4 ms·

Colonialism is ultimately self defeating, as European powers found out with time. The elites of a nation push for it because it gives them a chance to make a l

by throwaway2048 7y ago

Colonialism is ultimately self defeating, as European powers found out with time. The elites of a nation push for it because it gives them a chance to make a lot of money off exploiting both the colony and the government funding infrastructure. However in the end it becomes a bottomless pit for money in sum for a nation, and in the end you cant hold onto what you tried to control anyways, because the harder you try, the more and more resentment builds up until you are forced out. And it dosen't sound like the Chinese are too interested in making friends, more in making underhanded deals that hand them control over critical resources.

krageon 7y ago
> Colonialism is ultimately self defeating, as European powers found out with time. They found out it was untenable to continue being that cruel in the face of a populace that now wanted very slightly less obvious cruelty. I have never seen a compelling argument being made that it was about money, as domestic slavery and other forms of exploitation of people you basically own is always going to be nice and profitable.
- BurningFrog 7y ago
  The colonizing European powers were no richer than the non colonizing ones. In the end, the costs and benefits of having colonies more or less cancelled out.
- throwaway2048 7y ago
  Germany for instance had no colonies of any real consequence, and neither did Russia or Italy, yet all were majorly powerful nations, on par with a colonial empire that owned 25% of the planet, and another that owned almost as much (Britain and France). If colonies were capable of providing wealth and economic power at scale, the UK alone would have been vastly more powerful than all 3 aforementioned nations combined. In fact you can make a reasonably persuasive argument that the UK's laser focus on colonialism rather than native industry was directly responsible for Germany's rise to begin with. The UK was far more interested in pouring economic resources into colonial ventures (especially in India), which in the end didn't yield net gains, while Germany went from a patchwork network of independent, mostly underdeveloped state, to a world superpower in less than 50 years through obsessive focus on industrial development. Plenty of British industrialists and inventors found a far more receptive audience in Germany after their attempts to raise funding at home were ignored. The German chemical industry largely owed its origins to this for instance. There is also plenty of argument to be made that slavery as a purely economic concern is far less efficient and profitable in the long run than free men doing the same jobs.[2] Again, its something that's very profitable for elites, but it is a handicap for a nation as a whole. [2] https://www.economist.com/free-exchange/2013/09/27/did-slavery-make-economic-sense https://www.economist.com/free-exchange/2013/09/27/did-slave...
  - krageon 7y ago
    The source that you quote here has a lot of "may be" and "some analyses indicate that", which tells us both that in fact the source is not certain about it's impact. It does start out with a couple of hard facts about how profitable it was for the slave owners themselves, which is then the only hard fact in the whole piece. If anything, it proves my point about profitability. Germany's industrial power is a separate issue that is directly attributable to one or two major historical events that have absolutely nothing to do with colonialism. Suffice it to say that it doesn't compare, because few other countries have gone through a similar process. Edit: I discussed this with someone else and then I realised you are also just wrong about Germany having no colonies. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_German_colonies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_German_colonies
    - throwaway2048 7y ago
      I never said Germany had no colonies, but the scale of them, and money spent on them was extremely limited by comparison.

krageon 7y ago

> Colonialism is ultimately self defeating, as European powers found out with time. They found out it was untenable to continue being that cruel in the face of a populace that now wanted very slightly less obvious cruelty. I have never seen a compelling argument being made that it was about money, as domestic slavery and other forms of exploitation of people you basically own is always going to be nice and profitable.

BurningFrog 7y ago
The colonizing European powers were no richer than the non colonizing ones. In the end, the costs and benefits of having colonies more or less cancelled out.
throwaway2048 7y ago
Germany for instance had no colonies of any real consequence, and neither did Russia or Italy, yet all were majorly powerful nations, on par with a colonial empire that owned 25% of the planet, and another that owned almost as much (Britain and France). If colonies were capable of providing wealth and economic power at scale, the UK alone would have been vastly more powerful than all 3 aforementioned nations combined. In fact you can make a reasonably persuasive argument that the UK's laser focus on colonialism rather than native industry was directly responsible for Germany's rise to begin with. The UK was far more interested in pouring economic resources into colonial ventures (especially in India), which in the end didn't yield net gains, while Germany went from a patchwork network of independent, mostly underdeveloped state, to a world superpower in less than 50 years through obsessive focus on industrial development. Plenty of British industrialists and inventors found a far more receptive audience in Germany after their attempts to raise funding at home were ignored. The German chemical industry largely owed its origins to this for instance. There is also plenty of argument to be made that slavery as a purely economic concern is far less efficient and profitable in the long run than free men doing the same jobs.[2] Again, its something that's very profitable for elites, but it is a handicap for a nation as a whole. [2] https://www.economist.com/free-exchange/2013/09/27/did-slavery-make-economic-sense https://www.economist.com/free-exchange/2013/09/27/did-slave...
- krageon 7y ago
  The source that you quote here has a lot of "may be" and "some analyses indicate that", which tells us both that in fact the source is not certain about it's impact. It does start out with a couple of hard facts about how profitable it was for the slave owners themselves, which is then the only hard fact in the whole piece. If anything, it proves my point about profitability. Germany's industrial power is a separate issue that is directly attributable to one or two major historical events that have absolutely nothing to do with colonialism. Suffice it to say that it doesn't compare, because few other countries have gone through a similar process. Edit: I discussed this with someone else and then I realised you are also just wrong about Germany having no colonies. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_German_colonies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_German_colonies
  - throwaway2048 7y ago
    I never said Germany had no colonies, but the scale of them, and money spent on them was extremely limited by comparison.