3 ms·
Colonialism succeeded for several centuries largely because the invading powers had better weapons than the defending nations. The nations that most rapidly ad
by photochemsyn 4y ago
Colonialism succeeded for several centuries largely because the invading powers had better weapons than the defending nations. The nations that most rapidly adopted the technologies of the colonial powers (ex: Japan) suffered the least from the deprivations of colonialism.
As far as why technological development boomed in Europe, that's not really a story of political ideology, sociocultural norms, or anything like that. For example, the invention of the blast furnance by German ironworkers c. 1300, was probably a key event. Add in the importation of gunpowder from China, and you had the world's most powerful weapons, such as ship-borne cannons.
A lot of history is just blind chance, as well. Manifest destiny claims about the inevitability of history and superior civilizational strategy aren't very interesting, other than as social propaganda aimed at justifying more expansionist warfare.
- rufus_foreman 4y ago>> Add in the importation of gunpowder from China But why wasn't China able to take advantage of gunpowder? They invented it. They had the worlds most powerful navy at a point in time that they also had the advantage of gunpowder. But Europe ended up with all the power. How did that happen?
- slyall 4y agoThat story is enough for a whole collection of books... But one explanation is that China didn't see the need to grow or improve their technology. They could afford to stay stagnant or even suppress technology because they didn't have major threats from nearby states. Whereas if France/Britain/Italy/etc had done the same they would have been conquered by their neighbors.
- xyzzy123 4y agoI consider political systems, language, cultural institutions, religion, values, educational practices, sports and so on to be social technologies. Functional institutions and political systems, trust, capacity for co-operation etc are social capital, which had to be built up and developed. An explanation which ties everything to resources, hardware and luck is "nice" in that it means we can cleanly ignore any possible value judgements about social technologies, which are a sensitive topic.
- chmod600 4y ago"suffered the least from the deprivations of colonialism" Economically speaking, colonialism was in many cases a major advantage to the colony, not universally a deprivation. The US, Canada, Australia, etc., all did quite well during or after a period as a colony. (This is not intended as a moral statement, merely an economic one, which is the topic of the article.)
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- unmole 4y ago> The US, Canada, Australia, etc., all did quite well during or after a period as a colony. Well, that depends on your definition of colony. The settlers did well, the indigenous people that were displaced experienced deprivation and worse.
- chmod600 4y agoI browsed a number of definitions of "colony" and none seem to include displaced indigenous people. Some definitions seem to focus on the emigrants (and descendents), and some definitions are more about the region being colonized. But the displaced (or killed) people are neither. The comment to which I replied was talking about weapon superiority. If by "deprivations of colonialism" it meant the indigenous people being deprived, then it would make a lot more sense to say "deprivations of invasion". But that's not saying much: that better weapons are more effective at invasion.
- banannaise 4y agoThis definition of "colony" refers exclusively to the colonizers, not the colonized. At this point you're just saying that colonialism sometimes works out very well for the colonizers, which is no longer a counterpoint to what you're responding to.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]