How did european colonialism affect Europe?

Joined Jul 2015
16,914 Posts | 9,355+
Netherlands
Russia is a European country and it colonized a considerable amount of people and land. Certainly such colonization affected Russia then the Soviet Union and back again to Russia.
Leftyhunter
Sure, but we don't get the Siberian Reparation Front. More conquest than colonization.
 
Joined Jul 2020
23,778 Posts | 9,439+
Culver City , Ca
Sure, but we don't get the Siberian Reparation Front. More conquest than colonization.
Russia was a classic colonizing country. Russia tried to impose it's religion on others with out much success . Russia exploited resources from the various territories it colonized. Russian citizens moved to various captured territories. The various people's it colonized tried to liberate themselves as best they could with some success and some failure. The various colonized people's fought for and against Russia and the Soviet Union as they would in British India.
Leftyhunter
 
Joined Feb 2022
2,575 Posts | 2,011+
Washington, DC
Russia is a European country and it colonized a considerable amount of people and land. Certainly such colonization affected Russia then the Soviet Union and back again to Russia.
Leftyhunter
The USSR earned an incredible amount of goodwill in the global south by supporting so many independence struggles during the Cold War, and people have not forgotten that. Note that this favorable attitude toward Russia persists despite the fact that Russians tend to be far more openly hostile and racist toward these people than westerners are, at the end of the day a solid track record of championing decolonization matters a lot more than whatever good intentions you might have.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chandragupta Maurya
Joined Jun 2014
17,822 Posts | 9,478+
Lisbon, Portugal
portugal's approach changed over time. initially brazil was just a marginal territory with small coastal towns dotting the shores and portugal's focus was somewhere else in the indian ocean. however that started to shift in the seventeenth century, during a period were several factors coincided: sugar production boomed, along with the discovery of gold in what today is minas gerais (general mines, in portuguese) & the beggining of the ciclo do ouro, the decline of the portuguese in the east & the newly recovered independence of the braganzas. all this allowed the portuguese, despite their weakness, to have a spot on the table of international trade - which they would just dream of without their colonies. anyway in the long run, the entity that benefited the most from portuguese trade was neither brazil nor portugal... but britain...

as robto mentioned before the earliest spanish approaches were monopolized & financed by the spanish catholic crown. within few years, the endeavors were indeed carried out by some landless aristocrats or aristocrat-wanna-be's, however not only executed by them: the spanish conquistador also needed to obtain the funds for his campaign. this usually implicated that he actually got himself into huge debts, and guess what: repaying that debt was number one thought in his head, and also number two and probably number three, too. hence this was a major motivation for the looting & explotation, for some rather witless fellas getting drowned in lake texcoco by the weight of the aztec gold or for the treacherous smiles after atahualpa promised to get a room filled with silver up to the roof. paradoxically, as we usually reason with some of my spanish friends, all these great stolen treasures didn't remain in the hands of the spanish for long, since soon just fed the coffers of some german bankers due to the stupid european adventurism of the habsburg monarchy.

anyway for this initial stage of colonialism, doesnt matter who ended up profiting, the lesson is the same, someone in europe did profit, profited greatly. these profits funded political schemes, ambitions, wars (and wars of religion), the most delicate perfumes, ridiculous wigs, pre-revolutionary lavish cakes and much more. we can also certainly tell colonial profits (from the new imperialism) also funded europe's assisted suicide by the dawn of the twentieth century, also known as world war one.

regards.
Well, IMO Portugal and Castille/Spain were administratively and institutionally unprepared to take such a massive overseas empire. They very much lacked a developed capitalist market economy with a burgeoning and emancipated capitalist class, guaranteed protection of property rights, and other development-supporting institutional arrangements. Particularly the Spanish colonies in the Americas had also to rely on pre-existing Native American highly exploitative organizations in Mexico and Peru (Engerman & Sokoloff 2005).

The Catholic-Crown monopolies over the colonies (with their aristocratic cronies) and their income over-dependence further contributed to its "undevelopment": the crown of Portugal became totally dependent on its overseas income turning it into a "rentier state"; while the wealth coming from the Spanish Empire were mostly invested in the other more economically developed Habsburg domains such as in Flanders, German cities, Italian republics, but not so much in Castille itself (Yun-Casallila 2019: 258-262). This same colonial process and dynamic, although helped those monarchies to centralize and modernize their power, in the long term it became an obstacle to developing fiscal capacity (Yun-Casallila 2019: 262-263).


- Engerman, S. and K. Sokoloff (2005). Colonialism, Inequality, and Long-run Paths of Development. NBER Working Paper, 1157.

- Yun-Casallila, B. (2009). Iberian World Empires and the Globalization of Europe 1415–1668 (Palgrave Studies in Comparative Global History). Palgrave Macmillan: Singapore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: charlie ia
Joined Aug 2014
5,549 Posts | 582+
India
In long run it gave Europe lots of guilt, using that guilt now Leftists advocate for unrestricted immigration which may change European civilization's demographic feature in coming years.

Europeans would be better off if they instead of going to directly annex Asian and African countries, just focused on controlling trade, farmland and mines. Say British forces Burma to accept establishment of a British military base and to sell its timber and rice only to British at cheap rate and also buy only British products. Burma is also prohibited from establishing diplomatic relation or seek help from any other nation, in return Britain guaranteeing to protect Burma from Chinese invasion. It would be far more economical than directly annexing Burma, having to deploy military in costly wars and later in resistance, running administration etc.
 
Joined Feb 2022
2,575 Posts | 2,011+
Washington, DC
In long run it gave Europe lots of guilt, using that guilt now Leftists advocate for unrestricted immigration which may change European civilization's demographic feature in coming years.

Europeans would be better off if they instead of going to directly annex Asian and African countries, just focused on controlling trade, farmland and mines. Say British forces Burma to accept establishment of a British military base and to sell its timber and rice only to British at cheap rate and also buy only British products. Burma is also prohibited from establishing diplomatic relation or seek help from any other nation, in return Britain guaranteeing to protect Burma from Chinese invasion. It would be far more economical than directly annexing Burma, having to deploy military in costly wars and later in resistance, running administration etc.
That sounds like a pretty awful deal for Burma, why would anyone ever agree to that?
 
Joined Oct 2017
1,760 Posts | 324+
Southeast Asia
Last edited:
I don’t think the rise of the west would have happened without overseas colonization, Europe would have probably continued to be in the dark/medieval ages for much longer, so it was probably positive for Europe overall I guess.
& since the Americas are just across the Atlantic from Europe with convenient currents & trade winds linking them, combined with the continental axis theory, suggests that Europe’s overseas colonization & eventual rise may have been rather inevitable.
 
Joined Feb 2022
2,575 Posts | 2,011+
Washington, DC
Threat of British military.
Yeah well that’s exactly what the British tried to do everywhere, except that the natives would invariably get restless and rebel, forcing them to deploy troops and administer the colonies directly, and over time the British vastly overstretched themselves and the empire disintegrated.

Ruling through local proxies is always fragile because it doesn’t take a genius to see who’s really in charge and people will always rankle at the thought of bending the knee to someone who is himself a puppet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: charlie ia
Joined Mar 2019
2,175 Posts | 1,701+
seúl
Particularly the Spanish colonies in the Americas had also to rely on pre-existing Native American highly exploitative organizations in Mexico and Peru (Engerman & Sokoloff 2005).

right. both mesoamerican and andean civilizations' structures were maintained to a large degree as the spanish simply topped the leadership and inserted themselves from above to reap the benefits of, well, being above.

in peru & upper peru, mita continued as usual almost til bolivar reached there; economic mita delivering all those poor fellas fated to mine the silver mountain known as 'cerro rico del potosí' either til they died or gave in to everlasting alcoholism, and the war mita providing the men needed for the expeditions sent to chile to fight the mapuches - which the previous generation ruled by the sapa inca also had to suffer anyway.

so pretty much it was business as usual under a new management, and of course also under the convenient cloak of catholicism.

In long run it gave Europe lots of guilt, using that guilt now Leftists advocate for unrestricted immigration which may change European civilization's demographic feature in coming years.

Europeans would be better off if they instead of going to directly annex Asian and African countries, just focused on controlling trade, farmland and mines. Say British forces Burma to accept establishment of a British military base and to sell its timber and rice only to British at cheap rate and also buy only British products. Burma is also prohibited from establishing diplomatic relation or seek help from any other nation, in return Britain guaranteeing to protect Burma from Chinese invasion. It would be far more economical than directly annexing Burma, having to deploy military in costly wars and later in resistance, running administration etc.
Threat of British military.

u have defined neocolonialism quite well actually.

regards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: robto
Joined Aug 2009
11,736 Posts | 5,403+
Athens, Greece
I don’t think the rise of the west would have happened without overseas colonization, Europe would have probably continued to be in the dark/medieval ages for much longer, so it was probably positive for Europe overall I guess.
& since the Americas are just across the Atlantic from Europe with convenient currents & trade winds linking them, combined with the continental axis theory, suggests that Europe’s overseas colonization & eventual rise may have been rather inevitable.
Europe was out of the Middle Ages *before* the age of colonisation.
 
Joined Jun 2017
4,052 Posts | 2,870+
maine
I can tell you our danish friends helped smuggle potatoes to us under the napolenic wars. No britainnia, you dont rule the waves. Not the north sea anyway 🇩🇰🥔
The Danes also had colonies; the Danish West Indies were a drag and a drain on its economy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leftyhunter
Joined Apr 2022
606 Posts | 291+
California, U.S.A.
u have defined neocolonialism quite well actually.

regards.

Ironically, some have argued it is because of this neocolonialism that Europe is suffering from the problems it faces, as the people that are under the heel of Europe are migrating elsewhere. If you know what I mean. :neutral:
 
Joined Jan 2021
1,513 Posts | 1,322+
Portugal
Europe was out of the Middle Ages *before* the age of colonisation.

Not quite. If we consider the Middle Ages to have ended in 1453 as is the norm, then the Portuguese captured Ceuta in 1415 and started settling Madeira a few years after 1418.

Both of these ventures were eminently "medieval" and "feudal" in character.
 
Joined Aug 2009
11,736 Posts | 5,403+
Athens, Greece
Not quite. If we consider the Middle Ages to have ended in 1453 as is the norm, then the Portuguese captured Ceuta in 1415 and started settling Madeira a few years after 1418.

Both of these ventures were eminently "medieval" and "feudal" in character.
Sure, but the processes that moved Europe out of the Middle Ages were already in motion, irrespective of the colonisation ventures.

Besides, these proto-ventures into the great ocean did not have the significant impact of later stages, from the late 15th century and onwards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frog33inUK
Joined Jan 2021
1,513 Posts | 1,322+
Portugal
Ironically, some have argued it is because of this neocolonialism that Europe is suffering from the problems it faces, as the people that are under the heel of Europe are migrating elsewhere. If you know what I mean. :neutral:

You can argue and point at exact agents if you wish, but since this statement seems to imply a level of generalization, Portugal being Europe, I'll have you know we for one develop some activities that help minor nations of the Portuguese speaking community like Cape Verde and São Tomé protect themselves from pirates and drug trade and train civil servants, while the bigger issues in larger countries like Angola, Mozambique and Brazil consist of deeply opportunistical and predatory native politicians and foreign policy from China. We haven't got much to do with their problems unless evidence is brought forward for a change that demonstrates that we do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LatinoEuropa
Joined Jan 2021
1,513 Posts | 1,322+
Portugal
Sure, but the processes that moved Europe out of the Middle Ages were already in motion, irrespective of the colonisation ventures.

Besides, these proto-ventures into the great ocean did not have the significant impact of later stages, from the late 15th century and onwards.

That's the same as to say not much in the end. The processes were in motion... and if they were? Every Portuguese-speaking scholar places the start of the discovery age, the empire and colonization in the middle ages, though some do point out that that very same process helped bring forth the Renaissance and modernity, perhaps more so than the capturing of an already decrepit city in the Bosphorus. Us Portuguese don't see it as "proto-ventures". They were proper ventures plain and simple that belong to one and the same process.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LatinoEuropa
Joined Oct 2017
1,760 Posts | 324+
Southeast Asia
I don’t think the rise of the west would have happened without overseas colonization, Europe would have probably continued to be in the dark/medieval ages for much longer, so it was probably positive for Europe overall I guess.
& since the Americas are just across the Atlantic from Europe with convenient currents & trade winds linking them, combined with the continental axis theory, suggests that Europe’s overseas colonization & eventual rise may have been rather inevitable.
Two resource rich continents ready to be colonized just across the Atlantic with direct trade winds conveniently linking between was just the thing Europe needed to grow & lead the way to colonizing the rest of the world & establishing European civilization worldwide. Isn’t modern global civilization for the most part largely an extension of western/European civilization? Perhaps it’s not such a coincidence overall. Geography seems to play a much bigger role than is often given credit for.
 
Joined Apr 2021
4,208 Posts | 3,218+
Italy
Of course, when the colonizers were finally booted out, they took as much of this wealth with them as they could.

"Of course"? If the wealth is captive markets, as you claim, then going away there's nothing you can take away. If the wealth derives from raw resources, say minerals, you also can't take them away. If the wealth comes from fertile land together with slave/underpaid labor and favorable climate for cash crops, you also can't take all of that away. So I don't see much "of course" in this statement.


And of course there is the much more basic point that nobody bothers trying to paint the map just for vainglory and pride, if there wasn't any money in it they wouldn't have bothered to colonize all of these lands in the first place.

And that's simply not true. The main reason for the very late Italian colonial ventures, for instance, was that most other European powers had a colonial empire, and Italy wanted one for a matter of prestige. That was already true back in the 1880s, and came back in spades with Mussolini fancing himself a conqueror.
Some of the motivation for the scramble for Africa could be described as "get a piece now because otherwise someone else will".
Then there are the cases when the colonizing state might have been initially motivated by a desire for profit, but then realized that had been simply a mistake. If the Danish West Indies had been operating at a profit, the Danes should not have decided that it would be more profitable to sell them, for instance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frog33inUK

Trending History Discussions

Top