| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Empires and Colonialism
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Empires and Colonialism

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
Author
Parnell View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Location: Barcelona
Status: Offline
Points: 3227
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Empires and Colonialism
    Posted: 06 Dec 2009 at 16:40
I'm reading Ferguson's book on the British Empire at the moment and I think he makes several good points. While not overlooking the atrocities and hypocrisy of the British 'Empire of Liberty' I think he does a good rehabiliation, showing the Empire for it was and removing a lot of the hyperbole that inevitably gets lost in any conversation about it.

Ones position on Empire will necessarily be constrained by ones politics; a political conservative might see the attempt as noble, but misguided; a political liberal might see the benefits of Empire (Such as common markets, investment, making the spread of ideas global) while also detesting the evils which it entails (Such as enslavement and exploitation) while I don't think we need to go into detail about how a socialist would view it.

The question I'm positing isn't so much as whether the Empire was 'good' or 'bad', but in asking that if the Empire was a product of its times, is it really necessary for former European Empires to maintain a constant self flagellating approach to its past? There were good and bad examples; Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the U.S. and Latin America all spawn from Empires; yet Africa and the Indian subcontinent faced their fair share of exploitation and war as a result. If, for example, the western Empires did not 'carve' Africa up for itself, would that continent still be the dark place of myth and legend? You can drive the question further back into European antiquity - if Ancient Greece, for example, didn't spread her colonies across the Mediterranean, would we have the world we have today? Conquest and expansion is a recurring historical theme and without it it is difficult to image a world with progressive ideals; how do ideas spread if not by the sword, in an age where writing was the preserve of the learned few?

And so on and so forth...
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Location: Barcelona
Status: Offline
Points: 3227
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Dec 2009 at 16:42
I should also add that I'm not an apologist of Empire or colonialism, I'm just curious about its cause and effect.
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw
Back to Top
Wulfstan View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 15 Feb 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 26
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Wulfstan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Dec 2009 at 20:17
In the second half of  Nineteenth Century The British Government couldn`t get rid of at least some of its colonies fast enough, urging Australia, New Zealand, and Canada to become self-governing. In fact, there was an attempt in 1878-79 to force a confederation on South Africa to reduce the financial burden of the military presence there. Indirectly this led to the Zulu War, a conflict the British Government didn`t want and tried damn hard to avoid.
 
The Empire certainly grew during this period, but it was by default rather than by design. 


Edited by Wulfstan - 06 Dec 2009 at 20:18
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7830
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Dec 2009 at 22:52
A self governing colony is not independent of the Empire, in fact in many respects it consolidated it. So I don't think you can say that Britain was trying to get rid of its colonies at all.
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

If, for example, the western Empires did not 'carve' Africa up for itself, would that continent still be the dark place of myth and legend?

It wasn't before Imperial Europe attacked it - not even to the Europeans - so I don't see why it would be if they never attacked.
What the Empires gave to Africa remains to be seen
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Location: Barcelona
Status: Offline
Points: 3227
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Dec 2009 at 12:48
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

A self governing colony is not independent of the Empire, in fact in many respects it consolidated it. So I don't think you can say that Britain was trying to get rid of its colonies at all.
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

If, for example, the western Empires did not 'carve' Africa up for itself, would that continent still be the dark place of myth and legend?

It wasn't before Imperial Europe attacked it - not even to the Europeans - so I don't see why it would be if they never attacked.
What the Empires gave to Africa remains to be seen
 
You're right actually, I'm sorry about. Talk about Eurocentrism! Scrap the African comment.
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Dec 2009 at 13:50
I own Ferguson's book and have read it fully. It is a fair analysis of the hows and whys of the British Empire, avoiding the rampant demonisation it receives today and the lofty and propagandistic praise it once heaped upon itself during the Victorian era.

If it had shortcomings in discussing its morality, then it would probably be that it was not qualitative compared with the other exploitative empires of the time around the world.

I think Ferguson's work is helpful in directing historical study towards a balanced view of empire based on facts. Rather than the typical demonisation or unbridled praise by way of selective quotes and facts, which many studying the history of empires will use instead due to their political passions.
Back to Top
Wulfstan View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 15 Feb 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 26
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Wulfstan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Dec 2009 at 19:38
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

A self governing colony is not independent of the Empire, in fact in many respects it consolidated it. So I don't think you can say that Britain was trying to get rid of its colonies at all.
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

If, for example, the western Empires did not 'carve' Africa up for itself, would that continent still be the dark place of myth and legend?

It wasn't before Imperial Europe attacked it - not even to the Europeans - so I don't see why it would be if they never attacked.
What the Empires gave to Africa remains to be seen
 
Omar:
 
Canada, Australia, and New Zealand developed from self-governing colonies into dominions, in effect independent states. Originally, Canada, the first dominion, was to have been styled a kingdom, but owing to the republican sensitiveness of the USA the term "Dominion" was used instead. And being independent, it allowed the mother country, the UK, to reduce or remove any military presence. These dominions, in fact, declared war in 1914 on Germany quite separately from the United Kingdom. They could technically have opted for neutrality had they wished.
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Location: Barcelona
Status: Offline
Points: 3227
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Dec 2009 at 16:43
Originally posted by Wulfstan Wulfstan wrote:

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

A self governing colony is not independent of the Empire, in fact in many respects it consolidated it. So I don't think you can say that Britain was trying to get rid of its colonies at all.
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

If, for example, the western Empires did not 'carve' Africa up for itself, would that continent still be the dark place of myth and legend?

It wasn't before Imperial Europe attacked it - not even to the Europeans - so I don't see why it would be if they never attacked.
What the Empires gave to Africa remains to be seen
 
Omar:
 
Canada, Australia, and New Zealand developed from self-governing colonies into dominions, in effect independent states. Originally, Canada, the first dominion, was to have been styled a kingdom, but owing to the republican sensitiveness of the USA the term "Dominion" was used instead. And being independent, it allowed the mother country, the UK, to reduce or remove any military presence. These dominions, in fact, declared war in 1914 on Germany quite separately from the United Kingdom. They could technically have opted for neutrality had they wished.
Exactly. Ireland in 1939 was a dominion of the British Empire but remained neutral during WWII.
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw
Back to Top
es_bih View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 6381
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote es_bih Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Dec 2009 at 17:57
Yes, and all those mentioned had European governing classes at least, most specifically British ones, or if you want it in a crude way "white." 

India nor any of the other colonies enjoyed such freedom. 

Lets keep things in perspective here, as the thread was intended to be.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Dec 2009 at 18:48
Originally posted by es_bih es_bih wrote:

Yes, and all those mentioned had European governing classes at least, most specifically British ones, or if you want it in a crude way "white." 

India nor any of the other colonies enjoyed such freedom. 

Lets keep things in perspective here, as the thread was intended to be.
 
You nailed it.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Dec 2009 at 18:50
Check your calendar, Parnell! There never was such a creature as the "Dominion of Ireland". While the Brits may muse over "dominion" status as a description of the 1922 arrangement, no Irish politician worth his salt ever uttered such a term! DeValera's Constitution of 1937 abolished any veneer of British sovereignty and the 1948 Republic of Ireland Act finally jettisoned Commonwealth pretensions. In a way, I believe Irish participation in the European Union is but a means to finally put paid to a "Kingdom of Northern Ireland"...
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Dec 2009 at 18:55
"Governing classes" pray tell what is that? A soldier or an administrative pencil pusher in the boonies being considered a "governing class" is a rather loose definition. Scratch the Hindi temple and you'd be hard put to find any European in the true socio-economic mortar. Rudyard Kipling made his fortune writing about India not governing it...this is what comes of too much BBC melodrama.

Edited by drgonzaga - 08 Dec 2009 at 18:59
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7830
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Dec 2009 at 23:42
Originally posted by Wulfstan Wulfstan wrote:

Canada, Australia, and New Zealand developed from self-governing colonies into dominions, in effect independent states. Originally, Canada, the first dominion, was to have been styled a kingdom, but owing to the republican sensitiveness of the USA the term "Dominion" was used instead. And being independent, it allowed the mother country, the UK, to reduce or remove any military presence. These dominions, in fact, declared war in 1914 on Germany quite separately from the United Kingdom. They could technically have opted for neutrality had they wished.

The idea that they could or would have remain neutral is pure intellectualism. No-one would ever have even considered the possibility.
"If war should come, Britain is pledged to stand by France, and if Britain is at war, Australia is at war." ~ Canberra Times, Monday 12th September 1938.
And that's from WW2.
There was no such thing as Australian citizenship until 1949 - everybody was simply "British subjects". In 1920 an act was passed clarifiing that Australians had the same nationality as all other commonwealth countires. A canadian and an australian had the same nationality.
Canada attempted to abolish appeals to the Privy Council in 1875, and was promotly overruled, because the Canadian parliament was not allowed to repeal imperial legislation. It wasn't until 1931 that canada was allowed by westminster to abolish the council, and it wasn't until 1949 that it started. (The last case in 1959)
Australia abolish appeals in 1975 from federal courts, and from state courts in 1986. New Zealand abolish it in 2003!

UK Military presence wasn't removed from self-governing colonies, the presence was transferred to local control, and even then, to this day the British and Australian armies are on the same command structure. A British officer can outrank and command an Australian one in an Australian regiment.

Is this the behaviour of independent countries? No. Technically, none of the three countries is independent from Britain. The last independence vote in Australia (1998) was defeated. Realistically, there has been effective independence since Britain dismantled its empire and joined the european economic community. The Empire and the dominions only started to be separate in the 1960-1973 period.
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Location: Barcelona
Status: Offline
Points: 3227
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Dec 2009 at 13:48
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Check your calendar, Parnell! There never was such a creature as the "Dominion of Ireland". While the Brits may muse over "dominion" status as a description of the 1922 arrangement, no Irish politician worth his salt ever uttered such a term! DeValera's Constitution of 1937 abolished any veneer of British sovereignty and the 1948 Republic of Ireland Act finally jettisoned Commonwealth pretensions. In a way, I believe Irish participation in the European Union is but a means to finally put paid to a "Kingdom of Northern Ireland"...
 
Hmm... I'm not sure I agree with you, after all when the Statute of westminster was signed in the early 30s, allowing dominions unprecedented self governing powers, our own William Cosgrave (Head of government) was amongst the Canadian, Australian etc. dominions. We were somewhere between a dominion and republic after 1937 alright, but bugger if I know what we actually were!
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Dec 2009 at 17:37
Parnell, admittedly Anglo-Irish relations between 1921-1937 are ambiguous as far as Ireland's political status; however, Irish neutrality during WWII certainly gave notice of how DeValera interpreted whatever remained of political links even the "Commonwealth". In fact, I suspect that Ireland's neutrality was a public political statement on sovereignty and rejection of whatever interpretation the UK might envision premised on the Westminster Statute. Not that the Irish government did not cooperate where needed during the so-called State of Emergency years. 

Edited by drgonzaga - 23 Dec 2009 at 15:07
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Dec 2009 at 17:40
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Originally posted by Wulfstan Wulfstan wrote:

Canada, Australia, and New Zealand developed from self-governing colonies into dominions, in effect independent states. Originally, Canada, the first dominion, was to have been styled a kingdom, but owing to the republican sensitiveness of the USA the term "Dominion" was used instead. And being independent, it allowed the mother country, the UK, to reduce or remove any military presence. These dominions, in fact, declared war in 1914 on Germany quite separately from the United Kingdom. They could technically have opted for neutrality had they wished.

The idea that they could or would have remain neutral is pure intellectualism. No-one would ever have even considered the possibility.
"If war should come, Britain is pledged to stand by France, and if Britain is at war, Australia is at war." ~ Canberra Times, Monday 12th September 1938.
And that's from WW2.
There was no such thing as Australian citizenship until 1949 - everybody was simply "British subjects".
There was no such thing as 'British citizen' or 'English citizen' until the 1980s, though tehnically one could be a 'citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies' from 1948. I wa born just a 'British subject' and stayed that way in my first three passports.
Quote
 
In 1920 an act was passed clarifiing that Australians had the same nationality as all other commonwealth countires. A canadian and an australian had the same nationality.
Canada attempted to abolish appeals to the Privy Council in 1875, and was promotly overruled, because the Canadian parliament was not allowed to repeal imperial legislation. It wasn't until 1931 that canada was allowed by westminster to abolish the council, and it wasn't until 1949 that it started. (The last case in 1959)
Australia abolish appeals in 1975 from federal courts, and from state courts in 1986. New Zealand abolish it in 2003!

UK Military presence wasn't removed from self-governing colonies, the presence was transferred to local control, and even then, to this day the British and Australian armies are on the same command structure. A British officer can outrank and command an Australian one in an Australian regiment.

Is this the behaviour of independent countries? No. Technically, none of the three countries is independent from Britain. The last independence vote in Australia (1998) was defeated. Realistically, there has been effective independence since Britain dismantled its empire and joined the european economic community. The Empire and the dominions only started to be separate in the 1960-1973 period.
 
You're correct the dominions are not totally separated, otherwise they wouldn't be dominions (or even Commonwealth members). The point was that the dominions were self-governing de facto. Appeal to the Privy Council is a red herring because the Council members from the relevant dominion sat separately. Australian cases got heard by Australian members. (There was no right of appeal to the Privy Council from the UK ciourts.) 
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Dec 2009 at 23:39
In re:  "A British officer can outrank and command an Australian one in an Australian regiment."

I'm not sure that I understand the context of that remark. The Australian Defence Forces are independent of the British. Their size and structure is determined by the Australian government. Westminster has no input. Now, there are cases whereby British officers may be on exchange assignment with Commonwealth and non-Commonwealth armed forces. In such cases, the British officers often serve within specific units, performing the same functions that national officers would perform. (Usually, there is an officer from that nation on exchange with the counterpart unit in the United Kingdom)  I served under two British officers in a staff officer in a tank battalion who commander had just finished an exchange tour with the British Army. Likewise, I have seen British and Australian para and special air service officers, warrants, and NCOs on exchange duties with their American counterparts. I assume that similar arrangements are possible in Australia. Commonwealth citizens used to be eligible to join each other's various armed forces, and I assume that such is still the rule. (A captain Rowe from the MIKE Force later entered British service in the Royal Engineers and retired as a Major. Likewise, an Aussie mate of mine, whilst still a member of the Australian Reserves, took a posting with the Emirates Defence Forces after Vietnam). The point being that both exchange officers and appointed Commonwealth officers exercise their commands or staff duties within the overall national structure of whomever they are serving. They do not constitute evidence of British control of those forces. 
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Location: Barcelona
Status: Offline
Points: 3227
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Dec 2009 at 14:28
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

In fact, I suspect that Ireland's neutrality was a public political statement on sovereignty and rejection of whatever interpertaion the UK might envision on the Westminster Statute. Not that the irish government did not cooperate where needed during the so-called State of Emergency years. 


Ha, didn't notice this till now. I think your suspicion is well founded, I don't think there are many historians today who would argue otherwise. Although of course we hardly had the economic structure to afford such a war, the expense during the emergency may as well have seen in the middle of the fighting. De Valera's various national defence programmes, such as a large army with no guns, cost us an arm and a leg. But yes, I think more than anything the main motive for neutrality was De Valera's tendency to view politics in its abstract form - Irish neutrality was to him the mainstay of our Irish independance. He had mass public support as well as the hatred of Churchill, a great combination for any Irish politician.
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Dec 2009 at 15:03
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

A self governing colony is not independent of the Empire, in fact in many respects it consolidated it. So I don't think you can say that Britain was trying to get rid of its colonies at all.
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

If, for example, the western Empires did not 'carve' Africa up for itself, would that continent still be the dark place of myth and legend?

It wasn't before Imperial Europe attacked it - not even to the Europeans - so I don't see why it would be if they never attacked.
What the Empires gave to Africa remains to be seen
 
A little myopea, Omar? Of what difference the "imperialism" practiced by the likes of Cecil Rhodes and the much earlier one undertaken by the Islamic body-politics? Naturally, Africa was the "Dark Continent" for those who did not live there, but the "slicing and dicing" can hardly be classified as a late 19th century phenomenon. The entire notion of "unknown Africa" can not be divorced from the heavy dose of Romanticism that enveloped European thought in the 19th century hand in hand with the incubation of the penny dreadfuls. There was plenty of history there, it was just that most had not read about it...nor bothered to dust off the archival folios.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jan 2010 at 02:40
One of the underlying assumptions of those who decry colonialism is that the rationale for the acquisition of colonies was an economic one. This fits Marxist visions of economic realities, but does not necessarily square with the facts. I have been plowing through Henri Brunschwig's "Mythes et Realities de l'Imperialisme Coloniale Francais 1871 - 1914" and have found many interesting tidbits that cast doubt upon the economic theory of imperialism. Brunschwig notes that the real heyday in French Colonialism started after France's defeat at the hand of the Prussians in 1870. Of interest, the European governments most involved in overseas colonial expansion were parliamentary democracies (three of which were constitutional monarchies). There were, or course, many arguments advanced to favor of colonialism, which cited among the supposed advantages: i.e., the training of the military, the acquisition of new markets, the spreading of each nation's version of modern government, the enforced ending of slavery (in Africa), and the benefits of colonialism for the metropolis. But the economic benefits, if colonies were supposed to bring in cash, always remained out of reach for England, France, and Germany.  He cites, for instance, a report by Adolphe Turrel, then Minister for Public Worlds, made as an appendix to the 1896 budget report. Turrel lays out the round numbers for all French colonies (minus Algeria and Tunisia) for 1894:

"...in 1894 (French) Colonies exported, i.e., sold 253 million (Francs worth of goods and services). Of this amount, foreign markets received 134 millions, and France 118 millions, in other words 16 millions less (than foreigners)."

"And, if one wants to compare between imports and exports, one finds that foreign firms have imported 124 millions into our colonies and purchased 134 millions - i.e., about 10 millions in favor of the Colonies."

"France has exported 95 millions and has purchased 118 millions - i.e., 23 millions to the benefit of the colonies."

"One sees therefore:

1 - That colonial commercial relations are more active with foreign markets than with the Metropole.

2 - That the imports into the colonies, i.e., their purchases, are greater in foreign markets than they are with French ones, given that French sales in the colonies amount to 28 millions less than those of foreigners.

3 - That the balance of trade in regard to foriegn interests, which favors the colonies for only 10 millions is, as concerns France, 23 millions in the colonies favor..."

"...A (colonial) market of 95 millions is costing us 80 millions a year, while foreigners enjoy a market worth 126 millions without paying anything from their own purse...  France's commerce with the colonies is founded upon trade whereby she loses millions each year, and spends 80 millions to do so."

(parens and translation are Lirelou's, taken from 1960 Librairie Armand Colin edition, pp 142 et seq.)

Brunschwig goes on to examine who benefited from the colonial experience. The Army and Navy certainly had a larger number of personnel on the rolls, and a larger inventory of property, but much of this was unsuitable for modern warfare, and military experience in the colonies was not easily transferable to the European battlefields. The Middle Class certainly found greater opportunities for employment, and advancement in the colonies, but then there were also risks and health issues. Investors certainly benefited from the colonies, but Brunschwig finds no evidence that colonial investments overall produced any greater returns than other investments available at the time. Overall, it appears that those who benefited the most from France's colonies, barring those few colonial officials who dipped into their tills, or sold official favors, were foreign markets and the colonial subjects themselves. He also notes that whenever such studies came to light, those favoring colonialism would return to the arguments of national prestige and mission civilisatrice.

For what it's worth....
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jan 2010 at 15:55
This thread provides the right moment for the raising of a general question: Are we really discussing history here or are we simply casting inherited jargon demanding human actions conform to abstract models? Lirelou is correct when he underscores that the "financial" facts do not accord with the usual buzz words of scientism, which after all is said and done is the bone of the discussion once the verbiage about colonialism, imperialism, ruling classes etc. starts to flow. The funny part however stems from the fact that all the buzz over "imperialists/exploitation/revolution" is not even Marxism but sheer Leninism! Read Imperialism, the Highest State of Capitalism (1916), if you have any doubts on that one. Placing aside the flaws in logic therein, just start musing upon the consequences of such an essay on a readership [e.g. one Ho Chi Minh in the Paris of the 20th century "teens"] that included the "westernized" denizens of the globe's by-ways.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
AksumVanguard View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 01 Feb 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 396
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AksumVanguard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jan 2010 at 04:24
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:



There were, or course, many arguments advanced to favor of colonialism, which cited among the supposed advantages: i.e., the training of the military,




The military training of their colonies military wasn't a privelage  but a directive that was enacted so their colonies could be used as reserved and auxiliary troops for their battles.They would of course they would want their colonial subjects to fight in their battles.100,000 British East Africans died in World War I in the East African Campaign.

Didn't Hernan Cortes have alot of reseves of Indians  in the siege Tenochititlan, although they were not exactly colonial subjects at the time, but would become

Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:


 the acquisition of new markets, the spreading of each nation's version of modern government,




Acquisition? Sounds like a hostile takeover and strong arming, might you know how many of the colonial population lived in poverty.

And who is to say that the Natives societal structure or diplomatic relations were not already stable and peaceful when the colonialist arrived.  For Example the territories of the ''Ottoman Empire''who had melting pot of populations within their jurisdiction.


Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:


 the enforced ending of slavery (in Africa),


 RIght after the Industrial revolution.

Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:


 and the benefits of colonialism for the metropolis.

 
I don't think that is necessarily a ''feat,'' they were cities everywhere throughout the world before any colonial nation first encountered its natives of colonial territories. Of course this would mean what the  definition of the word''metropolis'' means  to you.




Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:


"One sees therefore:
1 - That colonial commercial relations are more active with foreign markets than with the Metropole.


I doubt the colonies had direct involvement with foreign markets , this was very much forbidden in European colonialism,.

http://www.npenn.org/55777032217630/lib/55777032217630/la_imperialism_article.doc.


http://www.wmich.edu/dialogues/themes/colonizers.html

 Foreign countries are of course not allowed in the trade system, as the mother ...


Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:


2 - That the imports into the colonies, i.e., their purchases, are greater in foreign markets than they are with French ones, given that French sales in the colonies amount to 28 millions less than those of foreigners.



I don't think this is evidence that the Imperial  Countries of the Colonies, had a burdened strain  maintaining their authority over their territories. Its a known fact that Imperialist Countries like Britain did not allow the ''Colonies'' to export anything without them being apprehended and managed by the UK first, in other words the ''colonies'' were not allow to trade with any country directly, without their colonial masters supervision.













Edited by AksumVanguard - 06 Jan 2010 at 04:27
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jan 2010 at 17:19
Personal "thinking" is insufficient evidence as rebuttal, no matter all the fancy jargon that might be applied. And no Aksum, presenting a "revisionist" link that uses as "evidence" the ideological writings of their own adherents does not constitute primae facia substantiation. If you ever need a good laugh, by all means read A Peoples History of America.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jan 2010 at 17:57
Aksum:  in re your: "I doubt the colonies had direct involvement with foreign markets , this was very much forbidden in European colonialism,. "

So, the 1896 debates in the National Assembly were simply made up? All the teeth gnashing over the lost of revenues to foreign trade and markets were just put there by Turrel to throw future historians off the track? Perhaps you need to rethink your paradigm.

Oh, reference the Army comments. The theory was that Colonial military campaigns would provide training and experience for "European" troops. Indigenous troops were envisioned for use within their own territories. No one envisioned using Colonial troops in Europe until the 1st World War, though the French gladly used Colonial troops, with reservations, from one territory in other colonial campaigns. (Note: small numbers of North African troops had fought in the Franco-Prussian war, but these were counted as a branch of the Metropolitan Army, the "Armee d'Afrique"). 

The argument against that was the colonial warfare experience did not prepare European colonial infantry and artillery cadres for the rigors and challenge of European warfare.

As for your casualty figures for the Brit African troops in WWI, don't you ever get suspicious when you see such a perfectly round number as 100,000?

Oh, "metropolis" in the context of colonialism refers to the Colonial power, i.e., the "metropolis", "metropole", etc.  Not to cities per se. Perhaps the problem is that most of my studies were done in Spanish and French, but I believe it is also used in that context in English. I apologize if it is not.


Edited by lirelou - 06 Jan 2010 at 18:01
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jan 2010 at 14:10
When quoting figures for the import/export advantage to 'the colonies' it needs to be remembered that 'to the colonies' in effect means 'to the colonists'.
 
For instance exports of gold and diamonds from South Africa might be taken as 'income to the the colonies' but the hands the income stuck to were white, not black.
 
Moreover while I would agree that much of the British Empire, especially in Africa, was not gained for immediately economic reasons, economic reasons were a much more powerful motive for getting rid of them.
 
(I write 'immediately economic' because military and strategic reasons can usually be traced back to economic ones.)
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jan 2010 at 15:52
I sit back amazed that after so many years or research the tired old premises applied by Max Weber and the rhetoric raised against them by Marxists continue as iteration signalling proof. Not that some of our own outspoken contributors are alone in this game:
 
Economics is not only a social science, it is a genuine science. Like the physical sciences, economics uses a methodology that produces refutable implications and tests these implications using solid statistical techniques. In particular, economics stresses three factors that distinguish it from other social sciences. Economists use the construct of rational individuals who engage in maximizing behavior. Economic models adhere strictly to the importance of equilibrium as part of any theory. Finally, a focus on efficiency leads economists to ask questions that other social sciences ignore. These ingredients have allowed economics to invade intellectual territory that was previously deemed to be outside the discipline’s realm.
 
Edward P. Lazear. "Economic Imperialism", 1999
 
 
Folks, determinism whether writ large or subtly insinuated does not work within a social or political construct as a "profitable" enterprise and can only be maintained by refusal to consult the "account books" of empire snuggling in the many archives of Europe. Success in one "enterprise" can be measured (excuse my fall into the language of the "enemy") against dismal failure in another, which often was more critical to the health of a "state". If we look at Europe of the 16th century, and all that bullion, was the consequence overall prosperity? No, the result was the greatest inflationary period in history, until the advent of contemporary times, with the consequent impoverishment of the greater bulk of Europe's population as traditional economies were disrupted into stagnation. The problem with "models" and the application of theories to human behavior and endeavor is that "one size does not fit all". Nevertheless, we can pursue this topic not by repeating the tired conclusions drawn from modelling, but by actually delving into times and conditions that deny their smugness.
 
 
 


Edited by drgonzaga - 07 Jan 2010 at 15:54
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jan 2010 at 23:59
In re:  "For instance exports of gold and diamonds from South Africa might be taken as 'income to the the colonies' but the hands the income stuck to were white, not black."

Well, who invested the moneys to develop such resources? Shouldn't they reasonably expect to reap some of the rewards?

But, I think Turrel's point was that the hands the income stuck to were only French in the large minority of cases, but not the majority, and did not justify the amount of public funds spent to develop markets in French colonies. But again, the final justification for underwriting that continual drain on the economy was 'national prestige' and the exportation of French culture and civilization. And Brunschwig finds similar debates in German and British political circles.

As for Southern Africa, without the British, I suspect it would have been merely an earlier version of 'Blood Diamonds".
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
AksumVanguard View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 01 Feb 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 396
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AksumVanguard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jan 2010 at 09:38
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:


So, the 1896 debates in the National Assembly were simply made up? All the teeth gnashing over the lost of revenues to foreign trade and markets were just put there by Turrel to throw future historians off the track? Perhaps you need to rethink your paradigm.


The analysis of nations economy in the 1890's cannot be conclusive.  The method of ''Data Mining'' in the 1890s may be very lackadaisical, stastics in that era may have been examined by fallacious guesstamations. 

You may be partially right, I don't believe the imperialist empires like Japan, Germany, and British Empire seized territories for economic purposes, it was sometimes used as outpost for strategic maritime reasons ,for buffering purposes, and sometimes just for empires sake of conquering.


When the "'colonialist'' like the British conquered a land, the shrewd system of mercantilism was imposed.  All of a  colonies resources was to be used for the benefit of the parent country, and not in the interest of the colonies themselves.  Sugarcane, cotton , and coccoa was to be extracted from these territories , and be exported to the parent country or would be subjected to the moderation of an imperialist merchant or admiralty vessels. Indentured servants from South Asia were shipped elsewhere to work, in other lands rather than India itself I don't think the imperialist had the colonies best interest in mind, when India was more impoverished stricken country  in colonial rule then it was at this present time.

Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:


Oh, reference the Army comments. The theory was that Colonial military campaigns would provide training and experience for "European" troops. Indigenous troops were envisioned for use within their own territories. No one envisioned using Colonial troops in Europe until the 1st World War,


Right bit the fact that they did decide to use them in any war is already contrary to the ordonance previously proposed. World War I should not be used an excuse, and since the Imperialist countries decide to deviate from their original proposed plan means they were very redundant and careless with their ideas. It goes to show imperialist rule was sometimes a chavunstic jousting in which countries displayed their power. Moreover if imperialist countries were really exhausted by their rulership why did they chose to continue their dominion over nations  all the way during world war II going up to the 1960s.

Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:


though the French gladly used Colonial troops, with reservations, from one territory in other colonial campaigns. (Note: small numbers of North African troops had fought in the Franco-Prussian war, but these were counted as a branch of the Metropolitan Army, the "Armee d'Afrique").


Your right to excuse some French, because they used Indians in the French Indian War, used Vietnamese in the French-Thai war.  As for the British there is  countless instances when the used East Indian troops in many campaigns for imperial conquest or even conflicts amongst fellow European colonialist.

Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:


As for your casualty figures for the Brit African troops in WWI, don't you ever get suspicious when you see such a perfectly round number as 100,000?


Of course we wouldn't know the head count, but rest assured that the casualities of native east africans in the ''East African Campaign'' was  strenously impactful on the population. The German troops and Birtish troops fighting at Dar Es Salaam was won of the most blood drenched battles in the campaign.

Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:


Oh, "metropolis" in the context of colonialism refers to the Colonial power, i.e., the "metropolis", "metropole", etc.  Not to cities per se. Perhaps the problem is that most of my studies were done in Spanish and French, but I believe it is also used in that context in English. I apologize if it is not.

Um, is the definition in this context the same as the modern meaning of metropolis ie the Los Angles Country, Durham and Raleigh metropolitan area, or Dade metropolitan area. It still sounds the same to me meaning we just civilization and complex society to an area or zone.

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:


For instance exports of gold and diamonds from South Africa might be taken as 'income to the the colonies' but the hands the income stuck to were white, not black.


Were not actually talking about white and black, but we are speaking of colonizer and subjagated, although I am fully aware of the Apartheid system in South Africa which only allowed whites to get elected into office.

Figuratively speaking yes, the money did get into the hands of blacks,mainly the local chiefs who conceded some of their land to  the likes British South African Companies, or the  evil geniuses like Cecil Rhodes. Other times it was just conceded for military and surrendering purposes

Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:


Well, who invested the moneys to develop such resources? Shouldn't they reasonably expect to reap some of the rewards?

But, I think Turrel's point was that the hands the income stuck to were only French in the large minority of cases, but not the majority, and did not justify the amount of public funds spent to develop markets in French colonies.


So you are saying that since the ''exclusive small elite society'' of the imperial parent countries only benefited from the colonization of territories, the  Imperialist country should be exempt from being at fault due to the majority of the population not reaping the substantial profits.  I believe that this an example of how it was a erroneous  idealogy since only a few of the population would  yield the returns and actually do the biddng of a preying imperialist.  Explain how if even the population within the parent country did not benefit that the population of the colonies benefited?

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:


success in one "enterprise" can be measured (excuse my fall into the language of the "enemy") against dismal failure in another, which often was more critical to the health of a "state". If we look at Europe of the 16th century, and all that bullion, was the consequence overall prosperity? No, the result was the greatest inflationary period in history, until the advent of contemporary times, with the consequent impoverishment of the greater bulk of Europe's population as traditional economies were disrupted into stagnation.


I guess your suggesting the principal rule of ''free enterprise capitalism'' is that one party has to be successful  due to another ones failure.'' Big Bank take small bank'' is a primary example of the modicum understanding  of what is the remedy in the ''financial crisis'' in the global  markets today.

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:


The problem with "models" and the application of theories to human behavior and endeavor is that "one size does not fit all". Nevertheless, we can pursue this topic not by repeating the tired conclusions drawn from modelling, but by actually delving into times and conditions that deny their smugness.

One size does not fit all, which is why it is strange for many Super power countries to indulge in the affairs of foreign matters. It is strange that these superpower or western powers motifs are the examples to follow, and is why many believe the world wouldn't be anywhere if it wasn't for their intervention.

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jan 2010 at 11:19
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

In re:  "For instance exports of gold and diamonds from South Africa might be taken as 'income to the the colonies' but the hands the income stuck to were white, not black."

Well, who invested the moneys to develop such resources? Shouldn't they reasonably expect to reap some of the rewards?
Yes. It may have sounded as if I was objecting but I wasn't. The only point I was trying to make was the straightforwardly econometric one that the trade figures for the colonies reflected a lot of 'income to the colonies' that actually came back to the home country when colonists (and colonist companies) repatriated funds - a repatriation that wouldn't show up in the trade figures.
Quote
But, I think Turrel's point was that the hands the income stuck to were only French in the large minority of cases, but not the majority, and did not justify the amount of public funds spent to develop markets in French colonies. But again, the final justification for underwriting that continual drain on the economy was 'national prestige' and the exportation of French culture and civilization. And Brunschwig finds similar debates in German and British political circles.

As for Southern Africa, without the British, I suspect it would have been merely an earlier version of 'Blood Diamonds".
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jan 2010 at 19:39
GCLE, in re:  "The only point I was trying to make was the straightforwardly econometric one that the trade figures for the colonies reflected a lot of 'income to the colonies' that actually came back to the home country when colonists (and colonist companies) repatriated funds - a repatriation that wouldn't show up in the trade figures."

A very good point. Brunschwig mentions the difficulty with assessing such for British colonies, in that many revenues brought back into GB were not taxible. Such was not the case with revenues from French colonies back into France, so tax revenues were counted up for most (data for Algeria and Tunisia being unavailable). He also touches upon those who benefited, and concludes that there is no evidence that they did so to any greater extent than those who invested in domestic markets in the same period.


Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.