Al Qaeda calls a truce

[Sandman]

Corporations? Sorry, I don't see what this has to do with your point that British colonies are better off than had they not been conquered. It's perfectly clear that they could have developed without British conquest.

[Az]

Sandman, you're forgetting that without imperialism, there would be no technology to industrialize. That South America broke away, before industrializing, doesn't mean that imperialism had nothing to do with it's industrialization.

[Sandman]

I don't see imperialism as a necessary precondition to the development of industrial technology. Germany industrialised without an empire (and then wanted one when it finished). France, on the other hand, had a larger empire, and was less successful at industrialising. Spain and Portugal had empires, but they were backwards regardless.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Sandman
Corporations? Sorry, I don't see what this has to do with your point that British colonies are better off than had they not been conquered. It's perfectly clear that they could have developed without British conquest.

How?

[Kuciwalker]

The thing is that imperialism spread technology to the rest of the globe. Everyone else industrialized with Western technology.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Pax Africanus
I think the world would be better off with out the British Empire. I think the Roman Empire was beneficial to civilization. I'd have to think about all the others.

Remember that any vulnerable nation not colonized by the British would have been colonized by the Spanish, Portugese, Belgians, Germans, Italians or French.

1) It is estimated that some 60 to 70 million Indians died within a century of Columbus' first voyage. Many died of disease, but many also died from the direct actions of Europeans. The British didn't gain a foothold on the shores of the western hemisphere until after this catastrophe was nearly over.

2) Of the 20 million Africans who were taken off their native continent only about 5 to 10% were shipped towards English speaking Amercia. The rest were packed off towards French, Spanish or Portugese colonies or nations. The death rates for slaves in non-English speaking America were horrific. I believe that the mortality of slaves in pre-revolutionnary Haiti was annually 10 to 20%!

3) The British didn't win the subcontinent of India by the battle of Plessey, they won it the night before, when a British diplomat contacted the native allies of the French and promised them that if they deserted the French the East India Comapny would expel the Jesuits from their territories and not replace them with Christian missionaries of their own. The next day the Indians allowed the french to face the British and their allies alone. Thus the British were given control of India by the native rulers, Hindu and Muslim, who believed that accepting British rule was the surest means of preserving their cultures. Who knows but that they may have been right?

4) The British and most other European nations left Africa largely uncolonized until the 1880s. The decade following 1880 saw a mad rush of colonization largley triggered by a series of events. First there was the scandal of the horrific mistreatment of Africans by the Belgian Congo. European newspapers called for their governments to protect of Africans outside of the "Congo Free State" from Belgian expansion by the establishment of British, French, and German colonies. Second, there was the German land grab in East Africa, the ensuing near genocide of resisting natives, and again journalistic demands for the "protection" of natives from further expansion of Germanic colonization. As the nations of Europe found so called humanitarian reasons for extending their "protection" over various sections of Africa the trend became a race fueled by other motives, such as nationalism. There were scandals in British territories too, obviously. I doubt though that any British colony would have been better off under the rule of another European nation.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Kucinich
How?

Left unconquered, a reasonable portion of the nations Britain annexed could have done a 'Japan'. There would have been failures like Ethiopia or also-rans like the Ottomans and Persia, but some would have succeeded.

[Az]

I don't see imperialism as a necessary precondition to the development of industrial technology. Germany industrialised without an empire (and then wanted one when it finished). France, on the other hand, had a larger empire, and was less successful at industrialising. Spain and Portugal had empires, but they were backwards regardless.

Well, that doesn't prove anything, really. You'd have a point if the technologies wouldn't spread from power to power, but they did. The resources from the imperialism of the 16th, and the 17th centuries fueled the enlightenment, which gave birth to everything else, really.

[Sandman]

I don't see much of correlation between the enlightenment and empire. Why was there so much development in the city-states of Italy, who only benefitted second hand from Inca and Aztec gold? And they had already produced Michaelangelo, Leonardo and Machiavelli, before the Spanish had even finished consolidating their grip on the Aztec lands.

If imperialism was so important, Britain should have been horribly crippled by losing the 13 colonies in 1782. Instead it hardly missed a beat.

[Az]

Once again, you're tying the benefits and advantages of imperialism to a particular power. The colonization of the new world, for example, brought in new sorts of crops, and created a lot of new capital that was could be invested in completely new things back in the mainland. The colonies benefited Europe not because Europe controlled them, but by the virtue of their existance.

[Sandman]

Britain is important it's because where industrialization got started, and you seem to be arguing that early imperialism > enlightenment > industrialisation.

You don't need to go on a conquering spree to get new crops. And all that gold that the Spanish brought back from the Americas was frittered away on wars with the French, Dutch and Ottomans.

You're ignoring the improved agricultural technology of the time, and the resulting population growth in Europe itself, which did a lot for the economy. It was the European population, not the colonies, which were the main market for goods. And the colonies required heavy investment in troops and ships, blunting their economic benefits. Overseas trade was very important, but that is not the same thing as imperialism.

For the Weberians among us, there's also the role of the Protestant religion in making people more tolerant of business.

It's not as if Germany merely emulated British technology. They made advances themselves, and created the most formidable scientific establishment in the world. All without the aid of an empire.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Pax Africanus
I think the world would be better off with out the British Empire. I think the Roman Empire was beneficial to civilization. I'd have to think about all the others.

Yes, how awful of them to introduce parliamentary democracy, mass literacy and immunisation campaigns, emancipation for women, the banning of suttee, equality before the law, an unbiased judiciary, and so on.

Which is not to say that the British Empire was all good, but as even critics such as Rabindranath Tagore and George Orwell might agree, it was one of the least maleficent, taken all in all.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Sandman


Left unconquered, a reasonable portion of the nations Britain annexed could have done a 'Japan'. There would have been failures like Ethiopia or also-rans like the Ottomans and Persia, but some would have succeeded.

Those few areas of the non-European world which didn't get colonized by the Europeans managed to keep their freedom only because they were already organized into relatively sdtrong national structures and they lacked resources strongly desired by the Europeans. In some instances also the nations which kept their freedom did so because they managed to play the Europeans off against each other. Remember that until the late nineteenth century moving large armies around the world was virtually impossible. Conquest of the Americas, the Phillipines, and Indonesia was accomplished by incredibly small European forces. The conquest of India was accomplished primarily by native Indian armies. The Europeans didn't even bother with attempting to conquer Africa until the ninetheenth century because of its hostile climate and because its resources, slave and ivory could be adequately collected at trading posts.
The non-European nations which managed to remain "independent" were China, Japan, Thailand, Persia, the Ottoman empire, and Ethiopia. Of these China, Japan, Ethiopia, Thailand and Persia were too far from Europe for European powers to send forces of the size needed to attempt a conquest until the late 19th century by which time the rivalry among the great powers kept these nations free. Because also these areas had developed a significant measure of political unity they were not vulnerable to being conquered by proxy armies as was India. The Ottoman empire was still strong at the beginning of the Age of Discovery, but as it weakened rivalry among the Europeans again insured its independence.
The rest of the world was up for grabs. The Americas were certainly hotly contested by the Spanish, Portugese and French. The presence of the British wasn't required to bring both continents of the western hemisphere under European rule. India was also being nibbled at by the Portugese, Dutch, and french before the British arrived. The colonization of Africa was a rapid free-for all requiring less than a decade, and involving not only the usual suspects, France, Britain, Spain, and Portugal, but also including the relative new comers Belgium, Germany and Italy. Ethiopia alone initially managed to resist this invasion primarily due to covert assistance from Great Britain.

[Pax]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Yes, how awful of them to introduce parliamentary democracy, mass literacy and immunisation campaigns, emancipation for women, the banning of suttee, equality before the law, an unbiased judiciary, and so on.

Which is not to say that the British Empire was all good, but as even critics such as Rabindranath Tagore and George Orwell might agree, it was one of the least maleficent, taken all in all.

Your statement is B.S. the beneficiaries of the British Empire for the most part was only European i.e. white subjects of the empire. The proof is in the conditions that former non-white subjects lived in prior to independance and still live in today. Most of the benefits of imperialism flow towards the mother country. Even the concept of mass literacy is Bull. You take a native pop and teach them to read and write your language so they can be civilized i.e. learn what kind of tea to bring you. I doubt that the judiciary was unbiased. All information I have read points to the fact that a natives testimony was usually not worth a white man's testimony. Imperialism left a nasty legacy that we are still dealing with today. If you want an example just touch a spot on the continent of africa or south america.

[Dr Strangelove]

It's true that the benefits of British imperialism for its native subjects was largely in the minds of the Brits, but I think you have to concede that if the British had not colonized India and the various British colonies of Africa then someone else would have. The alternatives may not have been better. Had the British not won Plessy then the French might have dominated Indai and Hindu culture might have been snuffed out. Likewise the continent of Africa would probably not have been better off under Belgian, Dutch and German rule.