4 ms·

Americans don't need to try to understand the effects of mercantilism. They were subject to the same draconian economic policies by the British Empire. This is

Americans don't need to try to understand the effects of mercantilism. They were subject to the same draconian economic policies by the British Empire. This is largely what prompted the American Revolution. [0] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteen_Colonies#Economic_policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteen_Colonies#Economic_pol...

softwaredoug 6y ago
I think it's more accurate to say the US had a temporary (1 decade) diversion from the norm of "Benign Neglect"[1] which pissed off Americans to the point they sought explicit Independence. China has a much longer cultural history of being "self contained" (and suspicious of outsiders) which was deeply reinforced in the 19th century Opium Wars, etc. 1 - http://community.weber.edu/weberreads/salutary_or_benign_neglect.htm http://community.weber.edu/weberreads/salutary_or_benign_neg...
- quicklime 6y ago
  Yep. A better analogy would be if the US had lost the revolutionary war, and was subjected to a century or more of British mercantilism, which they were only now starting to recover from.
  - alextheparrot 6y ago
    Is the claim that British mercantilism caused all of this? The Qing dynasty had many problems, the British being one. The Taiping rebellion killed millions, Japanese imperialism further weakened the empire, losing their own colonial status over Korea - we can go on as the events cascade. To solely blame British mercantilism is to drive a wholly western narrative for what was not.
  - kolanos 6y ago
    They were subjected to 170 years of mercantilism prior to the American Revolution. Any American ship that dared trade with any power other than the British Empire was deemed a "pirate" and was fired upon by cannon.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      America did not exist. It was a settler colony of the British Empire. It was, if anything, the beneficiary of mercantilism, and not being allowed to trade with other nations is pretty much just how things were at the time.
- kolanos 6y ago
  The American colonies were subject to mercantilism for 170 years before the American Revolution started. To suggest that the American colonies weren't subject to foreign gunships forcing trade policies upon them is simply a ridiculous statement. The American colonies were prevented, by force, from trading with the French, Spanish and Dutch. The British Empire captured New Amsterdam in 1664 in the Second Anglo-Dutch War and renamed it New York. Just because the British Empire's economic policies escalated in the decade leading up to the American Revolution doesn't mean that is either where mercantilism began or ended. Please don't belittle American history, there are far more parallels than you may realize.
  - softwaredoug 6y ago
    While there was always some fear of foreign war, it never rose to the level of century-long occupation or and domination that China experienced. The American colonies were just too unimportant until the French and Indian War compared to the Sugar colonies. Even taking New York was kind of a side effect of New England being nearby and English gradually settling down from Connecticut, rather than part of some grand strategy. Mercantilism was the law, but by defacto neglect Americans were trading with everyone with very few consequences until after the French and Indian war. It simply was too expensive for the British to enforce.
    - kolanos 6y ago
      One of the provisions of the Treaty of Nanking is that the British Empire agreed to not interfere with Chinese trade with other foreign powers. They also withdrew from mainland China in exchange for the island of Hong Kong. Hong Kong was not an economic power at the time and became one as a British colony. [0] By contrast, the British Empire continued to interfere with American trade long after the American Revolution, prompting the War of 1812 where the British Empire burned the first White House to the ground. Imagine if the British had burned the Daoguang Emperor's palace to the ground? My point is I'm not belittling the subjugation of the Chinese under the British Empire. But at the same time, lets not attempt to rewrite American history. In regards to the British Empire, the Americans and Chinese have more in common than propagandists on both sides would have us believe. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Nanking#Terms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Nanking#Terms
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Orou 6y ago
> This is largely what prompted the American Revolution The American Revolution was much more about representation and the rights that British Parliament held (or, from the American perspective, didn't hold) over the colonies. The primary effect of mercantilism is exclusive trading agreements with the ruling empire, which was not being argued against by the colonials. It even says as much in the paragraph you linked: "However, the colonists took pains to argue that they did not oppose British regulation of their external trade; they only opposed legislation which affected them internally." It's not an equal comparison to China and the Opium Wars.
- kolanos 6y ago
  You're quoting an attempt in 1761 to resolve this economic dispute with King George by legal means. The American colonies, on their own, were in no position to counter the mercantile system. They would need the support of another Empire for that. But to counter your claim that mercantilism wasn't the inspiration for the American Revolution, I recommend reading up on the "Sons of Liberty" movement that rose up after the Stamp Act of 1765. [0] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stamp_Act_1765 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stamp_Act_1765
  - Orou 6y ago
    I'm familiar with the Stamp Act - which I think reinforces my point because it was about direct taxation on the colonies. Even indirect taxation, e.g. on paper, tea, and glass through the Townshend Acts led to violent confrontation, infamously the Boston Massacre. The point I am making is that the primary instigator for the war was not "we can't legally trade with the Dutch/French/whomever", which is the monopolistic cornerstone of mercantilism. I'm curious if you consider taxation to be a mercantilist policy.

softwaredoug 6y ago

I think it's more accurate to say the US had a temporary (1 decade) diversion from the norm of "Benign Neglect"[1] which pissed off Americans to the point they sought explicit Independence. China has a much longer cultural history of being "self contained" (and suspicious of outsiders) which was deeply reinforced in the 19th century Opium Wars, etc. 1 - http://community.weber.edu/weberreads/salutary_or_benign_neglect.htm http://community.weber.edu/weberreads/salutary_or_benign_neg...

quicklime 6y ago
Yep. A better analogy would be if the US had lost the revolutionary war, and was subjected to a century or more of British mercantilism, which they were only now starting to recover from.
- alextheparrot 6y ago
  Is the claim that British mercantilism caused all of this? The Qing dynasty had many problems, the British being one. The Taiping rebellion killed millions, Japanese imperialism further weakened the empire, losing their own colonial status over Korea - we can go on as the events cascade. To solely blame British mercantilism is to drive a wholly western narrative for what was not.
- kolanos 6y ago
  They were subjected to 170 years of mercantilism prior to the American Revolution. Any American ship that dared trade with any power other than the British Empire was deemed a "pirate" and was fired upon by cannon.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    America did not exist. It was a settler colony of the British Empire. It was, if anything, the beneficiary of mercantilism, and not being allowed to trade with other nations is pretty much just how things were at the time.
kolanos 6y ago
The American colonies were subject to mercantilism for 170 years before the American Revolution started. To suggest that the American colonies weren't subject to foreign gunships forcing trade policies upon them is simply a ridiculous statement. The American colonies were prevented, by force, from trading with the French, Spanish and Dutch. The British Empire captured New Amsterdam in 1664 in the Second Anglo-Dutch War and renamed it New York. Just because the British Empire's economic policies escalated in the decade leading up to the American Revolution doesn't mean that is either where mercantilism began or ended. Please don't belittle American history, there are far more parallels than you may realize.
- softwaredoug 6y ago
  While there was always some fear of foreign war, it never rose to the level of century-long occupation or and domination that China experienced. The American colonies were just too unimportant until the French and Indian War compared to the Sugar colonies. Even taking New York was kind of a side effect of New England being nearby and English gradually settling down from Connecticut, rather than part of some grand strategy. Mercantilism was the law, but by defacto neglect Americans were trading with everyone with very few consequences until after the French and Indian war. It simply was too expensive for the British to enforce.
  - kolanos 6y ago
    One of the provisions of the Treaty of Nanking is that the British Empire agreed to not interfere with Chinese trade with other foreign powers. They also withdrew from mainland China in exchange for the island of Hong Kong. Hong Kong was not an economic power at the time and became one as a British colony. [0] By contrast, the British Empire continued to interfere with American trade long after the American Revolution, prompting the War of 1812 where the British Empire burned the first White House to the ground. Imagine if the British had burned the Daoguang Emperor's palace to the ground? My point is I'm not belittling the subjugation of the Chinese under the British Empire. But at the same time, lets not attempt to rewrite American history. In regards to the British Empire, the Americans and Chinese have more in common than propagandists on both sides would have us believe. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Nanking#Terms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Nanking#Terms

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Orou 6y ago

> This is largely what prompted the American Revolution The American Revolution was much more about representation and the rights that British Parliament held (or, from the American perspective, didn't hold) over the colonies. The primary effect of mercantilism is exclusive trading agreements with the ruling empire, which was not being argued against by the colonials. It even says as much in the paragraph you linked: "However, the colonists took pains to argue that they did not oppose British regulation of their external trade; they only opposed legislation which affected them internally." It's not an equal comparison to China and the Opium Wars.

kolanos 6y ago
You're quoting an attempt in 1761 to resolve this economic dispute with King George by legal means. The American colonies, on their own, were in no position to counter the mercantile system. They would need the support of another Empire for that. But to counter your claim that mercantilism wasn't the inspiration for the American Revolution, I recommend reading up on the "Sons of Liberty" movement that rose up after the Stamp Act of 1765. [0] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stamp_Act_1765 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stamp_Act_1765
- Orou 6y ago
  I'm familiar with the Stamp Act - which I think reinforces my point because it was about direct taxation on the colonies. Even indirect taxation, e.g. on paper, tea, and glass through the Townshend Acts led to violent confrontation, infamously the Boston Massacre. The point I am making is that the primary instigator for the war was not "we can't legally trade with the Dutch/French/whomever", which is the monopolistic cornerstone of mercantilism. I'm curious if you consider taxation to be a mercantilist policy.