3 ms·

True but the reason these territories respected the metropoles laws is because they were aware if they didn’t the metropole had the resources to overrun them if

True but the reason these territories respected the metropoles laws is because they were aware if they didn’t the metropole had the resources to overrun them if they were upset enough. The same will be true of any off world colony for the foreseeable future.

godelski 5y ago
I'm not convinced that's true. The New World exists for exactly this reason. The British were not able to sustain a war half a globe away with the Americans. It is incredibly expensive (hell, even the French supporting the US took a big hit). All a Martian colony would need to do is play guerilla warfare and wait it out. There's plenty of history to suggest that this is an effective strategy.
- edgyquant 5y ago
  Sure by the time there is a huge population of basically nations on Mars that may be the case but that isn’t in the foreseeable future. The New World existed as colonies for centuries before it had the ability to become independent and even then that more to do with Napoleon for South America and the rest of the world wanting to take Britain down a peg for. The US.
  - pdonis 5y ago
    > The New World existed as colonies for centuries before it had the ability to become independent No, many of the British colonies had the ability to become independent fairly soon after being colonized. The key variable wasn't how capable the colonists were but how interested Britain was in controlling them, and that varied widely from colony to colony, depending on who in Britain had to exercise the control. Some, like the British peers who had ownership interests in New York and Virginia, were control freaks and wanted to exercise all sorts of detailed micromanagement of their colonies. Others, like Penn with Pennsylvania, basically let them do whatever they wanted and didn't bother much about it. And even in colonies like New York and Virginia, once you got away from the coastal cities or river ports that were easily accessible to British ships, the level of British control dropped drastically. The British couldn't do much at all about up-country backwoods farmers and trappers, who basically didn't care what the British or the colonial governments did since it couldn't really affect them. What didn't crystallize until the 1770s was the political unity between the colonies behind an explicit declaration of independence. Which was, in large part, a product of the British, after the end of the French and Indian War, deciding that the colonies had already gotten too independent and needed to be reminded that they were still British subjects. Which didn't work out very well. > that more to do with Napoleon for South America and the rest of the world wanting to take Britain down a peg All of which happened after the US had already become independent. So it's irrelevant when looking at how the US became independent. It is true that the British were still dealing with the French in Europe and that this limited their ability to project power in America during the US revolution. (The Americans also took full advantage of this by allying with France.) But that just illustrates my point: empires aren't omnipotent and can't just magically project power whenever and wherever they want to.
pdonis 5y ago
> the reason these territories respected the metropoles laws is because they were aware if they didn’t the metropole had the resources to overrun them if they were upset enough I don't think that's true, since, as godelski points out, in a salient historical case where the colonies did not respect the home empire's laws--the United States of America--the home empire did not have the resources to overrun them. The British ended up learning similar lessons in South Africa and India later on. I think the main reason colonial governments respected the home empire's laws is that the territorial governors and their personnel were loyal to the empire; they believed in the empire and its aims. When that loyalty goes away, as it did in the USA, the home empire can't do much about it. > The same will be true of any off world colony for the foreseeable future. You must be joking. If the British empire was unable to enforce its will on the United States, with only an ocean separating them, how could an Earth empire possibly enforce its will on a Mars colony, with tens of millions of miles of space separating them?
- edgyquant 5y ago
  This does not take away from what I’m saying, like at all. When territories are unable to be held on to they are no longer territories of their metropole but independent states. I also like how you chose the US as an example to claim I must be joking. 1. The US territories existed in a time before our current technology which allows one to send drones to other planets 2. The US was heavily settled by the time it gained independence it could hardly be called a colony anymore at that point. 3. I said the foreseeable future, not indefinitely. Sure by the time there are millions of people on another world with their own economy, militias and legal tradition going back centuries that territory could make a bid for true independence but that won’t be the case for centuries at best. Any territory doing so anytime soon will seriously lack the industry and manpower to even hold their own territory against a large Earth based nation capable of colonizing other worlds. I think it is you who must be joking here
  - pdonis 5y ago
    > When territories are unable to be held on to they are no longer territories of their metropole but independent states. In other words, you redefine words to avoid admitting any flaws in your argument. The United States was a territory of the British Empire. The British Empire failed to "overrun" them when it got "upset enough" (your words). So your argument fails for this case. You can't change that by redefining words. > The US was heavily settled by the time it gained independence it could hardly be called a colony anymore at that point. Excuse me? Being "heavily settled" in no way prevents a place from being a territory of a foreign empire. The population of India during British rule was far larger than the population of the British colonies in North America in the 1770s. That didn't stop India from being a territory of the British Empire. > a large Earth based nation capable of colonizing other worlds Colonizing other worlds is a lot easier than controlling them from tens of millions of miles away once they're colonized. The former just takes enough people willing to make the trip and a spaceship that can make the journey. The latter takes the ability to project overwhelming military force across that distance, which is a lot harder. Also, I am not saying that, for example, a Mars colony must become independent. I'm simply saying that whether or not it does will depend on the motivations of the people in the colony. If those people remain loyal to Earth, the colony will. If those people stop being loyal to Earth, they will start acting independently, and there won't be a lot that Earth can do about it.
specialist 5y ago
Metropoles had some control over those governors who wanted to return home.

godelski 5y ago

I'm not convinced that's true. The New World exists for exactly this reason. The British were not able to sustain a war half a globe away with the Americans. It is incredibly expensive (hell, even the French supporting the US took a big hit). All a Martian colony would need to do is play guerilla warfare and wait it out. There's plenty of history to suggest that this is an effective strategy.

edgyquant 5y ago
Sure by the time there is a huge population of basically nations on Mars that may be the case but that isn’t in the foreseeable future. The New World existed as colonies for centuries before it had the ability to become independent and even then that more to do with Napoleon for South America and the rest of the world wanting to take Britain down a peg for. The US.
- pdonis 5y ago
  > The New World existed as colonies for centuries before it had the ability to become independent No, many of the British colonies had the ability to become independent fairly soon after being colonized. The key variable wasn't how capable the colonists were but how interested Britain was in controlling them, and that varied widely from colony to colony, depending on who in Britain had to exercise the control. Some, like the British peers who had ownership interests in New York and Virginia, were control freaks and wanted to exercise all sorts of detailed micromanagement of their colonies. Others, like Penn with Pennsylvania, basically let them do whatever they wanted and didn't bother much about it. And even in colonies like New York and Virginia, once you got away from the coastal cities or river ports that were easily accessible to British ships, the level of British control dropped drastically. The British couldn't do much at all about up-country backwoods farmers and trappers, who basically didn't care what the British or the colonial governments did since it couldn't really affect them. What didn't crystallize until the 1770s was the political unity between the colonies behind an explicit declaration of independence. Which was, in large part, a product of the British, after the end of the French and Indian War, deciding that the colonies had already gotten too independent and needed to be reminded that they were still British subjects. Which didn't work out very well. > that more to do with Napoleon for South America and the rest of the world wanting to take Britain down a peg All of which happened after the US had already become independent. So it's irrelevant when looking at how the US became independent. It is true that the British were still dealing with the French in Europe and that this limited their ability to project power in America during the US revolution. (The Americans also took full advantage of this by allying with France.) But that just illustrates my point: empires aren't omnipotent and can't just magically project power whenever and wherever they want to.

pdonis 5y ago

> the reason these territories respected the metropoles laws is because they were aware if they didn’t the metropole had the resources to overrun them if they were upset enough I don't think that's true, since, as godelski points out, in a salient historical case where the colonies did not respect the home empire's laws--the United States of America--the home empire did not have the resources to overrun them. The British ended up learning similar lessons in South Africa and India later on. I think the main reason colonial governments respected the home empire's laws is that the territorial governors and their personnel were loyal to the empire; they believed in the empire and its aims. When that loyalty goes away, as it did in the USA, the home empire can't do much about it. > The same will be true of any off world colony for the foreseeable future. You must be joking. If the British empire was unable to enforce its will on the United States, with only an ocean separating them, how could an Earth empire possibly enforce its will on a Mars colony, with tens of millions of miles of space separating them?

edgyquant 5y ago
This does not take away from what I’m saying, like at all. When territories are unable to be held on to they are no longer territories of their metropole but independent states. I also like how you chose the US as an example to claim I must be joking. 1. The US territories existed in a time before our current technology which allows one to send drones to other planets 2. The US was heavily settled by the time it gained independence it could hardly be called a colony anymore at that point. 3. I said the foreseeable future, not indefinitely. Sure by the time there are millions of people on another world with their own economy, militias and legal tradition going back centuries that territory could make a bid for true independence but that won’t be the case for centuries at best. Any territory doing so anytime soon will seriously lack the industry and manpower to even hold their own territory against a large Earth based nation capable of colonizing other worlds. I think it is you who must be joking here
- pdonis 5y ago
  > When territories are unable to be held on to they are no longer territories of their metropole but independent states. In other words, you redefine words to avoid admitting any flaws in your argument. The United States was a territory of the British Empire. The British Empire failed to "overrun" them when it got "upset enough" (your words). So your argument fails for this case. You can't change that by redefining words. > The US was heavily settled by the time it gained independence it could hardly be called a colony anymore at that point. Excuse me? Being "heavily settled" in no way prevents a place from being a territory of a foreign empire. The population of India during British rule was far larger than the population of the British colonies in North America in the 1770s. That didn't stop India from being a territory of the British Empire. > a large Earth based nation capable of colonizing other worlds Colonizing other worlds is a lot easier than controlling them from tens of millions of miles away once they're colonized. The former just takes enough people willing to make the trip and a spaceship that can make the journey. The latter takes the ability to project overwhelming military force across that distance, which is a lot harder. Also, I am not saying that, for example, a Mars colony must become independent. I'm simply saying that whether or not it does will depend on the motivations of the people in the colony. If those people remain loyal to Earth, the colony will. If those people stop being loyal to Earth, they will start acting independently, and there won't be a lot that Earth can do about it.

specialist 5y ago

Metropoles had some control over those governors who wanted to return home.