h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

It goes through my head as well, everytime I see the title

Who knows? That might even have been intentional.

thanks Effers
I took the poem from this place
http://www.freewordonline.com/content/2012/03/like-these-trees-by-najwan-darwish/

"I was lumping myself in because I thought it would have been churlish to distance myself when I am still enjoying the fruits of conquest but the conquered are not." [Edward the Bonobo

I doubt that there are still any fruits of conquest at this distance from the events. There are undoubtedly some cultural currents, as you would expect from the ripples that spread out from any item that impacts the surface of anything. Would E. M. Forster have been as likely to write "Passage to India" if India had not been part of the empire? There are numerous Indian authors who publish in English. Would they have learned English had England not sent teachers to teach their ancestors? If not, might they be writing in Hindi or other Indian languages? Who is to say that translating their works into English would have had the same impact as writing directly in English?

Then there's Bollywood. I can't remember whether it is ranked first or second in the world in terms of film output. I saw "The Namesake," which was set the U.S. and India. The actress who played the mother is one of India's most popular actresses. The actor who played the son is a young Indian-American actor who is famous for the "Harold and Kumar" film series. This mixing of east and west could not have happened without the spread of the English language. Maybe there would have been other cultural mixing instead, but it'simpossible to say what they would have been.

"I suspect that the difference is less than you imagine. Britain took and held its colonies by military force."

I am aware of that. It isn't in the violence of the means that I would put the distinction.

paulh:

>>I doubt that there are still any fruits of conquest at this distance from the events.

I disagree. We wouldn't be in the economic position we are in today if it hadn't been for Empire, just as surely as you (and we) wouldn't be where we are if it hadn't been for slavery. They provided the capital necessary for industrialisation.

And of course some Indians have also done well - but the continued legacy of Empire is their inequality and underdevelopment. One party in the transaction got a better deal than the other.

Just Bob:

Can you clarify what you think the difference is between colonisation and outright invasion? I note that you said you weren't sure - but can we explore it?

As a starter, I'm wondering...is there a difference from the point of view of the invaded/colonised?

Examples of the two?

To throw a definition of the difference put for discussion, how about "invasion" is an event, after which "colonisation" is possible?

So colonised nations are also invaded? Does that help us?

"Invasion" would, I'd say, be the rapid military overrun of a country with a view to quickly and decisively overcoming the indigenous military capability.

"Colonisation" would, by contrast, be the mainly civilian occupation of a territory by a group of incomers over an extended period.

An invasion can proceed at a rate as fast as the armed forces can secure territory. The Falklands invasion by the Argentinians 30 years ago took a matter of hours.

A colonisation worth the name can't happen in less than a generation. If the Argentinians had started in 1982 and, with the permission of the locals, moved in one family to the islands per year, by now they'd likely be in de facto control.

In order for a mainly civilian settlement to be able to take route, however, there needs to be some way of ensuring that settlers won't be wiped out. Historically, this is why invasion has often been the step which allowed colonisation to take place - yes, in a slower, much longer timespan.

It's also worth distinguishing between colonisation and simple migration of people, surely? Nobody except a Anders Breivik type would seriously contest that Bradford is truely and literally a colony of any country in Asia, for instance.

@SoRB:

I guess that somewhere in between 'invasion' and 'colonisation' we need 'occupation'. Perhaps afterwards we get to 'assimilation'.

I'm not quite sure of the functional relevance of the distinctions, though.

I'd say there's a pretty drastic functional difference, inasmuch as generally (although not always), people who survive the actual invasion have a pretty good chance of surviving the colonisation... they might even find their standard of living improves, at least by the colonists' standards.

As I said, I'm not sure, but it's interesting to explore if nothing else.
To my mind, part of the difference is in the end goal. It maybe because the main case study in my mind is the European 'Old World' moving out into the 'New World' and 'Third World', but I think of a colonisation as ending with a geographically separated, subservient territory under the control of the home country, whereas an invasion ends with a single contiguous mass, with only slight, sentimental cultural differences across it.

"there needs to be some way of ensuring that settlers won't be wiped out"

Hmm... that could be argued as self-defence, though, assuming they don't go out on horseback hunting the natives with guns.

"Nobody except a Anders Breivik type would seriously contest that Bradford is truely and literally a colony of any country in Asia, for instance"

Not literally, no. What constitutes a colony? Surely governmental influence from the homeland. If you're paying tax to and ultimately reliant for your security upon some government somewhere you or your ancestors referred to as "back home", then you're living in a colony. If you're paying tax/tribute to the local chief in return for protection, you're an immigrant, a settler.

Pakistan doesn't levy taxes on anyone Britain (unless you count the over two hundred million pounds a year we all contribute to "aid" a country that can afford to develop its own nuclear weapons...). Asian immigrants pay UK tax and rely on the UK for their security. Straightforward enough.

I agree, straightforward enough.

I think you mistook my point when I said this, though:

"In order for a mainly civilian settlement to be able to take route, however, there needs to be some way of ensuring that settlers won't be wiped out. Historically, this is why invasion has often been the step which allowed colonisation to take place - yes, in a slower, much longer timespan."

My point was chiefly the second sentence in that paragraph (ie. the one you deleted ). It wasn't whether or not it's "justifiable", or whatever.

I think you misunderstand - what I'm getting at is that if the colonists arrive sufficiently tooled up, no invasion is necessary. They just move in and settle down. So long as the locals remain relatively cooperative, colonisation can happen absent any notable invasion-type behaviour.

"If the colonists arrive sufficiently tooled up", then there's your invasion. They aren't colonists until there is a successful colony established, surely? When they "arrive tooled up", only time will tell whether they establish a colony.

Just because you're tooled up doesn't mean you're *using*.

If you arrive tooled up but spend your time wandering about, then settled down and build some cabins and plant some crops and stuff, and don't bother anyone else if they don't bother you first... invasion? If, six months later, they start ripping up your crops, and you shoot them... are you now and only now an invader?

Does *any* of this semantic quibbling matter at all?

No, not since it turned into semantic quibbling.

When it was about history it was interesting enough, mind you...