6 ms·

Not once the word "colonization" appeared in that text.

rayiner 5y ago
Europe was able to colonize because it was already rich and technologically advanced. By 1700, more than 50 years before the British East India company came to control India, the UK had more than double the per capita GDP of India, and the Netherlands had more than quadrupled the per capita GDP of India. Note of course that India was already a colony at the time. The origin of Arabs is 8,000 miles away from where I was born, but I have an Arabic last name. Guess how that happened.
- jean_tta 5y ago
  Is it fair to compare the very small region that is England to the very large region that is India? A fairer comparison would be Europe vs India at the time, or England vs the most advanced region of India at the time. "The most advanced region of Europe" vs "the average region of India" is nitpicking.
pepperonipizza 5y ago
France mostly lost money with colonisation. Sure, there were some people getting rich from it. This is was more for the prestige than money. I can't say the same for the UK, not having read much on the economic of colonisation for them.
- realusername 5y ago
  What people don't get is at the time, the state power mattered more than companies, territorial expansion and reach was one of the prime goal.
  - eesmith 5y ago
    British and Dutch colonialism were public-private joint affairs. The VOC was the first company to raise capital by selling stocks. Jamestown (first permanent English settlement in the Americas) was settled by the London Company, under Crown charter. Compare that to the Spanish colonialism, where state power indeed mattered more than companies.
    - realusername 5y ago
      Yeah that's kind of the big difference I'd say between British and Dutch colonialism and French and Spanish colonialism. On the French empire, the state had almost all the power and territorial expansion was on everybody's mind. Not that makes it better but it's essential to bring it back in the context.
- eesmith 5y ago
  How much money did France lose from its colony in Haiti? Oh right - Haiti was forced to pay for all the property France last. Including paying the former slave-masters whose slaves had been freed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haiti_indemnity_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haiti_indemnity_controversy I trust you aren't including that payment as part the money actually lost to France. Did France ever pay back the damages they did to Guinea before leaving? > In Guinea, for example, the French destroyed everything they could not take back to their country. They burned food, killed cows, and destroyed buildings and books. These outrageous actions were all because Guinea wanted independence. - https://afritechnews.com/french-colonial-tax/ https://afritechnews.com/french-colonial-tax/ > In response to the vote for independence, the French settlers in Guinea were quite dramatic in severing ties with Guinea. The Washington Post observed how brutal the French were in tearing down all that they thought were their contributions to Guinea: "In reaction, and as a warning to other French-speaking territories, the French pulled out of Guinea over a two-month period, taking everything they could with them. They unscrewed lightbulbs, removed plans for sewage pipelines in Conakry, the capital, and even burned medicines rather than leave them for the Guineans." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinea#Independence_(1958) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinea#Independence_(1958) How are those counted for in your bookkeeping? Several African countries are still paying for the infrastructure France built during colonization - infrastructure that of course was forced on them. And France forced its ex-colonies to give France economic advantages that persis, like "France has the first right to purchase any natural resources discovered." and "French companies have dibs on all government procurement bids" - https://afritechnews.com/french-colonial-tax/ https://afritechnews.com/french-colonial-tax/ . Are you tracking those on your balance sheet? Finally, how much money did France lose in French Indochina, a colonie d'exploitation économique, and where did it go?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- zouhair 5y ago
  Any sources?
  - pepperonipizza 5y ago
    If you can read french https://www.google.com/amp/s/lexpansion.lexpress.fr/actualite-economique/les-couteuses-colonies-de-la-france_1414563.amp.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/lexpansion.lexpress.fr/actualit... Otherwise google do agood job with french translation
dahfizz 5y ago
Colonization requires advanced fleets, weaponry, and economy. Colonization is a result of Europe's explosive economic growth, not a cause.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  The clickbait title is poorly worded. The actual title should be "How Europe became the most scientifically advanced part of the world" as that's what's discussed.
- Synaesthesia 5y ago
  The weaponry and fleets were advanced. But Europe was still not wealthier or more advanced than the Middle East, or East Asia as a culture.
  - Amezarak 5y ago
    What does 'advanced' mean in this context?
dsnr 5y ago
Which means the author has managed to look past the most superficial and simplistic answers and current political fads.
- commandlinefan 5y ago
  No small feat - first, to have the intellect to do so, and second the courage.
- cthalupa 5y ago
  I don't think the answer is nearly as simple as "Because Colonialism!", but if it is not discussed at all, then you have to wonder if they don't have the exact same issue you are claiming they are avoiding, but only from the opposite side. Europe is not the only continent to have been extremely wealthy, and to claim that they did not extract significant wealth from other countries via outright force as well as projection of power, then you are performing quite a lot of revisions on history. You'll note that I am not claiming that Europe is the only culture to practice colonialism or that they are uniquely evil for doing so - war has been a universal constant in humanity no matter the geographic region. I don't think Europe is more immoral for doing it other countries than anyone doing the same to those in their own country. China has a long history of wars of secession and unification, and I doubt the fact that the people that started the wars were of what we would today call the same nationality was any comfort to those that had their lives ruined or family members killed. But to ignore the fact that massive quantities of wealth were extracted by European colonialism is absurd. The Dutch East India Company would be worth nearly 8 trillion USD at today's rates. The British East India Company is a bit harder to figure accurately, due to how intertwined it was with the Crown, as well as how much of the earnings left the company nearly immediately for private coffers, and the outrageous level of expenditures during it's period of de facto government in British India. But it made up half of the world's trade for a period - and made quite a lot of Europeans very very rich. If this trade was fair, and not an extraction of wealth, you would have seen this create similar levels of benefits to both parties - but this is plainly not the case. You simply can't ignore this when trying to answer the question the article claims to be tackling. It's not the sole answer - and there are certainly a multitude of questions around how it came to be that European countries were so brutally "effective" at colonizing - but even if you have decided you want to write an article that focuses on the other factors, it's the sort of thing you really should disclaim and provide at least a basic background on. Not doing so provides a very flawed picture of the situation, regardless of whether it was done with the intent to create said picture.
gonzo41 5y ago
That's a big oversight. I guess the best way to understand why Europe is rich is to know the history of the Dutch East India company and their tactics in securing their wealth.
twoneurons 5y ago
Explaining differences between "North" and "South" through colonial exploitation is a traditional "coping mechanism" of those with inferiority complex. The "South" benefited massively from transfers of technology from the North. The North benefited with ....?
7952 5y ago
I think biology played a bigger part than just colonization itself. Europe went to the Americas and brought back potatos and a substantial boost in calorie production compared to wheat. Alongside corn, tomatoes, sweet potato. The Americas got smallpox, chickenpox, malaria, typhoid, and a host of other diseases. Europe was much better placed to benefit from this exchange of organisms because of better disease resistance. Northern European farms could grow potato and free up labour to work in factories.
estaseuropano 5y ago
Europe was a backwater of global affairs for millennia, with essentially all wealth moving through different steps further east to China. Then advances in weaponry and shipbuilding enabled it to subject others and extract vast amounts of wealth for ca 150 years (colonialism/imperialism/slavery and mercantilism), which ended about 80-100 years ago. Nothing has managed to fully destroy the advantage since then as technology builds cumulatively, but the traditional superpower china is on the way back up.
newaccount2021 5y ago
Or slavery in the Americas, which was also instituted and implemented by Europeans
- johnp314 5y ago
  Slavery existed since the dawn of civilization. The Egyptians used slave labor as did essentially all other ancient empires. Slavery existed in Africa well before 'Europeans' came along offering a market.
- pvaldes 5y ago
  Well, neither Mayans, not Aztecs needed Europeans at all to introduce the concept of slaves in their societies (or help to sacrifice them to their gods).
yunohn 5y ago
> The Indian subcontinent and the Middle East were fragmented for much of their history, and Africa even more so, yet they did not experience a Great Enrichment. They had an opportunity to explain why the colonised lands didn’t experience a “Great Enrichment”, but they chose to completely ignore most of history.

Europe was able to colonize because it was already rich and technologically advanced. By 1700, more than 50 years before the British East India company came to control India, the UK had more than double the per capita GDP of India, and the Netherlands had more than quadrupled the per capita GDP of India. Note of course that India was already a colony at the time. The origin of Arabs is 8,000 miles away from where I was born, but I have an Arabic last name. Guess how that happened.

jean_tta 5y ago
Is it fair to compare the very small region that is England to the very large region that is India? A fairer comparison would be Europe vs India at the time, or England vs the most advanced region of India at the time. "The most advanced region of Europe" vs "the average region of India" is nitpicking.

pepperonipizza 5y ago

France mostly lost money with colonisation. Sure, there were some people getting rich from it. This is was more for the prestige than money. I can't say the same for the UK, not having read much on the economic of colonisation for them.

realusername 5y ago
What people don't get is at the time, the state power mattered more than companies, territorial expansion and reach was one of the prime goal.
- eesmith 5y ago
  British and Dutch colonialism were public-private joint affairs. The VOC was the first company to raise capital by selling stocks. Jamestown (first permanent English settlement in the Americas) was settled by the London Company, under Crown charter. Compare that to the Spanish colonialism, where state power indeed mattered more than companies.
  - realusername 5y ago
    Yeah that's kind of the big difference I'd say between British and Dutch colonialism and French and Spanish colonialism. On the French empire, the state had almost all the power and territorial expansion was on everybody's mind. Not that makes it better but it's essential to bring it back in the context.
eesmith 5y ago
How much money did France lose from its colony in Haiti? Oh right - Haiti was forced to pay for all the property France last. Including paying the former slave-masters whose slaves had been freed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haiti_indemnity_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haiti_indemnity_controversy I trust you aren't including that payment as part the money actually lost to France. Did France ever pay back the damages they did to Guinea before leaving? > In Guinea, for example, the French destroyed everything they could not take back to their country. They burned food, killed cows, and destroyed buildings and books. These outrageous actions were all because Guinea wanted independence. - https://afritechnews.com/french-colonial-tax/ https://afritechnews.com/french-colonial-tax/ > In response to the vote for independence, the French settlers in Guinea were quite dramatic in severing ties with Guinea. The Washington Post observed how brutal the French were in tearing down all that they thought were their contributions to Guinea: "In reaction, and as a warning to other French-speaking territories, the French pulled out of Guinea over a two-month period, taking everything they could with them. They unscrewed lightbulbs, removed plans for sewage pipelines in Conakry, the capital, and even burned medicines rather than leave them for the Guineans." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinea#Independence_(1958) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinea#Independence_(1958) How are those counted for in your bookkeeping? Several African countries are still paying for the infrastructure France built during colonization - infrastructure that of course was forced on them. And France forced its ex-colonies to give France economic advantages that persis, like "France has the first right to purchase any natural resources discovered." and "French companies have dibs on all government procurement bids" - https://afritechnews.com/french-colonial-tax/ https://afritechnews.com/french-colonial-tax/ . Are you tracking those on your balance sheet? Finally, how much money did France lose in French Indochina, a colonie d'exploitation économique, and where did it go?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
zouhair 5y ago
Any sources?
- pepperonipizza 5y ago
  If you can read french https://www.google.com/amp/s/lexpansion.lexpress.fr/actualite-economique/les-couteuses-colonies-de-la-france_1414563.amp.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/lexpansion.lexpress.fr/actualit... Otherwise google do agood job with french translation

dahfizz 5y ago

Colonization requires advanced fleets, weaponry, and economy. Colonization is a result of Europe's explosive economic growth, not a cause.

ethbr0 5y ago
The clickbait title is poorly worded. The actual title should be "How Europe became the most scientifically advanced part of the world" as that's what's discussed.
Synaesthesia 5y ago
The weaponry and fleets were advanced. But Europe was still not wealthier or more advanced than the Middle East, or East Asia as a culture.
- Amezarak 5y ago
  What does 'advanced' mean in this context?

dsnr 5y ago

Which means the author has managed to look past the most superficial and simplistic answers and current political fads.

commandlinefan 5y ago
No small feat - first, to have the intellect to do so, and second the courage.
cthalupa 5y ago
I don't think the answer is nearly as simple as "Because Colonialism!", but if it is not discussed at all, then you have to wonder if they don't have the exact same issue you are claiming they are avoiding, but only from the opposite side. Europe is not the only continent to have been extremely wealthy, and to claim that they did not extract significant wealth from other countries via outright force as well as projection of power, then you are performing quite a lot of revisions on history. You'll note that I am not claiming that Europe is the only culture to practice colonialism or that they are uniquely evil for doing so - war has been a universal constant in humanity no matter the geographic region. I don't think Europe is more immoral for doing it other countries than anyone doing the same to those in their own country. China has a long history of wars of secession and unification, and I doubt the fact that the people that started the wars were of what we would today call the same nationality was any comfort to those that had their lives ruined or family members killed. But to ignore the fact that massive quantities of wealth were extracted by European colonialism is absurd. The Dutch East India Company would be worth nearly 8 trillion USD at today's rates. The British East India Company is a bit harder to figure accurately, due to how intertwined it was with the Crown, as well as how much of the earnings left the company nearly immediately for private coffers, and the outrageous level of expenditures during it's period of de facto government in British India. But it made up half of the world's trade for a period - and made quite a lot of Europeans very very rich. If this trade was fair, and not an extraction of wealth, you would have seen this create similar levels of benefits to both parties - but this is plainly not the case. You simply can't ignore this when trying to answer the question the article claims to be tackling. It's not the sole answer - and there are certainly a multitude of questions around how it came to be that European countries were so brutally "effective" at colonizing - but even if you have decided you want to write an article that focuses on the other factors, it's the sort of thing you really should disclaim and provide at least a basic background on. Not doing so provides a very flawed picture of the situation, regardless of whether it was done with the intent to create said picture.

gonzo41 5y ago

That's a big oversight. I guess the best way to understand why Europe is rich is to know the history of the Dutch East India company and their tactics in securing their wealth.

twoneurons 5y ago

Explaining differences between "North" and "South" through colonial exploitation is a traditional "coping mechanism" of those with inferiority complex. The "South" benefited massively from transfers of technology from the North. The North benefited with ....?

7952 5y ago

I think biology played a bigger part than just colonization itself. Europe went to the Americas and brought back potatos and a substantial boost in calorie production compared to wheat. Alongside corn, tomatoes, sweet potato. The Americas got smallpox, chickenpox, malaria, typhoid, and a host of other diseases. Europe was much better placed to benefit from this exchange of organisms because of better disease resistance. Northern European farms could grow potato and free up labour to work in factories.

estaseuropano 5y ago

Europe was a backwater of global affairs for millennia, with essentially all wealth moving through different steps further east to China. Then advances in weaponry and shipbuilding enabled it to subject others and extract vast amounts of wealth for ca 150 years (colonialism/imperialism/slavery and mercantilism), which ended about 80-100 years ago. Nothing has managed to fully destroy the advantage since then as technology builds cumulatively, but the traditional superpower china is on the way back up.

newaccount2021 5y ago

Or slavery in the Americas, which was also instituted and implemented by Europeans

johnp314 5y ago
Slavery existed since the dawn of civilization. The Egyptians used slave labor as did essentially all other ancient empires. Slavery existed in Africa well before 'Europeans' came along offering a market.
pvaldes 5y ago
Well, neither Mayans, not Aztecs needed Europeans at all to introduce the concept of slaves in their societies (or help to sacrifice them to their gods).

yunohn 5y ago

> The Indian subcontinent and the Middle East were fragmented for much of their history, and Africa even more so, yet they did not experience a Great Enrichment. They had an opportunity to explain why the colonised lands didn’t experience a “Great Enrichment”, but they chose to completely ignore most of history.