3 ms·

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

by 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.
      - Jensson 5y ago
        > 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? What riches? Were the homes in Sweden made by materials imported from colonies? Were the food they ate imported from colonies? Cotton clothes I can give you, but wool clothes were still the most common, and I doubt the entre society of Sweden were revolutionized thanks to cotton clothes. Potatoes were from colonies, but they were still home grown, the potatoes eaten in Sweden weren't stolen from anywhere. Precious metals aren't riches for a society, just riches for the elite, you can't eat or live in gold. England getting a lot of gold doesn't help Sweden in any way.
daneel_w 5y ago
"I see that you’re taking personal offence, while disregarding simple research and common sense." No, it's your arrogant blasé finger-pointing and insinuations of racism left and right that is offensive. I'm not a native European. I migrated here.

by yunohn 5y ago

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.
    - Jensson 5y ago
      > 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? What riches? Were the homes in Sweden made by materials imported from colonies? Were the food they ate imported from colonies? Cotton clothes I can give you, but wool clothes were still the most common, and I doubt the entre society of Sweden were revolutionized thanks to cotton clothes. Potatoes were from colonies, but they were still home grown, the potatoes eaten in Sweden weren't stolen from anywhere. Precious metals aren't riches for a society, just riches for the elite, you can't eat or live in gold. England getting a lot of gold doesn't help Sweden in any way.

daneel_w 5y ago

"I see that you’re taking personal offence, while disregarding simple research and common sense." No, it's your arrogant blasé finger-pointing and insinuations of racism left and right that is offensive. I'm not a native European. I migrated here.