3 ms·

The Mongols most certainly changed the borders of the countries they occupied. If that is the only criteria, then every conqueror is also a colonial power. The

by enkid 6y ago

The Mongols most certainly changed the borders of the countries they occupied. If that is the only criteria, then every conqueror is also a colonial power. There also were plenty of examples of conquerors applying specific economic laws to the conquered. For example, Muslim conquerors would impose a tax on Christians and Jews in their empires (the Jizya). Does that make them colonial powers? So how is colonialism a specific institution?

ClumsyPilot 6y ago
I am not sure what are you arguing for, are you actually claiming that colonialism was no different than any other conquests throughout history? The entire country India was ruled by a private company, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_rule_in_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_rule_in_India The Mongoles have not redrawn borders along a line on a map the way British and French have, creating the mess we now have in the Middle East. I can't make a complete list of criteria that defines colonialism, but to claim that it was no different than other conquests is to betray complete historical illiteracy.
- nickik 6y ago
  > The Mongoles have not redrawn borders along a line on a map the way British and French have, creating the mess we now have in the Middle East. Back then there was not really the same concept of boarders. But you can be 100% sure that the Mongols picked sides in many local conflicts and simply layed down the law on things like grazing rights and many others things. > I can't make a complete list of criteria that defines colonialism, but to claim that it was no different than other conquests is to betray complete historical illiteracy. It really isn't. Sure colonialism from 1800 is not the same as 1200 century mongol conquest. But to draw a line between colonialism and all other types of conquest in human history is actually historically questionable. Comparing colonialism to other conquests at the same time is very apt. Empires impose institutions and take sides in local conflicts, enforcing new laws making deals with neighbours not to the advantage of locals and so on. Unless you can lay out a set of clear differences between colonialism and all other froms of one society taking over another, I see no reason to treat collonialism as seperate. > The entire country India was ruled by a private company And in other cases, for exmaple the mongol one specific branch of the family was put in command of a region and those families often engadged in trade of the resources from their part of the empire. There are lots and lots of ways empires manage their 'colonies', a quasi private 'company' is certaintly not typical but its also not ahistorical as far as I can see.
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    I don't see the point of this discussion if can't even accept that the East India situation is unique, something that's unanimously agreed upon amongst historians and economists. Either you posses some unique knowledge that historians do not, or you are dead set on 'proving' colonialism was 'no different than what came before' regardless of any arguments brought forward.
    - nickik 6y ago
      > something that's unanimously agreed upon amongst historians and economists Can you actually show this to be true? Lots of things in history is are pretty unique. At the time East India company was clearly not special, other institutions of that type that existed. And we can find clear precedents in history. Any attempted to really define colonialism will either be incredibly convoluted or equally aligns many other historical situations. Lots of what we call colonization is also not threw quasi-private space sponsored monopolies.

by enkid 6y ago

ClumsyPilot 6y ago

I am not sure what are you arguing for, are you actually claiming that colonialism was no different than any other conquests throughout history? The entire country India was ruled by a private company, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_rule_in_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_rule_in_India The Mongoles have not redrawn borders along a line on a map the way British and French have, creating the mess we now have in the Middle East. I can't make a complete list of criteria that defines colonialism, but to claim that it was no different than other conquests is to betray complete historical illiteracy.

nickik 6y ago
> The Mongoles have not redrawn borders along a line on a map the way British and French have, creating the mess we now have in the Middle East. Back then there was not really the same concept of boarders. But you can be 100% sure that the Mongols picked sides in many local conflicts and simply layed down the law on things like grazing rights and many others things. > I can't make a complete list of criteria that defines colonialism, but to claim that it was no different than other conquests is to betray complete historical illiteracy. It really isn't. Sure colonialism from 1800 is not the same as 1200 century mongol conquest. But to draw a line between colonialism and all other types of conquest in human history is actually historically questionable. Comparing colonialism to other conquests at the same time is very apt. Empires impose institutions and take sides in local conflicts, enforcing new laws making deals with neighbours not to the advantage of locals and so on. Unless you can lay out a set of clear differences between colonialism and all other froms of one society taking over another, I see no reason to treat collonialism as seperate. > The entire country India was ruled by a private company And in other cases, for exmaple the mongol one specific branch of the family was put in command of a region and those families often engadged in trade of the resources from their part of the empire. There are lots and lots of ways empires manage their 'colonies', a quasi private 'company' is certaintly not typical but its also not ahistorical as far as I can see.
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  I don't see the point of this discussion if can't even accept that the East India situation is unique, something that's unanimously agreed upon amongst historians and economists. Either you posses some unique knowledge that historians do not, or you are dead set on 'proving' colonialism was 'no different than what came before' regardless of any arguments brought forward.
  - nickik 6y ago
    > something that's unanimously agreed upon amongst historians and economists Can you actually show this to be true? Lots of things in history is are pretty unique. At the time East India company was clearly not special, other institutions of that type that existed. And we can find clear precedents in history. Any attempted to really define colonialism will either be incredibly convoluted or equally aligns many other historical situations. Lots of what we call colonization is also not threw quasi-private space sponsored monopolies.