3 ms·

The fleets they were able to build in large quantities due to the places they had colonized providing long pine, cotton, and other materials they did not have a

The fleets they were able to build in large quantities due to the places they had colonized providing long pine, cotton, and other materials they did not have at home? "Local market value" - you mean under market value, because they were pressured or outright forced to by their colonizers? Bengal was one of the richest places in the world, with community owned and driven cotton farming providing wealth for a huge chunk of the population. Then, this "fair trade" with Britain somehow reduced them to poverty and starvation. Basically everywhere that Europeans colonized that already had wealth, commercial production, etc., saw all that wealth extracted from them, their standards of living drop precipitously, and just general widespread exploitation. Places they colonized that had raw materials, but did not have the same level of wealth or production of goods (Generally because environmental factors, such as lack of navigable waterways or large quantities of arable land, etc.) might have seen this pick up and gained glimpses of new technologies, but again were exploited by the Europeans to extract this wealth from them, and again at rates that would have been well below what would have been natural levels of value if they were to produce and trade things under different circumstances. The reality of the situation is that colonization is exploitative and has a track record of being universally a Bad Thing for the people being colonized. Over history colonization and conquering is hardly a uniquely European thing, but Europe was ascendant in what ended up being a window of opportunity, with the acceleration of scientific and technological progress allowing them colonize more disparate locations, capitalize on this trade, and ultimately create what is the modern world order. This isn't the first time that that story has played out, however, and I doubt it will be the last.

Jensson 5y ago
> The fleets they were able to build in large quantities due to the places they had colonized providing long pine, cotton, and other materials they did not have at home? > "Local market value" - you mean under market value, because they were pressured or outright forced to by their colonizers? There were centuries of peaceful trade between Bengal and Europe before the invasion and exploitation you talk about happened. During this time Bengal/India could have made their own ships and gotten the same wealth from trade, but they didn't. East Indian companies grew a lot of their value during this period, and ultimately became strong enough that they could outright conquer their trade partners and therefore get the goods for free. > Basically everywhere that Europeans colonized that already had wealth, commercial production, etc., saw all that wealth extracted from them I never denied that colonization was bad for the people in those areas. I just denied that the trade that happened was bad for the region or that it was unfair. When the European powers conquered the area and became rulers it was bad, but that means the conquest was bad not that the trade was bad. Before the conquest Bengal had benefited from the trade with European powers.

Jensson 5y ago

> The fleets they were able to build in large quantities due to the places they had colonized providing long pine, cotton, and other materials they did not have at home? > "Local market value" - you mean under market value, because they were pressured or outright forced to by their colonizers? There were centuries of peaceful trade between Bengal and Europe before the invasion and exploitation you talk about happened. During this time Bengal/India could have made their own ships and gotten the same wealth from trade, but they didn't. East Indian companies grew a lot of their value during this period, and ultimately became strong enough that they could outright conquer their trade partners and therefore get the goods for free. > Basically everywhere that Europeans colonized that already had wealth, commercial production, etc., saw all that wealth extracted from them I never denied that colonization was bad for the people in those areas. I just denied that the trade that happened was bad for the region or that it was unfair. When the European powers conquered the area and became rulers it was bad, but that means the conquest was bad not that the trade was bad. Before the conquest Bengal had benefited from the trade with European powers.