Colonialism, Exploitation and Independence

[Samson]

So I doubt that the institutions
set up then were set up to benefit the masses (whether white or not) at all.

Perhaps my language was a bit simplistic. I shall reference my previous post and add more form the nobel committee:

The European colonization of vast swathes of the world led to significant transformations in the institutions of many regions and countries under their control. 6 Across their global empires, European countries implemented different institutions depending partly on how attractive it was for their citizens to settle in the colonies in large numbers. When initial conditions were such that migrants entered in large numbers, the colonial powers established institutions that were consistent with the interests of their nationals who settled in the new colonies. When the conditions deterred European settlements, the colonial powers instead maintained or introduced institutions that protected the interests of a small European elite and allowed Europeans to extract as much resources as possible.

What were these initial conditions? One component emphasized by the Laureates was the disease environment. In tropical areas, mortality among the settlers due to diseases such as malaria and yellow fever was high. Therefore, Europeans did not enter in large numbers, and, consequently, they had strong incentives to embark on an extractive colonization strategy. By contrast, in temperate areas – such as Canada and the United States – these diseases were not prevalent. Mortality was thus lower among the settlers, Europeans entered the colonies in larger numbers, and inclusive institutions, favoring the interests of the majority of the population, were more likely to be implemented. Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson (2001) argued that the disease environment at the time of colonization provides quasi-experimental variation since the direct impact on contemporary GDP is negligible primarily because of immunity in the local population.

Another component determining the colonization strategy was the size of the local population. It had two implications. First, in places with larger local populations, colonizers faced greater opposition; because of conflict, mortality among the settlers was high, and Europeans entered to a lesser extent. Second, where the local populations were large, the areas were prosperous. This meant there were plenty of resources for the colonizers to extract, and they designed institutions allowing them to exploit the indigenous population and capture as much of the resources – e.g., gold, silver, and sugar – as possible.

This reasoning has a striking implication: if institutions are important, colonized countries that were prosperous pre-colonization should be poorer today because they were more likely to be subject to bad institutions, featuring, e.g., little protection of property rights.

Reversal of Fortune

Settler mortality, institutions, and prosperity

 

[choxorn]

Has it never occurred to you that there were despots there before those evil white men arrived ?

Have you never come across Chaka as leader of the Zulus when playing Sid Meir's civilisation ?

Is there any evidence that the systems set up by colonial powers were more likely to result
in despots after the colonial powers quit, than the systems that existed before colonialisation.

"Hey guys did you know that... precolonial societies weren't always perfect? And had and continue to have problems that didn't get introduced by white people? Betcha didn't think of that one, huh, librul?"

I suspect that one of the lasting impacts of colonialism was that it more widely distributed the art
of writing, replacing limited folk memory,

The argument that despotism occurred where disease failed to wipe out the natives, permitting their
replacement by whites,

What the elite knew was that imposing its institutions where there was a very
strong preexisting native cultural identity was not popular and might be resisted.
I therefore suspect that the imposition of western rule and its institutions varied
greatly in intensity. Where there was a replacement English/French/Portuguese
/Spanish speaking population, home country institutions might have been applied
lock, stock and barrel. But elsewhere where the whites were a small minority,
accommodations with local power structures were made and colonial rule with
its imposition of western institutions was much more light touch in nature.

One can argue that the lighter touch meant that existing cultural attributes
survived colonialisation and therefore contributed to subsequent despotism.

The totality of the things you're saying sure are implying some unfortunate things about your opinions of non-white people there, buddy

 

[EnglishEdward]

@ Samson

Well IIRC the initial development of the British empire was based upon trade
rather than extraction, and the wars fought were mainly against rival European
colonising power to secure trading posts, routes and rights with the noted
exception of China which was invaded to secure the right to export opium to.
Yes, as the empire matured it sought to control resources e.g. grab gold from the Boers.

I certainly agree the colonizing empires didn't pay much respect to property rights
particularly when collectively vested in native villages or tribal grazing grounds.
But the colonised countries had the chance to rectify that upon independence.

Which countries do you think were more prosperous pre-colonisation ?

I suspect there is a degree of truth in that the impact of the west reduced prosperity
in some cases, but I suspect that was largely because an understanding of disease
and modern medicine reduced epidemic deaths enabling the population to grow
greatly until it had outstripped the supply of better quality grazing and agricultural land.

A case in point is Bangladesh whereby in the late 20th century Bengalis regularly
drowned when the low lying islands that they cultivated suffered monsoon flooding.
Three centuries ago, few of them, knowing the flooding risk, were foolish enough
to cultivate there, but population pressure resulted in them moving to unsafe areas.

 

[Lexicus]

Well IIRC the initial development of the British empire was based upon trade
rather than extraction,

The trade in question was the slave trade, just to keep our television viewers up to speed

 

[EnglishEdward]

There was plenty of other trade going on at the time.

 

[choxorn]

What's the ratio of buying and selling inanimate objects to buying and selling human beings that you'd consider as making the totality of the trade acceptable even if some of what they're trading is slaves?

 

[Lexicus]

There was plenty of other trade going on at the time.

Yes, trade in commodities like sugar, tobacco, cotton....wait, I'm being told these were produced by slave labor?

 

[Angst]

Yes, trade in commodities like sugar, tobacco, cotton....wait, I'm being told these were produced by slave labor?

don't forget the wonders of nutmeg and pepper! gets around the technicality of being called slave labour and just being a private army police state! ignore what happened to the workers.

oh. and the silver.

 

[Lexicus]

I suspect there is a degree of truth in that the impact of the west reduced prosperity
in some cases, but I suspect that was largely because an understanding of disease
and modern medicine reduced epidemic deaths enabling the population to grow
greatly until it had outstripped the supply of better quality grazing and agricultural land.

A case in point is Bangladesh whereby in the late 20th century Bengalis regularly
drowned when the low lying islands that they cultivated suffered monsoon flooding.
Three centuries ago, few of them, knowing the flooding risk, were foolish enough
to cultivate there, but population pressure resulted in them moving to unsafe areas.

This is also funny as hell considering there is an entire book, Late Victorian Holocausts, which shows how the British and other colonial empires justified the deaths of some tens of millions of people in the global south through Malthusian ideology.

None of this should be surprising. The kind of stuff EnglishEdward, Thorgalaeg, and Akka are posting about Spain, France, and England is exactly what we'd be reading about the Third Reich if they'd won the war.

 

[choxorn]

This is also funny as hell considering there is an entire book, Late Victorian Holocausts, which shows how the British and other colonial empires justified the deaths of some tens of millions of people in the global south through Malthusian ideology.

Hey come on now, let's be fair.

They also justified the deaths of millions of Irish people that way.

 

[Angst]

Hey come on now, let's be fair.

They also justified the deaths of millions of Irish people that way.

was about to say, ireland says hi

 

[EnglishEdward]

What's the ratio of buying and selling inanimate objects to buying and selling human beings that you'd consider as making the totality of the trade acceptable even if some of what they're trading is slaves?

In my view the slave trade can only be considered as partially acceptable as a lesser evil in so much as it was a more humane
alternative to the ritual or not slaying of all (including women and children) of a captured cities population in classical times.

And that particular dilemma did not occur with the triangular Atlantic slave trade, so the question has no relevance.

Yes, trade in commodities like sugar, tobacco, cotton....wait, I'm being told these were produced by slave labor?

They could have grown all that with paid labour. But the cheapskate would be aristocrats didn't want to pay. I'd even argue that paid
labour would likely have been more efficient. But the ordinary white man who went to the new world wanted to be a master not a worker.

This is also funny as hell considering there is an entire book, Late Victorian Holocausts, which shows how the British and other colonial empires justified the deaths of some tens of millions of people in the global south through Malthusian ideology.

The slave trade got going long before Malthus postulated his thinking, and was abolished by late Victorian times.

And by the way I am not justifying the deaths of anyone. It being history not something evil me is planning.

 

[EnglishEdward]

There is a distinction between an explanation and a justification.

 

[danjuno]

There is a distinction between an explanation and a justification.

You have repeatedly tried to downplay and suggest a benefit from colonization in this thread.

 

[EnglishEdward]

That is not a recognisable sentence.

 

[danjuno]

I misspelled one word. Now that I fixed it for you, are you actually going to respond to what I said?

 

[Angst]

There was plenty of other trade going on at the time.

this is a weird statement irt the core point, that the slave trade was huge, and had a huge economic impact. slave trade made for a huge growth.

i tried to google for choxorn's question (as in, actual relative economic proportions of slave trade vs ... regular trade) and instantly stumbled upon this paper which denotes a number of different problems and opinions etc etc but the tables at the end are important

https://github.com/eaderen/eaderen....derenoncourt_atlantic_slavery_europe_2024.pdf

View attachment 746155

cautious eyeballing shows slave trade meant a 10% log city population increase over not trading slaves

spoiler alert, 10% is big and showcases a massive proportional impact

edit attachment broke trying again

 

[EnglishEdward]

My prior core point was that the British empire was initially based upon trade.

My clarification was that the trade was not just about slaves.

That is not to deny the impact of the slave trade.

 

[choxorn]

In my view the slave trade can only be considered as partially acceptable as a lesser evil in so much as it was a more humane
alternative to the ritual or not slaying of all (including women and children) of a captured cities population in classical times.

And that particular dilemma did not occur with the triangular Atlantic slave trade, so the question has no relevance.

If the Atlantic Slave Trade can't be considered even partially acceptable why did you try and downplay it with "but they traded other things too!" Like, anyway you want to look at it, the British Empire was from the start built on exploitation to at least some degree.

 

[Akka]

None of this should be surprising. The kind of stuff EnglishEdward, Thorgalaeg, and Akka are posting about Spain, France, and England is exactly what we'd be reading about the Third Reich if they'd won the war.

Funny how I didn't defend anything about colonialism in my post, just pointed at the strangely selective blaming, and here I'm told that I'm a Third Reich equivalent.
Guess it just prove exactly my point.