A world without colonialism?

[Debater Slayer]

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.

Yeah, we can't change the past regardless of how good or bad we consider it to be. In my opinion, pondering what the world would be like if colonialism (European or otherwise) had never existed is similar to pondering what life on Earth would be like if dinosaurs had never gone exinct, or if Pangaea had never broken apart. We will never know for sure, and we can only work with the present either way.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yeah, we can't change the past regardless of how good or bad we consider it to be. In my opinion, pondering what the world would be like if colonialism (European or otherwise) had never existed is similar to pondering what life on Earth would be like if dinosaurs had never gone exinct, or if Pangaea had never broken apart. We will never know for sure, and we can only work with the present either way.

Without colonialism the best we can say is we'd probably still have some languages and cultures that have otherwise been lost, but even still the extent and "full truth" of such a statement is highly questionable because things still change with a sort of a social-DNA that is reproduced anytime two or more peoples come into close proximity, and just like regular DNA with sexual reproduction this "social reproduction" mixes traits of the parents while bringing some new evolutions into existence.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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?

The same. It's still the planet of the apes.

 

[joe1776]

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....

How would adding territory add military strength? How would adding an uncooperative population add military strength? Adding natural resources would add military strength but that could be done more economically by forming alliances than by conquest.

Historically, the ultimate survivors have been those willing to cooperate in a worthy cause.

 

[Quintessence]

This is a really difficult topic for me. Dissatisfied with the few paragraphs I wrote, I deleted it all and think I'll just say this:

The attempted (and largely successful) eradication of indigenous religion and culture in the New World is something I deeply despise. As a modern Druid whose religious path is a reconstruction of the spirit of indigenous religious traditions, I can't not deeply despise it.

 

[jbg]

The August 16, 2021 front page made depressing reading, and similar front pages are no more sanguine. The headlines, with one exception, about the collapse of the Afghan government and Taliban takeover, and the earthquake in Haiti. Both are countries without governments in any sense that we would recognize or understand. For a sampling, see With the Taliban in control, uncertainty and fear grip Afghanistan and Afghan women fear what will happen with the Taliban once again in power on Afghanistan, and ‘I’m the Only Surgeon’: After Haiti Quake, Thousands Seek Scarce Care on Haiti. Though the current travails in Afghanistan focus on political violence and in Haiti on a natural disaster (the violence occurred a month ago with the assassination of the President), both can be expected to lead to major humanitarian tragedies.

The appeals for relief for Haitian earthquake victims are already widespread; I have received an appeal from, of all groups, American Jewish World Services (link). Well-intentioned people will no doubt open their wallets. At some point, similar help in Afghanistan will be needed. Given the lack of a competent, transparent government to distribute the assistance, the moneys will disappear. There are plenty of greedy hands perfectly willing to take advantage of the goodwill of the generous.

More ominously, the Taliban, upon returning to government, has participated in savage attacks on woman and minorities. Previously in permitted the use of territory to launch devastating attacks, September 11, 2001 being a prime example. The original impetus to colonialism was, in part, economic greed on the part of the West. But also in part, piracy and other attacks were motivators. The sailing trips around the Cape of Good Hope and Cape Horn, and eventually the building of the Panama Canal were motivated in part by hostilities emanating from Africa and Asia. The West's response after the September 11 attacks hinted at a return to some kind of control by the West in some of these areas. Are we in for a repeat?

We have little interest in exploiting Afghanistan and similar failed states. By what method does the West protect itself, though?

 

[Wildswanderer]

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?

Probably still be a lot of tribes claiming their turf and fighting it out.
Colonialism is the new Boogeyman, but it helped to create a more civilized society in spite of it's flaws.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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.

The OP discussed European colonialism only. The Europeans are certainly not the the empire builders through history, so I'm not sure why it would follow that all humanity in this hypothetical is necessarily morally superior to how they were IRL, to be honest.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Probably still be a lot of tribes claiming their turf and fighting it out.
Colonialism is the new Boogeyman, but it helped to create a more civilized society in spite of it's flaws.

More civilised as judged by Western cultures? Of course. How could it not?

Looking at this in a American context, there were substantial power consolidation either via empire (Aztecs, Incas, Mayans as simple examples) or via Confederacy (with the Iroquois being an example).

The question isn't 'Were these civilizations impacted by European colonialism', as they clearly were, for better and/or worse.

The question is 'What would have happened if they weren't impacted by European Colonialism'

 

[joe1776]

The OP discussed European colonialism only. The Europeans are certainly not the the empire builders through history, so I'm not sure why it would follow that all humanity in this hypothetical is necessarily morally superior to how they were IRL, to be honest.

1. Both Eastern and Western Europe have a long history of empire-building. Some countries have changed hands a dozen times.

2. Empire-building has been a harmful human endeavor all over the world. It seems unlikely that it would have unique regional causes.

 

[Augustus]

The question is 'What would have happened if they weren't impacted by European Colonialism'

Even if they weren't impacted by European (or foreign) colonialism, it is hard to see how there wouldn't have been massive social upheaval.

To what extent can a culture survive a sudden, massive influx of advanced 'alien' technology, particularly weaponry, especially alongside an influx of disease?

Trade for furs and precious metals would still exist, and weapons would be top of the wish list in warrior cultures. An arms race would be inevitable, and a vicious cycle of internal empire building would almost certainly begin out of necessity.

Disease, war and overexploitation of resources would reduce populations. Foreign alliances and the use of mercenary armies would be likely as there would always be those looking to gain an advantage.

Some form of industrialisation would follow, as foreign salespeople offer to set up factories and promise more money and more weapons, but only in the places that could ensure sufficient security (the most powerful). They would in turn increase their advantages.

I've no idea what the end point would look like or at what point the system might stabalise into a new normal.

I find it hard to imagine that the short/medium term would be anything other than disastrous for most, and the societies that emerged at the end would be radically different from those at the start.

 

[Augustus]

How would adding territory add military strength? How would adding an uncooperative population add military strength?

You seriously don't understand the Romans, Persians, Mongols, Arabs, Ottomans, British etc. added strength by adding territory? I refuse to believe that, I think you just hit reply without actually taking a second to think about.

Do you think all of the people in the Roman Army were from "Italy"/Rome? Do you think the Jannisaries were ethnic Turks? Do you think the Abbasid Army was just Bedouin Arabs? Do you think the British Empire relied entirely on white soldiers from Britain?

Of course you don't.

People were integrated into the empires, and fought because they could get paid to do so and fighting for one master is pretty much the same as fighting for another, or they could gain power by doing so, or they got to kill their traditional enemies by doing so, or they got forced to do so.

 

[RestlessSoul]

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

The Arabs did, didn’t they? And got as far as most of Spain. Later, the Ottomans overran The Balkans. If the whole of Europe had become part of some Caliphate or other, what would the world look like now? Impossible to say, really.

Without British Imperialism it’s doubtful we’d have had curry houses on every corner, or The Specials and Two Tone, whilst the likes of Hanif Kureishi and Salman Rushdie would have been writing about very different subject matter; so we’d be culturally poorer in the U.K. anyway. And there’d be no rock n roll to emerge from the USA, in fact there’d be no USA. No Ernest Hemingway, Scott Fitzgerald, Ezra Pound, no Jackson Pollock, Edward Hopper, Andy Warhol, no George Gershwin, Duke Ellington, no Miles Davis or Leonard Bernstein…

 

[Augustus]

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.

How do Egyptians view this? After being a great power during the various Egyptian Empire, being ruled by 'foreign' elites for over 200 years.

What is the 'idea of Egypt' as a distinct entity during these periods (at least pre-19th C)? Are there any regimes that are seen as 'more Egyptian'? How 'Egyptian' are the Mamluks for example? Is the Mamluk Empire seen as an Egyptian Empire or a Turko-Caucasian one (or something else)?

I'd be really interested to hear your thoughts on this

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).

How is the 19th C (Ottoman) Egyptian colonisation of the Sudan viewed in Egypt in relation to other 19th C colonialism?

 

[Augustus]

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.

Some were undoubtedly better off, and some were undoubtedly worse off. Almost all empires rely on having local support, and people provide this because they think they will benefit.

For example the East India Company takeover of India was instigated and paid for by Indian Bankers, the Jagat Seths, and mostly done with Indian troops. They preferred to deal with a corporation than unpredictable and capricious Mughal emperors so they bribed the EIC to depose them. Many Muslims in Bengal also preferred company rule than taking their chances with Hindu Marathas.

Indian soldiers would fight for whoever paid them best, as they had done for centuries. For the most part, the EIC paid them better, so they were better off.

For the majority of Indians though, it made little difference who their rulers were, they were subsistence farmers.

But trade is something that benefits greatly from stability, and stability tends to result from powerful Empires. Just as the Romans were able to crack down on piracy in the Med, the British made the seas much safer than they would otherwise have been in a more 'multipolar' world - the Pax Britannica (of course only possible after a lot of bellum Britannica).

Then you have things like the ending of the slave trade, which was only really possible because Britain was rich and powerful so it could bribe people to support the ban or bully them into submission, just as America has often been able to do since WW2 when it wants to get its way. Imperial might can be used for helping as well as harming.

Empire create common language which facilitates cultural and scientific exchange and concentrations of wealth that support scholarship, for example the 'Golden Age' after the Arab conquests as parts of the Roman and Persian Empires were combined along with a lingua franca and rich patrons for scholarship.

Long distance trade, cultural exchange, scientific progress, etc. all benefit from empire, and a less imperial world would have been a more fragmented and parochial world. People would still be moving around, but fewer, and with more trepidation.

It's impossible to do a "balance sheet' for any empire, especially as many of the 'good' things are only possible due to 'bad' things like prior violent conquest. "Good" is also far too subjective to be meaningful, you could legitimately argue the spread of industrialisation is among the best thing in human history, or among the very worst.

There would be significant differences though, and these would mean different groups being better/worse off in all societies.

 

[joe1776]

You seriously don't understand the Romans, Persians, Mongols, Arabs, Ottomans, British etc. added strength by adding territory? I refuse to believe that, I think you just hit reply without actually taking a second to think about.

We don't need to resort to ancient history for evidence on our question. Please offer your long list of countries defeated by Germany and Japan in WW2 in which the defeated people, for the most part, willingly added to the military might of their conquerors as opposed to the number of men and women who risked their lives to offer sabotage and other resistance.

 

[Augustus]

We don't need to resort to ancient history for evidence on our question.

Translation: "as per usual, I will dismiss out of hand any evidence that contradicts my strongly held ideological position, no matter how compelling".

Please offer your long list of countries defeated by Germany and Japan in WW2 in which the defeated people, for the most part, willingly added to the military might of their conquerors as opposed to the number of men and women who risked their lives to offer resistance and sabotage.

Again you seem to have hit reply before stopping to think, you also need to consider all of the troops from the British and French Empires that fought against the Nazis?

We could go up to the present if you like and look at the Chechens, Dagastanis, Buryats, etc. fighting in the Russian Army in Ukraine.

Remember your claim was that you can't get militarily stronger by taking land.

So from ancient times all the way up the present day, we have incontrovertible evidence that nations do indeed get militarily stronger by taking land.

I eagerly await you reply telling me why none of the hundreds of potential examples that I could name count

 

[joe1776]

Translation: "as per usual, I will dismiss out of hand any evidence that contradicts my strongly held ideological position, no matter how compelling"

What evidence? Your have offered claims but no evidence at all. Moreover, you ducked the chance to provide evidence by naming those WW2 countries that aided their conquerors..

Again you seem to have hit reply before stopping to think, you also need to consider all of the troops from the British and French Empires that fought against the Nazis?

The French who fought the Nazis were the citizens of a defeated nation. They support my position, not yours. The British were not a defeated nation by the Nazis. Therefore, they are not relevant to our discussion.

We could go up to the present if you like and look at the Chechens, Dagastanis, Buryats, etc. fighting in the Russian Army in Ukraine.

What exactly is your relevant claim with this comment?

Remember your claim was that you can't get militarily stronger by taking land. So from ancient times all the way up the present day, we have incontrovertible evidence that nations do indeed get militarily stronger by taking land.I eagerly await you reply telling me why none of the hundreds of potential examples that I could name count.

Your claim of incontrovertible evidence is a worthless claim -- not evidence. Moreover, when offered the chance to give an example to support your claim from the many nations defeated by the Germans and Japanese in WW2, you ducked the question.

 

[Augustus]

What evidence? Your have offered claims but no evidence at all.

Let me get this clear, is your argument genuinely that the following empires did not gain any military strength via territorial acquisition?

You seriously don't understand the Romans, Persians, Mongols, Arabs, Ottomans, British etc. added strength by adding territory? I refuse to believe that, I think you just hit reply without actually taking a second to think about.

Do you think all of the people in the Roman Army were from "Italy"/Rome? Do you think the Jannisaries were ethnic Turks? Do you think the Abbasid Army was just Bedouin Arabs? Do you think the British Empire relied entirely on white soldiers from Britain?

You are in all seriousness claiming that Rome would have been equally powerful, if not more powerful, had it remained a city state and not sought to acquire more territory?

If you are not making that claim, then you accept that you can indeed become militarily more powerful via territorial acquisition.

So which is it?

Moreover, you ducked the chance to provide evidence by naming those WW2 countries that aided their conquerors..

Your Nazi example is based on a fallacious argument.

Your claim is proven false if many Empires had net gains.

It is not necessary to prove all territorial acquisitions produce net gains.

Do you understand that? So, now answer the examples about the empires that obviously benefitted and you will see why you are flat earth wrong.

The French who fought the Nazis were a defeated nation. They support my position, not yours. The British were not a defeated nation by the Nazis. Therefore, they are not relevant to our discussion.

Again, a fallacious argument. The point was that many colonial subjects fought for Britain and France illustrating that territorial acquisition can indeed increase military strength.

More colonial troops fought for Britain than British troops:

The Indian Army during World War II, a British force also referred to as the British Indian Army,[1] began the war, in 1939, numbering just under 200,000 men.[2] By the end of the war, it had become the largest volunteer army in history, rising to over 2.5 million men in August 1945.

What exactly is your relevant claim with this comment?

That Russia acquired those territories by historical conquest. They now fight for Russia.

Hence Russia gained military strength through territorial acquisition.

It's not rocket science.

Your claim of incontrovertible evidence is a worthless claim -- not evidence.

Rome going from a city state building to a massive Empire that lasted over 1000 years is not evidence you can gain military power via empire?

The 2.5 million Indian troops that fought in the British Indian Army against Germany is not evidence you can gain military power via empire?

This time, you really do seem to have got yourself very confused in your haste to disagree

 

[joe1776]

Your claim is proven false if many Empires had net gains. It is not necessary to prove all territorial acquisitions produce net gains. Do you understand that?

Yes, of course.

So, now answer the examples about the empires that obviously benefitted and you will see why you are flat earth wrong.

Do you understand that your claim that those empires "obviously benefited" is a claim unsupported by evidence?

A nation with the most powerful military in the world can create an empire. When Germany took France in WW2, some of the French collaborated with the invaders. But they were hated by their own people even more than the Germans. The Vichy force initially fell in with the Germans, but switched back again to the allied side when they got the chance. In France, the citizens engaging in resistance far outnumbered those collaborating.

In WW2, the French evidence supports a weakening of the German military, not a strengthening. So, while neither of us can offer statistical evidence on the empires of the past, my bet is that human nature hasn't changed that much. I think the resistance probably outnumbered the collaborators in those cases as well.

Yes, the British-led Indian troops fought in WW2. Would they have fought if Britain was the aggressor in its empire-building mode? I doubt it. In all, I've read that 55 nations joined the fight against the Axis powers in WW2