanctions on countries it doesn’t like or countries it fears like China (banned from cooperating with NASA, banned from buying many dual use military/civilian technologies), etc. Recently, it’s been telling Germany what it can and can not sell to China to slow China’s rapid tech upgrading (see derailed AIXTRON acquisition).
殖民主义是一个重要因素，但不是唯一的因素。请记住，并非所有白人国家都有殖民地，但当非白人成为入侵目标时，他们确实受益于没有成为受害者。让我们来看看殖民主义是如何运作的。
显然：大量土地；大量自然资源用于使用和售卖（例如石油、矿产、木材等）；奴役非白人作为免费劳力；富人愈富穷人愈穷。
其次：大量的空闲时间、稳定性和资源可以用来发明；控制贸易路线和市场。
先发优势是一个混合体。不过，我认为我们白人应该因为这些创新而受到赞扬。我们确实发明了造福人类的机器、产品和服务(让被我们消灭的人付出了巨大的代价)。尽管如此，这些发明创造了不断发展并占据主导地位的行业和品牌。计算机巨头IBM最初是作为收银机起家的。强迫人们说英语这使得我们的市场营销、公关、好莱坞电影、电视节目、宣传等能够接触到大众。
随着我们财富的增长，我们的影响力也在增长。好处是巨大的。我们可以购买政治影响力。我们可以通过人才流失来让中国这样的地方落后，同时加快我们自己的发展。硅谷大约50%的人口是亚洲人。大约50%的“美国”专利是由外国人申请的，其中很多是非白人。并不是美国的天才让我们如此创新。而是我们在吸走全世界的人才。
军事——我们拥有世界上最强大的军事力量，我们用它来暴力地塑造对我们有利的地缘政治。
次相关：
你会注意到白人国家确实在一起合作。否认种族主义是荒谬的。有像盎格鲁五眼间谍网络，北约非法入侵国家并犯下战争罪，国际刑事法庭，国际高加索法庭发现一些不知名的战争罪，但不敢让美国犯了战争罪的总统为推翻国家负责，等等。
美国对其不喜欢或害怕的国家实施全球技术禁运和制裁，比如中国(禁止与美国宇航局合作，禁止购买许多军民两用技术)，等等。最近，它一直在告诉德国什么可以卖给中国，什么不可以卖给中国，以减缓中国快速的技术升级。
It’s a big factor, but not the only one. Keep in mind not all white countries had colonies but they do benefit from not being targeted while non-whites were targeted for invasions. Let’s walk through how it worked.
The obvious:
lots of land
lots of natural resources to use and sell (eg petroleium, minerals, timber, etc)
enslave non-white people for free labor
rich getting richer / poor getting poorer
Less obvious:
Lots of free time, stability, and resources to invent
control trade routes, markets
first mover advantage is a mixed bag. I think we Whites should get credit for the innovations though. We did invent machines, products, services that benefit humanity (at huge cost to the people we wiped out). Nonetheless, these inventions created industries and brands which grew and dominated. The computing giant IBM started as cash register machines.
forcing English down people’s throats. This allowed our marketing, our PR, our hollywood films, tv shows, propaganda, etc to reach the masses.
As our wealth grew so did our clout. This is huge. We could buy political influence and we did (Confessions of an Economic Hit Man: John Perkins: 8580001045009: Amazon.com: Books). We could brain drain to keep places like China backwards while accelerating our own development. Some 50% of Silicon Valley is Asian. Some 50% of “American” patents are filed by foreigners, many non-white. It’s not American genius that makes us so innovative. It’s that we’re literally vacuuming the world’s talent.
Military - we have the world’s most powerful military and we use it to violently shape geopolitics in our favor Amazon.com: Killing Hope: U.S. Military and C.I.A. Interventions Since World War II--upxed Through 2003 (9781567512526): William Blum: Books
Semi-related:
You will notice that White countries do work together. To deny the racism is absurd. There are institutions like the Anglo-five eyes spying network, NATO that illegally invade countries and commit war crimes, ICC the International Caucasian Court that find some unknown war crime but don’t dare to hold American war criminal presidents accountable for overthrowing countries, etc.
USA organizes global tech embargoes and sanctions on countries it doesn’t like or countries it fears like China (banned from cooperating with NASA, banned from buying many dual use military/civilian technologies), etc. Recently, it’s been telling Germany what it can and can not sell to China to slow China’s rapid tech upgrading (see derailed AIXTRON acquisition).
殖民主义是一个重要因素，但不是唯一的因素。请记住，并非所有白人国家都有殖民地，但当非白人成为入侵目标时，他们确实受益于没有成为受害者。让我们来看看殖民主义是如何运作的。
显然：大量土地；大量自然资源用于使用和售卖（例如石油、矿产、木材等）；奴役非白人作为免费劳力；富人愈富穷人愈穷。
其次：大量的空闲时间、稳定性和资源可以用来发明；控制贸易路线和市场。
先发优势是一个混合体。不过，我认为我们白人应该因为这些创新而受到赞扬。我们确实发明了造福人类的机器、产品和服务(让被我们消灭的人付出了巨大的代价)。尽管如此，这些发明创造了不断发展并占据主导地位的行业和品牌。计算机巨头IBM最初是作为收银机起家的。强迫人们说英语这使得我们的市场营销、公关、好莱坞电影、电视节目、宣传等能够接触到大众。
随着我们财富的增长，我们的影响力也在增长。好处是巨大的。我们可以购买政治影响力。我们可以通过人才流失来让中国这样的地方落后，同时加快我们自己的发展。硅谷大约50%的人口是亚洲人。大约50%的“美国”专利是由外国人申请的，其中很多是非白人。并不是美国的天才让我们如此创新。而是我们在吸走全世界的人才。
军事——我们拥有世界上最强大的军事力量，我们用它来暴力地塑造对我们有利的地缘政治。
次相关：
你会注意到白人国家确实在一起合作。否认种族主义是荒谬的。有像盎格鲁五眼间谍网络，北约非法入侵国家并犯下战争罪，国际刑事法庭，国际高加索法庭发现一些不知名的战争罪，但不敢让美国犯了战争罪的总统为推翻国家负责，等等。
美国对其不喜欢或害怕的国家实施全球技术禁运和制裁，比如中国(禁止与美国宇航局合作，禁止购买许多军民两用技术)，等等。最近，它一直在告诉德国什么可以卖给中国，什么不可以卖给中国，以减缓中国快速的技术升级。
很赞 1
收藏