""worst" colonial power" Topic

The Incas were no better: Explain?

Any Good Ones: We had that conversation elsewhere. Search TMP. No need to have it again.

The claim that the East India Company did not make money for its shareholders, which included a good bunch of the royal family,upper gentry, and elites of England initially and later the UK, is probably the most foolish thing uttered on this topic to this point. Perhaps it did not make for the average bloke in Manchester or Liverpool, but to claim it did not make for the shareholders, especially in the 17th and 18th century is either i) malicious lying ii) foolishness laid bare. Make your choice. And oh my are we vying for that title at some points.

All Empires make money for someone (or provide more of some material or immaterial scarce resource, things like pride-dignity-security etc) for someone. Its why they exist.

Usually those someones are part of the winning coalitions of the metropole, and in most authoritarian states the winning coalition is always a subset of the selectorate, which is a subset of the population (i.e minority of a minority). As long as the Empire makes money for a winning coalition large enough to underpin the domestic position of power of elites in government, the Empire will be maintained. Once the Empire starts alienating members of the winning coalition to the point that it endangers the elites in government, and barring an ability to overhaul the winning coalition, the elites in government will sacrifice the empire to stay in power.

But to say the Empire provides no gain is foolish. It does until it does not.

I did not claim that the HEICo didn't pay dividends (to the holders of preferred stock – the common stockholders rarely saw so much as a penny). But they didn't make that money off their activities in India. The China trade was profitable, as was selling common, non-voting shares, and milking the private ship-owners who operated the Indiamen.

Even then, the John Company had to be bailed out several times by the Government, including the matter of being allowed to send three ship loads of tea (tax-free) direct to Boston in the face of a law requiring that all tea shipments had to be unloaded at the India Dock in London.

But the biggest scams were paying the required dividends with borrowed money, failing to pay the amounts due the Government for the Crown troops and ships serving in India, and the sale of seats on the Board.

As far as the investment went, HEICo was "sexy" but for actual return on investment, The Company of Merchants and Adventurers Trading into Hudson's Bay was a much sounder choice.

When the Company was wound up in the wake of the Mutiny, it was discovered that it had been legally bankrupt for over a century!

If you want the whole story, read Forester's Trade in the Eastern Seas.

The China trade could not have existed without the HEIC activities in India as that is where the poppy was grown and the opium produced. No opium no China trade.

I look forward to Murray's forthcoming biography of Alexander Burns due in September for more on the Company.

Ok rmaker, I take back the more incisive points of my retort and apologize for them. But I still think you are missing the point. The Empire made money for someone ,and also gained other scarce goods material or immaterial for others, and that is why it was maintained.Whether the gain was seen as gain by those outside the winning coalition is immaterial. They where not important for keeping the elites in government in power. Even moreso for people outside the selectorate that had no say period.

It runs in the blood of the whole human race to one degree or another. We're all messed up.

Fallen Nature of Man from damn near the beginning of Time.

"Only if you believe the leftist revisionists. There were PROBABLY more Amerinds alive in the lower 48 in 1900 than there had been in 1600. And the Amerinds were AT LEAST as enthusiastic at breaking treaties as the white men."
I had to read this to believe it. Is that the counter argument for justifying the actions of grand scale genocide ? Or maybe "it never happened" is going to be next ?

"Portugal was'nt very good in Africa". I can not argue with that, no colonisation was "very good". But I lived in Mozambique just after they got theyr independence and became communist. One phrase from a Mozambican, who then had the age I have now, sticks with me. He said : "The Portuguese used to beat us sometimes but whe allways had food" (wich they did'nt anymore when I was there).
It still haunts me.

in the end, if all was reversed, the 'natives' would have been just as exploitive, just so happens the europeans were more advanced, human natrue doesnt change.

Genocide on a grand scale begins in the Bible and is a feature of human history since at least those days. Most nations have either practiced genocide or had it practiced on them in one form or another. In fact many nations and systems of government found their start or acquired additional land via genocide. No nation, race, or creed has a monopoly on the practice of genocide or slavery or colonization just that perhaps between the years of 1600 and 1900 the Western European based nations were perhaps a bit more efficient at it than others had been historically.But then again they were a bit more efficient at many things from medicine to shipping to land transportation to manufacturing.

Like it or not this is who we are as a species.

Define genocide? Because your bandying a word around and I do not think it means what you think it means. Depending on the definition not every nation, race or creed has committed genocide.

As for what we are as a species. Feel free to excuse inhumanity all you want. Murder happens but we are not all murderers. Rape happens but we are not all rapists. Theft happens but we are not all thieves. Torture happens but we are not all torturers. Genocide happens but we have not all participated in genocide. Slavery happens but we are not all slavers. So sure "man" go on seeing rapists, murderers, and thieves as the equivalent to average human being.It is who we are a species.

Perhaps all dogs are dangerous because some dogs are rabid.

I must agree with KTravlos, and my opinion is as stated before : "Power corrupts : allways".

If by "worst" we mean "least effective", then I have to nominate the Twelve Colonies of Kobol. They got their butts handed to them on a platter by the Cylons.

I would define genocide as an attempt to eradicate or eliminate a race or tribal grouping for any reason the most common to be to appropriate their land and or posessions. This is probably as good a description as any:

Deuteronomy Chapter 20 Verse 16: But in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God gives you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes

Both North and South America and Australia all have nations where the land was taken and genocide in one form or another was practiced on the original inhabitants. The ancient Israeli's practiced it a did the contemporary Hittites and Assyrians. The Mongols in China. Caesar against the Gauls. Need I go on?

My point, clumsy as it was, wasn't that we are all murderers or rapists, or that mankind can't evolve and rise above the natural inclination for warfare, but that most every nation or race has at some point in their history, when given the ability to do so, has practiced one form or another of oppression.

To me a debate like this is similar to debating if it is worse to be burned to death by a nuclear bomb or napalm. We somehow assign more horror to the nuclear bomb but I doubt the individual being burned is aware of the difference.

As an aside I stated "many nations and systems of government found their start or acquired additional land via genocide". If we are to include the current North American, South American, and Australia New Zealand land masses and the countries that comprise them which were almost all formed by genocide (or a form of it) then I think that meets the definition of "many"

Just to clarify, does your definition of genocide mean kill all the members of an ethnic group or does it include destroying the culture through forced assimilation?

Interesting question. Are you referring to ethnocide?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnocide

the worst colonial power?..in therms of number victims, absence of durable works/benefits and violence of methods frankly the winner are arab/slaver marauding the majority of Africa and enslaving the African population until wiped out by the supposed to be bad European Colonial powers…

One could make the case the Russian campaign was an attempt by Germany to colonize Russia in the 1940's. From a level of success (it failed), to the repercussions in the "colonizing" power (they were destroyed) to the sheer death toll and genocidal activity I would rate that as the "worst"

Japan in WWII. Proof skin color and culture is irrelevant to oppression and massacre.

I think I'd vote for England – more or less non-stop since 1066.

"I think I'd vote for England – more or less non-stop since 1066"

I think on the whole England was actually, in many cases, more beneficial than harmful as a colonizing power

During English colonial rule, an estimated 60 million people died from famines in India.

link

I'd hate to see what harmful would have looked like then.

"I'd hate to see what harmful would have looked like then."

It also appears there were large scale famines in India prior to the coming of the British. So did they in some cases alleviate instead of cause the famine?

I am not in favor of colonization or defending it just that British rule was on the whole not directly malevolent in intent as some others were.

There have been almost 100 famines recorded in India in the past 2,500 years; there were 14 between 1700 and 1950, but this included the mini-ice age and several volcanic eruptions that created the equivalent of nuclear winters (eg Krakatoa).

Since independence, there have been famines in the 1950s (1), 1960s (1), and 1970s (2), all dealt with using the same famine alleviation plans introduced by the Raj in the 1870s/1880s except that relief was time-limited, which it wasn't under the British. The Indian government was also assisted by the introduction of Borlaug wheat (not available during the Raj), which is much hardier and more productive.

The one way in which the Raj did unintentionally exacerbate the 1873 famine, was in encouraging communities to sell off part of their wheat reserves to fund community projects. This was stopped afterwards. The 1943 Assam famine produced relatively few deaths from starvation, but many from the subsequent malaria epidemic; this prompted two British military doctors to come up with the first ever public inoculation programme, which later became the blueprint for the WHO.

Overall, the Raj was a much more responsible form of colonialism than the HEIC had been – ironically, the HEIC officials had behaved more like Indians and "went native" in more than just their personal life styles.

I think I'd vote for England – more or less non-stop since 1066.

You mean the time England was invaded and conquered by French-based ex-Vikings?

"Overall, the Raj was a much more responsible form of colonialism than the HEIC had been – ironically, the HEIC officials had behaved more like Indians and "went native" in more than just their personal life styles."

"Responsible colonialism" is a novel concept but your second statement is awfully misleading.

It is true that the British in India – HEIC were initially very happy to integrate and intermarry but once the balance of power tipped and the HEIC were in control that all went pre Mutiny.

In its place came an imperial attitude that scorned everything Indian including the expendable population who were generally referred to as "ni**ers". The whole thing is too well documented to warrant much debate.

American officers serving in India during WW2 were amazed and appalled at the whole set up and duly reported back thus I suppose hastening the demise of the empire.

read with interest this topic…but i really think that, also if we consider many resonsibilities against infrigment of human rights (a very modern definition) England had , and not only according to the opinion of indian PM Manmohan Singh and the fact that Commonwealth still is well appreciated legacy by former Colonial subjects, a definitive Civilisation and development role both in India and Africa…from what i read, during the British stay in India, the attitude toward native population was very respectful and aimed toward future self determination..of course the standards that have to be considered cannot be today's ones..

"during the British stay in India, the attitude toward native population was very respectful and aimed toward future self determination."

It is possible to say that in the early period of British conquest and colonisation the British were mesmerised by Indian civilisation and accordingly there was respect accorded to their Indian subjects. That all changed with the shift of the balance of power to the British which occurred well before the Mutiny.

As to Indian self determination it was not something the British could envisage without themselves. The high imperialists of the C19th would have laughed themselves silly at the very idea. Certainly we can dismiss the idea that the core aim of the Raj was to promulgate Indian self determination.

There is no reason to project back modern concepts of human rights to assess the British, or indeed other empires contemporary observers collected the evidence and came to a view which we can read today.