4 ms·

They traded with, were allied and supported by, and now mutually benefitted by the economic and military union of Europe.

by yunohn 5y ago

daneel_w 5y ago
Ah, right, the proxy spoils of colonialism... I presume these nations' scientific, industrial and engineering prowess - of which none was built with slavery - had no bearing on anything. I don't understand how you can attribute so much guilt to not just the conquerors themselves but also to their neighbours, while at the same time discounting the creations and driving force of the great European minds of the past. It's a tiresome dichotomy and a sad, narrow perspective to view the world as nothing but oppressors and victims, and to always insist that the rich are rich only because they stole from the poor, and that all poor nations had been rich "if only history had been a tiny bit different".
- yunohn 5y ago
  I see that you’re taking personal offence, while disregarding simple research and common sense. > the proxy spoils of colonialism Yes, that’s a thing. Here’s an essay that I found with one Google search. It clearly illustrates exactly the kind of disillusionment in your stance. > The Swedish Crown, merchants, and political leadership shared a Eurocentric worldview and supported the right to conquer, dominate, and civilize in the name of superiority and technological advancement. But there was also a specifically Swedish twist to colonial ideology: Swedish neutrality turned out to be a strategic position and to offer competitive advantages in relation to colonial superpowers at war. When Britain and the Netherlands were fighting, Sweden exported cannons to the Dutch and iron for weaponry to the Brits. France could, when fighting Britain, rely on Swedish shipping of smuggled slaves, weaponry and other goods in the Caribbean. Also, hundreds of US trade ships managed to avoid customs by sailing under Swedish flag—and thus Sweden could maintain the lucrative Saint Barthélemy trade traffic. (https://unevenearth.org/2020/01/swedish-colonialist-neutrality/ https://unevenearth.org/2020/01/swedish-colonialist-neutrali...)
  - Jensson 5y ago
    Why was Sweden able to make advanced cannons that were useful in modern warfare (modern at the time)? If India or China could make such cannons they wouldn't have been defeated by a handful of European ships. They didn't use colonies or trade to do it, as the iron was mined in their own mines, they made the entire thing themselves.
    - yunohn 5y ago
      All of these questions are tangential to the unspoken racism in this thread. So what if Swedes mined their own iron? Did you read the rest of the essay? My point was about overall mutual enrichment in Europe, on the back of colonialism. There is ample material outside of my link that detail it further. Arguing that the victims could’ve armed themselves better, still doesn’t prove Sweden’s “innocence”. They mined their “own” iron to make “advanced” cannons to help the colonising kingdoms kill natives and enslave them.
      - Jensson 5y ago
        This isn't about innocence but about why Europe became rich. A large part of what made Europe rich was that they had much more advanced military technology and used said technology to take over the rest of the world. So then, how did they get so superior military technology? It wasn't colonialism, they didn't import guns from their colonies and the colonial powers weren't ahead of the rest of Europe in military technology.
        yunohn 5y ago
        Most of the framing in this HN post have been thinly-veiled racism attributing Europe’s success to things like survival in colder climates, working together unlike developing countries, having higher avg IQ - all of these reasons are easily debatable and most importantly without sources. If we focus on your post now, your core point is that Europe was better at military technology and hence could colonise better. Saying you could build weaponry doesn’t prove pre-wealth - it just means you could allocate Human Resources to weapon building whereas developing countries chose not to. And, if you research enough, you’ll see that the riches (that this post is talking about) came from a lot of colonialism and stealing. You don’t seem to address that from my post at all? I don’t understand the wealth or GDP argument at all tbh. We’re talking about a colonial pre-globalised economy world - wealth did not have an international standard, countries created money as they needed and then our modern society adopted a worldview wherein developed countries are valued less to keep them in eternal poverty. There is no basis for an Indian vs European GDP, when neither existed in that age and all trade was through colonial exploitation.

They traded with, were allied and supported by, and now mutually benefitted by the economic and military union of Europe.

by yunohn 5y ago

They traded with, were allied and supported by, and now mutually benefitted by the economic and military union of Europe.

daneel_w 5y ago

Ah, right, the proxy spoils of colonialism... I presume these nations' scientific, industrial and engineering prowess - of which none was built with slavery - had no bearing on anything. I don't understand how you can attribute so much guilt to not just the conquerors themselves but also to their neighbours, while at the same time discounting the creations and driving force of the great European minds of the past. It's a tiresome dichotomy and a sad, narrow perspective to view the world as nothing but oppressors and victims, and to always insist that the rich are rich only because they stole from the poor, and that all poor nations had been rich "if only history had been a tiny bit different".

yunohn 5y ago
I see that you’re taking personal offence, while disregarding simple research and common sense. > the proxy spoils of colonialism Yes, that’s a thing. Here’s an essay that I found with one Google search. It clearly illustrates exactly the kind of disillusionment in your stance. > The Swedish Crown, merchants, and political leadership shared a Eurocentric worldview and supported the right to conquer, dominate, and civilize in the name of superiority and technological advancement. But there was also a specifically Swedish twist to colonial ideology: Swedish neutrality turned out to be a strategic position and to offer competitive advantages in relation to colonial superpowers at war. When Britain and the Netherlands were fighting, Sweden exported cannons to the Dutch and iron for weaponry to the Brits. France could, when fighting Britain, rely on Swedish shipping of smuggled slaves, weaponry and other goods in the Caribbean. Also, hundreds of US trade ships managed to avoid customs by sailing under Swedish flag—and thus Sweden could maintain the lucrative Saint Barthélemy trade traffic. (https://unevenearth.org/2020/01/swedish-colonialist-neutrality/ https://unevenearth.org/2020/01/swedish-colonialist-neutrali...)
- Jensson 5y ago
  Why was Sweden able to make advanced cannons that were useful in modern warfare (modern at the time)? If India or China could make such cannons they wouldn't have been defeated by a handful of European ships. They didn't use colonies or trade to do it, as the iron was mined in their own mines, they made the entire thing themselves.
  - yunohn 5y ago
    All of these questions are tangential to the unspoken racism in this thread. So what if Swedes mined their own iron? Did you read the rest of the essay? My point was about overall mutual enrichment in Europe, on the back of colonialism. There is ample material outside of my link that detail it further. Arguing that the victims could’ve armed themselves better, still doesn’t prove Sweden’s “innocence”. They mined their “own” iron to make “advanced” cannons to help the colonising kingdoms kill natives and enslave them.
    - Jensson 5y ago
      This isn't about innocence but about why Europe became rich. A large part of what made Europe rich was that they had much more advanced military technology and used said technology to take over the rest of the world. So then, how did they get so superior military technology? It wasn't colonialism, they didn't import guns from their colonies and the colonial powers weren't ahead of the rest of Europe in military technology.
      - yunohn 5y ago
        Most of the framing in this HN post have been thinly-veiled racism attributing Europe’s success to things like survival in colder climates, working together unlike developing countries, having higher avg IQ - all of these reasons are easily debatable and most importantly without sources. If we focus on your post now, your core point is that Europe was better at military technology and hence could colonise better. Saying you could build weaponry doesn’t prove pre-wealth - it just means you could allocate Human Resources to weapon building whereas developing countries chose not to. And, if you research enough, you’ll see that the riches (that this post is talking about) came from a lot of colonialism and stealing. You don’t seem to address that from my post at all? I don’t understand the wealth or GDP argument at all tbh. We’re talking about a colonial pre-globalised economy world - wealth did not have an international standard, countries created money as they needed and then our modern society adopted a worldview wherein developed countries are valued less to keep them in eternal poverty. There is no basis for an Indian vs European GDP, when neither existed in that age and all trade was through colonial exploitation.