5 ms·

>> if you retroactively apply some national idea of "india" that was foreign to people living That is a colonial view point, surely the Indians traded with the

>> if you retroactively apply some national idea of "india" that was foreign to people living That is a colonial view point, surely the Indians traded with the Romans or the Ancient Greeks, they were distinctly seen as Indians/Hindus and I am sure the Indians were aware of it. >> the mughal empire As I mentioned, they are part of the Islamic expansionism. The "mughals" famously rallied around islam, extracted tributes and jiziya and also sent tributes to the caliph (in Afganistan/Iran?). >> very much Europe as well Until very recently much of the European wealth can be attributed to colonisation, territorial expansionism (Americas) & slavery. The trade at best can be described as mercantilism (checkout salt tax). I was just pointing out to the previous poster that the wealth of Ancient India/China can be attributed to trade and infrastructure, very much like the world today. And a lot of it including the royal jewels (subject in question) can be attributed to plunder, piracy or colonisation. So the idea that all kingdoms made their wealth through plunder is false. Plunder and mindless extraction are very efficient way to expand an empire, but not all empires are built that way and perhaps not very efficient or sustainable today.

barry-cotter 5y ago
> Until very recently much of the European wealth can be attributed to colonisation, territorial expansionism (Americas) & slavery. The trade at best can be described as mercantilism (checkout salt tax). Northern European growth went above trend for the rest of civilization starting in the 1300s, well before the Age of Exploration or colonization. Things accelerated with the Great Divergence, when the Industrial Revolution spread starting in the 1800s. Colonialism was a result of becoming rich and powerful far more than a cause. See the lack of effects on GDP per capita with losing an empire after WW2, or how Nordic countries were near as rich as Britain or Austria-Hungary as rich as Germany. > Accounting for the ‘Little Divergence’ What drove economic growth in preindustrial Europe, 1300-1800? > The Little Divergence is the process of differential economic growth within Europe in the period between 1300 and 1800, during which the North Sea Area developed into the most prosperous and dynamic part of the Continent. We test various hypotheses about the causes of the Little Divergence, using new data and focusing on trends in GDP per capita. The results are that institutional changes (in particular the rise of active Parliaments), human capital formation and structural change are the primary drivers of the growth that occurred, which contrast sharply with previous findings by Robert Allen (who however focused on real wages as dependent variable). We also test for the role of religion (the spread of Protestantism): this has affected human capital formation, but does not in itself have an impact on growth. Moreover, we find an insignificant effect of the land-labour ratio, which shows the limitations of the Malthusian model for understanding the Little Divergence. https://ideas.repec.org/p/ucg/wpaper/0046.html#:~:text=The%20Little%20Divergence%20is%20the%20process%20of%20differential,and%20focusing%20on%20trends%20in%20GDP%20per%20capita https://ideas.repec.org/p/ucg/wpaper/0046.html#:~:text=The%2....
- naruvimama 5y ago
  "Industrial revolution" started 4 years after the British setup trading ports in India, it took a really long time for the British to compete with Indian goods in spite of all the mercantilism. Revolution like Renaissance is often suggestive of a sudden explosion of new ideas, but in reality it requires an active transfer of knowledge or takes a really long time to establish. Successful colonisation can be attributed to the political unity brought about by the church, very much the same way Islam allowed the various Arab tribes to bring down the mighty Persian empire.
  - barry-cotter 5y ago
    The Arabs brought down the Persian Empire because they and the Eastern Romans had just spent 30 years at war before Muhammad led them out. Peace of exhaustion is not the best place to be in when a genius warlord shows up.
    - naruvimama 5y ago
      Similarly the Europeans showed up around the same time when the Islamic rule was in decline and the Maratha Empire & Sikh Empire had pretty much ended the Mughals. For quite sometime the East India company was working as a mercenary making deals with smaller kingdoms, the concentration of wealth from exports to Europe did give them the resources to initially run trading ports and eventually become the force behind the famed puppet rajas, often children. The Europeans rarely engaged in direct conflict until much later when they had amassed enormous power.
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    > "Industrial revolution" started 4 years after the British setup trading ports in India That's oddly specific. What starting date do you put on the Industrial Revolution, and why do you pick that exact starting date? I would have described the Industrial Revolution as a gradual process, building up over a century or so. What basis is there for picking one specific year and saying "that's the start"?
JetSetWilly 5y ago
> That is a colonial view point, surely the Indians traded with the Romans or the Ancient Greeks, they were distinctly seen as Indians/Hindus and I am sure the Indians were aware of it. An external group calling you "indians" is pretty thin cloth for saying that the Indian nation has a long history as a nation. Nobody is denying that people in an area often have cultural similarities. Similarly you will find ancient sources talking about "Africa" or "Europe" or "Asia" but it doesn't mean that these are all automatically nations, or that if someone in the future invents a nation in those locales - it doesn't mean that said nation has an ancient history as a nation - although there will be no shortage of people trying to retcon history like in India. > Until very recently much of the European wealth can be attributed to colonisation, territorial expansionism (Americas) & slavery. The trade at best can be described as mercantilism (checkout salt tax). I mean, this just isn't true. I have noticed when I have been in India that people there like to construct some fiction about how all the wealth in Britain or even Europe in general was stolen in some giant zero sum game from India. But in reality - many studies have really shown again and again that India was a prestige project that made some aristocrats wealthy but the overall impact on the UK was negative. A bit like with wars and occupations we see today - such as the recent gulf war - there's some who promote it, are influential, and even get wealthy, but the overall effect on the occupying country is a net negative economically.
- naruvimama 5y ago
  The Indian epics like Ramayana & Mahabharatha, talk about India as a whole, it is well known not only across current day India but is shared cultural heritage of several countries in the wider region like Indonesia or Thailand. Just as the Scandinavian countries share the Norse mythology. > like to construct some fiction about how all the wealth The only fiction is in the minds of colonial apologists, the coincidence of the impoverishment of India along with the rise of Europe is too hard to miss. > India was a prestige project You mean the Europeans funded hundreds of ships desperately to find an alternate trade route to India, for a prestige project? What next the whole colonisation & slavery was a prestige project to export human rights. The mercantile policies of the crown were very clear, banning the construction of ships or locomotives, taxing salt to such an extent that it was cheaper to import salt from Britain. While it is true that aristocrats became insanely rich, and very many Brits lived miserable lives far worse than in many princely states. It is merely due the rigid "class/caste" system that was prevalent in Europe esp. in Britain. Colonial wealth definitely played a singular role in making Europe wealthy today.

barry-cotter 5y ago

> Until very recently much of the European wealth can be attributed to colonisation, territorial expansionism (Americas) & slavery. The trade at best can be described as mercantilism (checkout salt tax). Northern European growth went above trend for the rest of civilization starting in the 1300s, well before the Age of Exploration or colonization. Things accelerated with the Great Divergence, when the Industrial Revolution spread starting in the 1800s. Colonialism was a result of becoming rich and powerful far more than a cause. See the lack of effects on GDP per capita with losing an empire after WW2, or how Nordic countries were near as rich as Britain or Austria-Hungary as rich as Germany. > Accounting for the ‘Little Divergence’ What drove economic growth in preindustrial Europe, 1300-1800? > The Little Divergence is the process of differential economic growth within Europe in the period between 1300 and 1800, during which the North Sea Area developed into the most prosperous and dynamic part of the Continent. We test various hypotheses about the causes of the Little Divergence, using new data and focusing on trends in GDP per capita. The results are that institutional changes (in particular the rise of active Parliaments), human capital formation and structural change are the primary drivers of the growth that occurred, which contrast sharply with previous findings by Robert Allen (who however focused on real wages as dependent variable). We also test for the role of religion (the spread of Protestantism): this has affected human capital formation, but does not in itself have an impact on growth. Moreover, we find an insignificant effect of the land-labour ratio, which shows the limitations of the Malthusian model for understanding the Little Divergence. https://ideas.repec.org/p/ucg/wpaper/0046.html#:~:text=The%20Little%20Divergence%20is%20the%20process%20of%20differential,and%20focusing%20on%20trends%20in%20GDP%20per%20capita https://ideas.repec.org/p/ucg/wpaper/0046.html#:~:text=The%2....

naruvimama 5y ago
"Industrial revolution" started 4 years after the British setup trading ports in India, it took a really long time for the British to compete with Indian goods in spite of all the mercantilism. Revolution like Renaissance is often suggestive of a sudden explosion of new ideas, but in reality it requires an active transfer of knowledge or takes a really long time to establish. Successful colonisation can be attributed to the political unity brought about by the church, very much the same way Islam allowed the various Arab tribes to bring down the mighty Persian empire.
- barry-cotter 5y ago
  The Arabs brought down the Persian Empire because they and the Eastern Romans had just spent 30 years at war before Muhammad led them out. Peace of exhaustion is not the best place to be in when a genius warlord shows up.
  - naruvimama 5y ago
    Similarly the Europeans showed up around the same time when the Islamic rule was in decline and the Maratha Empire & Sikh Empire had pretty much ended the Mughals. For quite sometime the East India company was working as a mercenary making deals with smaller kingdoms, the concentration of wealth from exports to Europe did give them the resources to initially run trading ports and eventually become the force behind the famed puppet rajas, often children. The Europeans rarely engaged in direct conflict until much later when they had amassed enormous power.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  > "Industrial revolution" started 4 years after the British setup trading ports in India That's oddly specific. What starting date do you put on the Industrial Revolution, and why do you pick that exact starting date? I would have described the Industrial Revolution as a gradual process, building up over a century or so. What basis is there for picking one specific year and saying "that's the start"?

JetSetWilly 5y ago

> That is a colonial view point, surely the Indians traded with the Romans or the Ancient Greeks, they were distinctly seen as Indians/Hindus and I am sure the Indians were aware of it. An external group calling you "indians" is pretty thin cloth for saying that the Indian nation has a long history as a nation. Nobody is denying that people in an area often have cultural similarities. Similarly you will find ancient sources talking about "Africa" or "Europe" or "Asia" but it doesn't mean that these are all automatically nations, or that if someone in the future invents a nation in those locales - it doesn't mean that said nation has an ancient history as a nation - although there will be no shortage of people trying to retcon history like in India. > Until very recently much of the European wealth can be attributed to colonisation, territorial expansionism (Americas) & slavery. The trade at best can be described as mercantilism (checkout salt tax). I mean, this just isn't true. I have noticed when I have been in India that people there like to construct some fiction about how all the wealth in Britain or even Europe in general was stolen in some giant zero sum game from India. But in reality - many studies have really shown again and again that India was a prestige project that made some aristocrats wealthy but the overall impact on the UK was negative. A bit like with wars and occupations we see today - such as the recent gulf war - there's some who promote it, are influential, and even get wealthy, but the overall effect on the occupying country is a net negative economically.

naruvimama 5y ago
The Indian epics like Ramayana & Mahabharatha, talk about India as a whole, it is well known not only across current day India but is shared cultural heritage of several countries in the wider region like Indonesia or Thailand. Just as the Scandinavian countries share the Norse mythology. > like to construct some fiction about how all the wealth The only fiction is in the minds of colonial apologists, the coincidence of the impoverishment of India along with the rise of Europe is too hard to miss. > India was a prestige project You mean the Europeans funded hundreds of ships desperately to find an alternate trade route to India, for a prestige project? What next the whole colonisation & slavery was a prestige project to export human rights. The mercantile policies of the crown were very clear, banning the construction of ships or locomotives, taxing salt to such an extent that it was cheaper to import salt from Britain. While it is true that aristocrats became insanely rich, and very many Brits lived miserable lives far worse than in many princely states. It is merely due the rigid "class/caste" system that was prevalent in Europe esp. in Britain. Colonial wealth definitely played a singular role in making Europe wealthy today.