A world without colonialism?

[Augustus]

If there hadn't been any European colonialism/imperialism, what do you think the world would be like today? (allowing for the existence other forms of imperialism/colonialism and the transfer of technologies, weapons and disease via trade, and Europeans could still fight and conquer each other)

No USA, Canada, Australia, Brazil, etc. Possibly no India (as a united state), very different borders and states in Africa.

What would the new world be like? Africa? Asia? Europe?

Would we be more technologically advanced? Less? About the same?

Without imperial gunboats and bribes, would the slave trade still openly exist? Without colonialism previously increasing the demand, would it have ended sooner?

How would we view human rights? Would we have global organisations like the UN?

What would global religion look like?

Would the world be better or worse or pretty much the same?

Obviously this is incredibly speculative, but in your view what are some plausible possibilities for how things could have turned out?

 

[Daemon Sophic]

If there hadn't been any European colonialism/imperialism, what do you think the world would be like today? (allowing for the existence other forms of imperialism/colonialism and the transfer of technologies, weapons and disease via trade, and Europeans could still fight and conquer each other)

No USA, Canada, Australia, Brazil, etc. Possibly no India (as a united state), very different borders and states in Africa.

What would the new world be like? Africa? Asia? Europe?

Would we be more technologically advanced? Less? About the same?

Without imperial gunboats and bribes, would the slave trade still openly exist? Without colonialism previously increasing the demand, would it have ended sooner?

How would we view human rights? Would we have global organisations like the UN?

Would the world be better or worse or pretty much the same?

Obviously this is incredibly speculative, but in your view what are some plausible possibilities for how things could have turned out?

So you suggest that wars can be fought within each continent, but no colonialism (I.e. warfare) can be conducted beyond the range of said continent?

 

[vulcanlogician]

Obviously this is incredibly speculative, but in your view what are some plausible possibilities for how things could have turned out?

I think, as you admit, it's too speculative. I kinda think that technology would have found a way to spread virally through the world, that we didn't need colonialism or capitalism to achieve that particular end. But what the world would look like politically? It's almost impossible to say because Europe kind of branded itself on the world and left a deep mark. It would be totally different than it is now. But beyond that, who can say?

 

[Orbit]

It would make a nice sci-fi story....

 

[joe1776]

If there hadn't been any European colonialism/imperialism, what do you think the world would be like today? (allowing for the existence other forms of imperialism/colonialism and the transfer of technologies, weapons and disease via trade, and Europeans could still fight and conquer each other)

No USA, Canada, Australia, Brazil, etc. Possibly no India (as a united state), very different borders and states in Africa.

What would the new world be like? Africa? Asia? Europe?

Would we be more technologically advanced? Less? About the same?

Without imperial gunboats and bribes, would the slave trade still openly exist? Without colonialism previously increasing the demand, would it have ended sooner?

How would we view human rights? Would we have global organisations like the UN?

What would global religion look like?

Would the world be better or worse or pretty much the same?

Obviously this is incredibly speculative, but in your view what are some plausible possibilities for how things could have turned out?

Before we can assume colonialism never happened, we have to assume its cause never existed. I'll offer the cause of colonialism as the ego-driven need to feel superior to others which results in arrogant human behavior. If the cause of arrogant human behavior never existed, we'd have a truly wonderful world.

 

[sun rise]

it's too speculative

And why stop there. History has been replete with one nations conquering another and being conquered in its turn. Watching the history of Europe in videos like this with the list of wars on the upper left is not only educational but fun (at least it was for me)

 

[Augustus]

I think, as you admit, it's too speculative. I kinda think that technology would have found a way to spread virally through the world, that we didn't need colonialism or capitalism to achieve that particular end. But what the world would look like politically? It's almost impossible to say because Europe kind of branded itself on the world and left a deep mark. It would be totally different than it is now. But beyond that, who can say?

Obviously technology would still improve to some extent, and would spread via trade, but would it have reached modern levels?

The degree to which imperial incomes and resources contributed to the industrial revolution is debatable, although they likely had some impact. This could have had some impact on the 'scientific revolution' too, especially as regards to funding.

Also quite a lot of science and technology was developed due to needs that arose out of imperialism (and warfare in general). Just as one example, the Royal Navy was responsible for improvements in manufacturing, timekeeping, navigation, logistics, metallurgy, healthcare, weapons etc. They mapped the seas and shared these opining up global transport and trade (as well as restricting piracy that limited shipping). Darwin even went to the Galapagos on an active service naval vessel.

I think we'd have to say there would have been less scientific and technological advancement in Europe (especially once we remove the modern US), but the question is whether this would have been replaced by advances in other places.

My tentative guess is we'd be quite a bit less scientifically and technologically advanced as I don't really see where this replacement would have come from, although people might argue that this would be a good thing if it reduced environmental damage.

 

[icehorse]

If there hadn't been any European colonialism/imperialism, what do you think the world would be like today?

I very much appreciate that the OP emphasized European colonialism. I think that critics often try to paint European colonialism as the only kind of colonialism. When you open the door to all of the colonialism the world has ever seen, very different questions and conclusions come up for discussion.

With all that said, I wouldn't know how to approach speculating on the question - way too many variables for my puddin' brain. But I would say that - despite all the bad press - European colonialism was often morally and ethically superior to many other forms we see in history. I'm not seeing this through rose-colored glasses, but I do think zooming out and looking at the broader landscape is a useful exercise.

 

[Augustus]

Before we can assume colonialism never happened, we have to assume its cause never existed. I'll offer the cause of colonialism as the ego-driven need to feel superior to others which results in arrogant human behavior. If the cause of arrogant human behavior never existed, we'd have a truly wonderful world.

Historically, the need to acquire more territory has been as much about security as the need to feel superior to others.

Strength came from territory, population and access to resources, and weakness was an existential threat.

After the rise of agriculture, the increasing expansion of nations was pretty much necessary for survival in almost all environments. But in a militarised society, of course human ego plays a role in conquest too.

Even much of European colonialism was about the desire to improve or maintain balance of power vis-a-vis other European nations though.

The problem is if even one person is 'playing the game' you didn't really have the ability to opt out.

 

[Augustus]

So you suggest that wars can be fought within each continent, but no colonialism (I.e. warfare) can be conducted beyond the range of said continent?

In this scenario anyone can colonise except the Europeans. Others could even colonise the Europeans.

 

[Augustus]

very much appreciate that the OP emphasized European colonialism. I think that critics often try to paint European colonialism as the only kind of colonialism. When you open the door to all of the colonialism the world has ever seen, very different questions and conclusions come up for discussion.

While there is obviously much to criticise about European imperialism, I do find it quite funny when, as a counterpoint to Eurocentric views of history, people will often talk glowingly of the advanced, cultured and fabulously wealthy pre-colonial African states, or the achievements of the Aztecs or Mughals, but rarely note that these were only able to be advanced, cultured or fabulously wealthy because they were equally violent and imperialistic.

I think it's very important to have a less Eurocentric view of the past, but intellectual 'decolonising' often just seems to be going back to whatever empire there was prior to European conquest and assuming it was better class of empire.

 

[Augustus]

It would make a nice sci-fi story....

With several competing timelines playing out wildly different possibilities. Would be a great transmedia project: books, films, games...

 

[Augustus]

And why stop there. History has been replete with one nations conquering another and being conquered in its turn. Watching the history of Europe in videos like this with the list of wars on the upper left is not only educational but fun (at least it was for me)

I like those map videos too

Here is the whole world (best mute the awful music though)

 

[vulcanlogician]

Obviously technology would still improve to some extent, and would spread via trade, but would it have reached modern levels?

Spread from where? Europe? There's no saying how technological advancement would have proceeded in a non-colonial world. In our colonized world technology was centered in the imperial seat and distributed outward according to the customs of the colonists. Maybe that's the most efficient way. Or maybe, it's less efficient. Who can say? We've never run that social experiment.

Just look at the 20th century. The formation of superpowers (the Western and Soviet bloc) all based on European ideologies. Those superpowers distributed technology (and weapons) according to their interests. It would be a vastly different world had all that not happened. And who could say if it'd be better or worse, less technologically advanced, or more?

I think you asked a very good question. It really got my noodle goin'. But it's somewhat unanswerable.

 

[Debater Slayer]

But I would say that - despite all the bad press - European colonialism was often morally and ethically superior to many other forms we see in history. I'm not seeing this through rose-colored glasses, but I do think zooming out and looking at the broader landscape is a useful exercise.

I find that statement to be quite dangerous as someone from a country that has been invaded and/or colonized by the Greeks, Arabs, Ottomans, French, and British. It's also so subjective as to have no practical utility, in my opinion, unless we were trying to justify European colonialism or downplay its harms.

In Egypt, for example, Ottoman rule generally wasn't as destructive for the country and its people overall as British rule was, but French colonization wasn't as bad for Egypt as it was for Algeria or much of Africa (perhaps due to lasting much longer in the latter cases). It's largely relative to which positive and negative effects one chooses to prioritize or focus on. If we zoom out and look at the broader picture, my opinion is that all forms of colonialism are overall undesirable and harmful, especially in the long term, albeit sometimes in different ways. It's a question of how each colonizer was different from the others rather than who was "better" or "worse" (which are nebulous and largely pointless descriptors in this case).

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And why stop there. History has been replete with one nations conquering another and being conquered in its turn. Watching the history of Europe in videos like this with the list of wars on the upper left is not only educational but fun (at least it was for me)

It's also selling itself short, as it's also entwined with Africa (especially the Mediterranean states), wars in the Middle East, and occasionally even the East. But not just war. We like spreading and mingling for many reasons, it seems. War and domination, unfortunately, are among those reasons.

 

[icehorse]

I find that statement to be quite dangerous as someone from a country that has been invaded and/or colonized by the Greeks, Arabs, Ottomans, French, and British. It's also so subjective as to have no practical utility, in my opinion, unless we were trying to justify European colonialism or downplay its harms.

In Egypt, for example, Ottoman rule generally wasn't as destructive for the country and its people overall as British rule was, but French colonization wasn't as bad for Egypt as it was for Algeria or much of Africa (perhaps due to lasting much longer in the latter cases). It's largely relative to which positive and negative effects one chooses to prioritize or focus on. If we zoom out and look at the broader picture, my opinion is that all forms of colonialism are overall undesirable and harmful, especially in the long term, albeit sometimes in different ways. It's a question of how each colonizer was different from the others rather than who was "better" or "worse" (which are nebulous and largely pointless descriptors in this case).

I think we're agreeing more than we're disagreeing

We see a lot of "west bashing" going on, and I think most of it is inaccurate, misleading, and destructive. "The west" has done a lot of horrible things, but so have all the other societal powerhouses. I think we should look critically at all of it and strive to do better, I just think that knee-jerk, anti-west rhetoric ought to be challenged.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I think we're agreeing more than we're disagreeing

We see a lot of "west bashing" going on, and I think most of it is inaccurate, misleading, and destructive. "The west" has done a lot of horrible things, but so have all the other societal powerhouses. I think we should look critically at all of it and strive to do better, I just think that knee-jerk, anti-west rhetoric ought to be challenged.

I think any position that overgeneralizes about an entire culture by either glorifying or demonizing it wholesale is bound to be problematic. I feel the same way about overgeneralized anti-Western rhetoric as I do its anti-Arab and anti-African counterparts. All cultures have positive and negative aspects as well as historical accomplishments and atrocities.

 

[icehorse]

I think any position that overgeneralizes about an entire culture by either glorifying or demonizing it wholesale is bound to be problematic. I feel the same way about overgeneralized anti-Western rhetoric as I do its anti-Arab and anti-African counterparts. All cultures have positive and negative aspects as well as historical accomplishments and atrocities.

Hear hear!

That said, we need to be free to criticize ALL of them without threat of censorship.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I find that statement to be quite dangerous as someone from a country that has been invaded and/or colonized by the Greeks, Arabs, Ottomans, French, and British. It's also so subjective as to have no practical utility, in my opinion, unless we were trying to justify European colonialism or downplay its harms.

In Egypt, for example, Ottoman rule generally wasn't as destructive for the country and its people overall as British rule was, but French colonization wasn't as bad for Egypt as it was for Algeria or much of Africa (perhaps due to lasting much longer in the latter cases). It's largely relative to which positive and negative effects one chooses to prioritize or focus on. If we zoom out and look at the broader picture, my opinion is that all forms of colonialism are overall undesirable and harmful, especially in the long term, albeit sometimes in different ways. It's a question of how each colonizer was different from the others rather than who was "better" or "worse" (which are nebulous and largely pointless descriptors in this case).

There's a scene in the Life of Brian that I feel sums it up rather well. It's the scene where they are listing their complaints and grievances against Rome. And, indeed, the Jews and many, many others had legit grievances. But they also brought roads, it's pointed out, and plumbing, medicine and other things they didn't have before. And that's probably the best way to go about it. Colonialism is bad enough to make some Marxists complain on grounds of the local state being unable to develop a national bourgeois class due to economic repression. But as anyone of then really worse? Seems akin to the victim olympics and likely to be more destructive in the end than helpful. We're some better off after colonization? I doubt it. Merchants, scholars, military and others more likely to be moving around still would have seen new and different things and culture exchanges would still happen. So technology and other things would still spread (perhaps just as we saw ideas moving around when all of society was largely clustered around the Cradle of Civilization).
Roman, English, Ottoman or Mongolian, they had different rules and ways of doing things and could be said to be better or worse in that regard, but ultimately those conquered by an empire are likely to be looked upon as slaves, exploitable resources, something to abuse and less than a fully entitled human.