3 ms·

The insistence on explaining every successes of the UK/Europe with its colonies is politically orientated, not factual. It seems to be a common trope in India,

The insistence on explaining every successes of the UK/Europe with its colonies is politically orientated, not factual. It seems to be a common trope in India, I'd say intended for domestic political consumption. The industrial revolution and the birth of the modern economy were not caused by the colonies. Likewise, the decline of the UK's economy was not caused by the loss of colonies. Hence a single mention in the article, which discusses many reasons and potential reasons of the decline relative to the US and Germany (Germany never had a significant colonial empire and what it had was lost at the end of WWI).

surgical_fire 2y ago
> The industrial revolution and the birth of the modern economy were not caused by the colonies. Perhaps not directly, but the influx of gold and silver from Spanish and Portuguese colonies to Europe would later pump up the economy of other countries - such as England and Netherlands - that would eventually lead to things such as the industrial revolution. I'd say that rejecting that much of Europe's success during that time was a direct consequence of extracting a large amount of resources from oversea colonies is a common trope in Europe, perhaps for internal political consumption.
- mytailorisrich 2y ago
  A mountain of gold does not create the industrial revolution. I am not going to discuss further since, obviously, this is not a discussion but low value political argument... Edit: I would argue that European colonialism and the industrial revolution are both consequences of deep changes and innovations across all domains that started during the Renaissance (which means 'rebirth' in French) and that propelled Europe far ahead everyone else, hence global subjugation on the one hand, and the scientific and industrial revolution on the other.
  - surgical_fire 2y ago
    You are not going to discuss further because you lack arguments. Portugal and Spain, the first order beneficiaries of the mountains of gold and silver (among other resources) they extracted from America in 17th and 18th century were too busy playing colonialism to do anything else. Other nations in the region that did trade with them reaped the opportunity of having very wealthy neighbors that were happy to just spend their newfound wealth. Your argument was essentially "nahh, extracting a ridiculous amount of resources from massive overseas colonies had nothing to do with Europe's success".
    - MrBuddyCasino 2y ago
      Africa is poor despite being incredibly rich in natural resources, and they could easily feed themselves yet import > 70% of their calories. At which does this stop being the fault of colonialism?
      - surgical_fire 2y ago
        Let's pretend that Europe never exploited Africa for literal hundreds of years, and messed it up politically with borders that barely make any sense.
fmajid 2y ago
> The insistence on explaining every successes of the UK/Europe with its colonies is politically orientated, not factual. And where do you think the capital to fund all the investment came from? Colonization mostly benefited the elite at the expense of the state and majority of the people, but those are also the people able to invest. Now, if you meant that beyond the colonies we should not discount the role of obscene profits from slavery, foremost the royal family, then yes, I agree with you.

surgical_fire 2y ago

> The industrial revolution and the birth of the modern economy were not caused by the colonies. Perhaps not directly, but the influx of gold and silver from Spanish and Portuguese colonies to Europe would later pump up the economy of other countries - such as England and Netherlands - that would eventually lead to things such as the industrial revolution. I'd say that rejecting that much of Europe's success during that time was a direct consequence of extracting a large amount of resources from oversea colonies is a common trope in Europe, perhaps for internal political consumption.

mytailorisrich 2y ago
A mountain of gold does not create the industrial revolution. I am not going to discuss further since, obviously, this is not a discussion but low value political argument... Edit: I would argue that European colonialism and the industrial revolution are both consequences of deep changes and innovations across all domains that started during the Renaissance (which means 'rebirth' in French) and that propelled Europe far ahead everyone else, hence global subjugation on the one hand, and the scientific and industrial revolution on the other.
- surgical_fire 2y ago
  You are not going to discuss further because you lack arguments. Portugal and Spain, the first order beneficiaries of the mountains of gold and silver (among other resources) they extracted from America in 17th and 18th century were too busy playing colonialism to do anything else. Other nations in the region that did trade with them reaped the opportunity of having very wealthy neighbors that were happy to just spend their newfound wealth. Your argument was essentially "nahh, extracting a ridiculous amount of resources from massive overseas colonies had nothing to do with Europe's success".
  - MrBuddyCasino 2y ago
    Africa is poor despite being incredibly rich in natural resources, and they could easily feed themselves yet import > 70% of their calories. At which does this stop being the fault of colonialism?
    - surgical_fire 2y ago
      Let's pretend that Europe never exploited Africa for literal hundreds of years, and messed it up politically with borders that barely make any sense.

fmajid 2y ago

> The insistence on explaining every successes of the UK/Europe with its colonies is politically orientated, not factual. And where do you think the capital to fund all the investment came from? Colonization mostly benefited the elite at the expense of the state and majority of the people, but those are also the people able to invest. Now, if you meant that beyond the colonies we should not discount the role of obscene profits from slavery, foremost the royal family, then yes, I agree with you.