What is Colonialism? Is it good, bad or ugly? It all depends on who you are asking. It depends on whether one is benefiting from it or suffering from it. Before one volunteers an answer or a definition, let's look at some of the characteristics of Colonialism.
In the simplest definition it is like, 'We came, we saw and we conquered'. It involved forceful and brutal attacks on the victims and their land, barbaric cruelties in killings and massacres to subdue the victims, and followed up by looting everything from the victims, their properties and land, and their freedom as human beans. When the victims had been decimated, massacred to a point of haplessness, no longer able to fight back, they became slaves of the colonisers, sanitised as subjects of the conquering tribes. The colonised people were owned by the colonisers and would be rewarded, some more, some less, depending on how obedient they became and how well they served their colonial masters. They could be fed, humiliated, beaten at will by the colonial masters. Their means of survival is to please their masters and do the bidding of their colonial masters. They worked, their masters ruled and made merry, sipped tea and partied.
Over time, like a wild animal having been tamed, some could be treated very well, and even showered with kindness and treats, like a well deserving pet. Over time, when ruling the subjects became tedious, the task could be delegated to some chosen subjects to rule the subjects on behalf of the colonial masters. But the position of the colonial masters would never change and would never be compromised in a colony of people.
Today, many countries are still in various stages of Colonialism. In Africa, for centuries, some don't even know that they were still colonies of their former colonial masters, thinking that they were free and independent, when they are not.
Gaza and Palestine are at the earliest stages of brutal and barbaric Colonialism, when the colonial powers are using all the forces available to subdue the victims, to kill, massacre, destroy, to terminate them for good or until they have no more will to resist. And their land would then be taken over by the Colonial masters, and their freedom would be limited by their colonial masters. They would only be allowed to do and live under the consent of the Colonial masters. They would be at the mercy of the Colonial masters.
On the other extreme when Colonialism reaches its peak, the colonising tribe became the majority of the people of the colonised land. The victims, the natives, would have mostly been terminated, genocided to extinction or near extinction. No signs of Colonialism would be left, cleansed, whitewashed. Good examples of such places are the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and many more island states.
In between these two extremes, the early stages of butchery and barbarism and a sanitised and superficially peaceful and prosperous states, there are many variations of a colonised state. The European states, South Korea and Japan, are in the same category, where the colonial powers set up many military bases in their lands to control and rule them behind the curtain. These colonised states thought they are independent states ruling themselves, when the effective control of the country is under the colonial masters. Some Middle Eastern Arab states are also in this category.
The African colonised states are slightly different. They are colonised but disguised as independent states. However, the African colonised states are now getting wiser and knowing what kind of hell holes they are in and fighting fiercely to get rid of their colonial masters.
The Philippines is a queer phenomenon. They willingly invited their former colonial masters back to rule over them. The first stage is to set up military bases. From 4 to 9, and this will grow in numbers until the Philippines is under the complete control of their invited colonial masters.
So, is Colonialism good or bad, or ugly? Those who have not been beaten up by the colonial masters, not killed or massacred by the colonial masters, may treat Colonialism as a passing phase of history. Nothing to feel good or bad about it. Those who have experienced or understood the cruelties, injustice and oppression of Colonialism would not take Colonialism kindly. Some still stupid enough wanting to commemorate and glorify the Commonwealth, spend tax payers' money to organise Commonwealth Games!
Ignorance is bliss. The colonial masters were the conquerers, the murderers, butchers, robbers, vicious predators and owners of the colonised people. Now, who would think the colonial masters were nice people, to be loved and adored, like the Queen or King of England? Wow, kings and queens, so majestic, so rich, so grand and lovely people....not knowing their riches were robbed from your forefathers. Their forefathers killed and beaten up your forefathers.
Anyone still infatuated with their former colonial masters? Anyone still taking pride in wanting to remember their former colonial masters, erect buildings and statues to remember them? The merchants of opium and slavery were only sub sets of Colonialism. Colonialism is the full recipe of crimes against humanity. The colonialists have white washed their crimes in their history books as if it was an innocent passage of time and history. No death, no massacre, no genocide, no torture, no plundering, no looting, no cruelties etc etc.
Enough said. What is your answer on Colonialism? Good, bad, or ugly? What is your answer on the Japanese Occupation of Singapore? Let me give you a clue. Look at what is happening in Gaza, in Palestine. The Japanese were like the Israelis, and the natives in the island were like the Palestinians in many ways.
Oh, in a way, the British and Aussie soldiers in the island were like the Hamas, but fought sheepishly unlike the Hamas, and surrendered to the Japanese colonial masters, and were locked up in Changi Prison. Lt Adnan was the bravest, fought heroically like the Hamas, defending his homeland.
PS. I should have added the following phrase to end the above article, 'Your humble servant' or 'Your obedient servant'. This was the right way to address the colonial masters, Your Majesty, for being born a subject of the British Empire in Singapore. Many younger Singaporeans would have no idea what this is all about. Only the older generations can remember this. The British subjects in Hong Kong should remember this very well as they only got their freedom from Her Majesty in 1997, and could still be using the above phrases in their correspondence with the Queen or their last governor.
By the way, a subject is NOT a citizen. Something like a servant or slave owned by the King or Queen.
