And before that it was controlled by the Ottomans, Muslims, Byzantine Romans, Vandals, Romans, Phoenicians and Berbers. (I may have left some groups out).
Many of these invaders had themselves been previously colonised from elsewhere.
It often seems to me that it’s only the last one or two groups that are demonised, and the atrocities perpetrated by previous generations of colonists are forgotten by those who would construct a new national myth.
Besides, I think invaders only got more “organized” as time progressed. Brutality and domination are shared across time periods, but the more subtle techniques, such as cultural genocide and historical revisionism, only became effective tools in the invader’s toolbelt relatively recently.
More crucially, thanks to various technological advancements, modern European colonizers were able to steal resources at a scale never before seen in the history of this planet.
You seem to be missing the distinction between invasion, colonisation, and imperialism. Out of all of those you listed, only one group colonized (read: Settled) Tunisia, which are the Berbers. The others simply invaded. Which, under the feudal system, was not that big of a deal for the average person, and Tunisia was kept to a pretty high degree of development, with an economy focused on trade and production.
This is completely different to Imperial economies based around resource extractions, where you are treated as inherently lesser to the citizen from the Métropole, where people are kept poor on purpose, and where industrial scale massacres were often commited, nowhere even near the scale of anything that came before.
The Ottoman invasions didn't actually do that much damage to the Maghreb. It's a place very far away from them. Ottoman conquests of the Maghreb had around 40 000 casualties, many of them not of Algerians but of Ottomans and French/Spanish soldiers.
As for the Caliphate, they certainly did not annihilate any culture before them, and it's incredible to equate culture with Religion. The dominant religions there at the time of their invasion were Christianism and Judaism, which were preserved for a long time and are barely different from Islam, and religion is a tiny aspect of Culture. Their impact on the common person is so small that during Islamic rule the vast majority of people didn't even speak Arabic.
What the French did that was objectively much worse was to create a system where the citizens of the Maghreb were to remain an inferior second class only useful insofar as resources can be stolen forever.
As for colonialism in general, which I should remind you is the point, it caused more deaths than WW2.
The language didn't change either. Most people spoke Berber languages for 2000 years. Even now there are towns where you can't get by with Arabic well.
People of the Maghreb were not second class citizens under Rome. Neither were they under the millenia+ in some places of self-rule.
It's fine if you don't know the difference between pre-modern invasions and colonization, and it's fine if you don't really understand the history of the region, but by god don't use that to justify imperialism which killed tens of millions of people.
In any case, ask yourself this. Why is it that two Africans became emperors of Rome, but that Africans never led modern European powers, nor were even allowed to vote? Ask yourself that, and you will understand the distinction between the two.
Not only that, but almost half of the Maghreb was never even invaded by the Ottomans, and even then it was De Jure, and not De Facto, mostly. Same for the Vandals and the Byzantines.
So no, your analysis is incorrect. Additionally, it's very well known that pre-modern war was much less bloody.
Because more often than not the military decided who became princeps, and military advancement was more egalitarian.
I’d hazard a guess that if Rome had still been controlled by the senate the chances of advancement in Roman society would have been restricted to Italian born patricians.
Most European languages stem from the same base Indo Euroupean language. And a still a German can't understand a Frenchman or a Slav. Even though Islam has the same roots as christianity it is a totally different religion with an even more different set cultural norms.
>The language didn't change either. Most people spoke Berber languages for 2000 years. Even now there are towns where you can't get by with Arabic well.
I would say the arabic language, which is the dominant language of the area (72%), is quite different from the berber language(27%).
>It's fine if you don't know the difference between pre-modern invasions and colonization, and it's fine if you don't really understand the history of the region, but by god don't use that to justify imperialism which killed tens of millions of people."
I'm disappointed and expected more from you than lowly accusations of me supporting colonialism.
>In any case, ask yourself this. Why is it that two Africans became emperors of Rome, but that Africans never led modern European powers, nor were even allowed to vote? Ask yourself that, and you will understand the distinction between the two.
Septimius Severus was half Roman and half Punic, so not Berber. Also his successor, his son Caracalla has even less to do with the people of Northern Africa. By the time Severus became roman emperor, some parts of North Africa have been under the roman empire for 300 years. France has a lot of citizens of North African descent today who have the same rights as any other citizen with a different origin.
>Not only that, but almost half of the Maghreb was never even invaded by the Ottomans, and even then it was De Jure, and not De Facto, mostly. Same for the Vandals and the Byzantines.
>So no, your analysis is incorrect. Additionally, it's very well known that pre-modern war was much less bloody.
Hacking somebody apart with a sword is not something I would call less bloody. You seem to be under impression that the rulers always changed peacefully without any wars, battles, destruction of cities, persecutions, etc. I'm sure that after 200 years of any new ruler things settled down and life when on, maybe even better that before, but before that things were pretty bad and ugly.
I’m not discounting anything. But I’m skeptical that there are “countless” people who embrace decolonization of the kind which modern academics mean when they use the term. Note that @angibrowl talked about reforming institutions and legal systems and property rights, which is more aggressive than what you refer to below.
> Statistically speaking, the fact that you’ve never met a Bangladeshi who disagrees with you tells me more about the company you keep than what Bangladeshis think about colonialism in general.
It’s not about what you think of colonialism, but about what you want to do going forward. Polls show Bangladeshis are broadly supportive of for example the free market liberal order: https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2014/10/09/emerging-and-d...
76% say the country is headed in the right direction under the current basically neoliberal government: https://www.iri.org/sites/default/files/bangladesh_2019_poll...
They like the things that come along with having an Anglo legal system that makes it easy for people to invest in the country. They cite development, the economy, increased living standards, and improved law and order as reasons why they think the country is headed in the right direction. They have high approval rates for the media, parliament, and high court. Their list of top problems is corruption, drugs, unemployment, security, and education.
Reading local news, talking to family, and following politics suggests to me that the problems that people actually care about have little to do with colonial legacy. Indeed, the problem of corruption is widely recognized among Bangladeshis as a cultural shortcoming, not some externally imposed problem.
Now, Bangladesh is quite a nationalist country. The Bangla language movement was a more political force in the mid 20th century and was one of the drivers of independence. At some point, the medium of instruction was changed from English to Bangla at the primary and secondary level. But today, English is taught from the first grade—with the big debate being how to teach it, not how much influence it has on the culture.
> (1) take what benefits you, (2) be proud of your heritage, especially that which your colonizer tried to suppress, (3) throw out the nonsense, and most importantly, (4) explicitly condemn the atrocities and injustices perpetrated by your occupiers. Forgetting and forgiving is not how you build an independent nation; seeking truth and justice is.
I agree with the first three, and strongly disagree with the fourth, at least in the context of my experience. Britain is never going to write Bangladesh a big check. They are a shadow of their former selves and cannot do so anyway. So what’s the point in dwelling on the past? All it does is tint the policy choices you make going forward. How a country shapes it’s institutions, laws, and culture, should rest on what will make the people prosperous going forward. Fixating on what aspects of culture or what laws and institutions were inherited from the colonial power creates a strong impetus to change those things for the sake of asserting the country’s own identity. For example, the Bangladesh High Court still writes its decisions in English and routinely cites decisions of other Anglo courts. That’s a good thing! The Anglo legal system is one of (in my opinion, the) finest in the world and highly suited for participation in the global economy. What are we going to do, replace it with Sharia? That’s what some people want, and that’s the only real alternative.
This is my beef with the academic decolonization literature. It makes your political discourse backwards looking. The article posted above about prosecution of homosexuality is a great example. The article notes that the first ever such prosecutions have happened in 2017. And it blames Victorian legal codes that have been on the books since 1860. But that’s obviously absurd. If those laws have been on the books since 1860, why are they only being enforced now? That’s obviously not what changed. Looking backward and blaming Britain blinds the author to the much more recent trend of fundamentalist Islam being imported from the Middle East.
If you want to talk about how to improve LGBT rights in Bangladesh, is decolonization a useful framework? Should we look back to acceptance of hijra (transgender people) in pre-Islamic Bangladesh? No! When the Indian Supreme Court recently granted recognition to Hijra, it did so by reference to international human rights law, court cases in the UK and Australia, and surveys of legislation in western countries: https://www.lawyerscollective.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04....
Rhetorically, yes. Pointing out that a law certainly isn't something brought in to protect Bangladeshi values and culture, but a relic of the former colonial powers' values it's now extremely embarrassed by is a useful line of argument. Of course it would be wrong to assume that prejudice against LGBT people in Bangladesh stems primarily from fidelity to the values of Victorian Britons, but when you're arguing against people who insist that those arguing for greater tolerance are importing foreign values to replace what Bangladeshis have always believed, the actual historical context can help.
Firstly, your experience does not automatically discount the experiences of countless people from the many European colonial projects. Statistically speaking, the fact that you’ve never met a Bangladeshi who disagrees with you tells me more about the company you keep than what Bangladeshis think about colonialism in general.
Secondly, disconnecting from colonialism is a logical continuation of independence, and a form of building a country’s identity. Yes, colonial powers did some good things, but everything they did was ultimately for the benefit of them and the citizens they forced on us. I assure you: had it not made economic sense, they would have burnt everything down when they left. If you do some basic research, you’ll find that many African colonies got the bare minimum of development required to extract resources, simply because the colonizers did not intend their citizens to relocate long term.
Finally, eschewing the colonial past does not mean that you need to throw everything out. Rather, you take control over the narrative: (1) take what benefits you, (2) be proud of your heritage, especially that which your colonizer tried to suppress, (3) throw out the nonsense, and most importantly, (4) explicitly condemn the atrocities and injustices perpetrated by your occupiers. Forgetting and forgiving is not how you build an independent nation; seeking truth and justice is.