When people ask about why various third world regions have such poor development or social structures, a lot of people cite colonialism by the Europeans exploiting those countries and resulting in a power vacuum when they eventually vacated.
But why did this seem to disproportionately affect India, African and Central/South American countries? Australia, Canada and the USA were all colonies of the British Empire and have not collapsed from the withdrawal of UK governance.
What made some colonies different than others in the aftereffects of colonialism?
6 Answers 2014-07-30
I have read a number of reasons for why he never allowed their use but there doesn't seem to be a broad consensus on the issue? Some point to his history in WWI with these weapons while other cite his fear of the repercussions of using such weapons (reprisals by the Allies etc.)
What makes me particularly curious is that towards the end of the war Hitler demanded a harsh scorched earth policy so the invaders would be able to claim nothing (the so called Nero Decree). His mindset seemed to be beyond caring at this point and so why again were no Chemical or Biological weapons unleashed?
(I guess this is two questions then - why did he not generally permit their use and why, when he began to see the pending defeat and became maniacally destructive, would he still not allow them to be used?)
3 Answers 2014-07-30
This could be a loaded question. There is a comment(+153) in /r/india claiming that "for 200 years between 1700 to 1900, every single dollar of improvement in the Indian economy was shipped out to Britain via the process of colonialism.".
I am trying to validate the claims made in the following comment. Please ignore any propaganda in it.
When you say India's GDP share went down, neocolonialists/colonial apologists and their pet brown sepoys readily defend it by claiming it was purely due to the West's growth during industrial revolution and had nothing to do with colonial exploitation in India. That's complete bullshit. I'll give you another interesting statistic that gives you a much clearer understanding of issues.
India's population in 1700 was 127 million. In 1900, it was 271 million. Source
India's GDP in 1700 was $90 billion. India's GDP in 1900 was $192 billion, all figures in 1990 USD. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(PPP)
So India's GDP per capita in 1700 was $708. In 1900 it was $708.
India's GDP growth (adjusted to population) from 1700 to 1900 was a grand total of 0%.
But wait, what does that actually mean? Does that mean that there was no improvement in production between 1700 to 1900? Does that mean there was no improvement in technology between 1700 to 1900? Does that mean that trade did not increase for 200 years? Clearly not as improvements in production, technology, trade networks, etc are a natural process over time, especially over such a long period of time. But the growth was 0%. FFS, the British and their intellectual Sepoy chamchas love reminding us how the British gifted us the industrial revolution, albeit a tad late, in the mid to late 19th century. So how was the growth 0%?
The West's industrial revolution took place at a 3% GDP growth and 1.1% capita income growth after 1820. So, if we assume a mediocre growth of 0.25% per annum in India, the per capita GDP growth should have been 65% over 200 years. Even if we assume a very poor growth rate of 0.1% per annum in India, the per capita GDP should have grown by 22% over 200 years. But the growth was 0%.
So what does this mean? The figures mean, that for 200 years between 1700 to 1900, every single dollar of improvement in the Indian economy was shipped out to Britain via the process of colonialism. First by the East India Company and later by the British government itself since 1857 onwards.
So remember this, when our dearly beloved White colonial masters and their brown sepoys tell us how grateful we should be to colonialism for giving us the Industrial revolution in the mid to late 1800s, how grateful we should be for the fucking railway system, how grateful we should be for white people for teaching us how to be civilized and modern, how India owes everything it has to the limey British, remember this.
Remember that for 200 years, every single dollar in progress made by every single Indian was stolen and taken to Britain.
The next time someone tells you about the benefits of colonialism, give them one tight slap.
EDIT: Angus Maddison actually estimates that GDP per capita in India had a NEGATIVE GROWTH between 1700 and 1870. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
^Note: ^I ^do ^not ^want ^to ^break ^any ^rules. ^If ^I ^did ^please ^help ^me ^in ^asking ^the ^question ^in ^the ^right ^way.
1 Answers 2014-07-30
I'm a bibliophile, and history is the love of my life. I want to learn seriously, but my family would not heard of my entering a history major. So, to compensate for this, I decide I'll learn about it myself.
I'm interested in history of China, pre-Islam Arab, early Christianity, mystery of the Old Testament, historical Jesus, Victorian era England, paganism in general, mythology, and etymology of God. Historical books, biography, or old novels that allow me to get some glimpse of living in that particular era, like Arabian Nights and The Golden Lotus will all do for me. I can speak Indonesian, English, and Chinese, so books in those three languages will all be fine.
I have checked the book list in AskHistorian, just wondering whether there are some other interesting or a must read books which you may want to share with me.
For now, the list of books I'll buy / have owned are:
Please kindly give your help and recommendation. Many thanks for your generosity!
Love, Xiao8818
1 Answers 2014-07-30
Even to this day, we don't really hear much about logistics.
The modern US military is not the greatest military because it has the most shiniest guns (although it certainly doesn't hurt), but because it can get those guns anywhere in the world and keep them there and shooting.
Other famous militaries/generals such as Gen.Wellesley and WW2 US Army & Gen. Eisenhower were moderately famous for their efficient logistical systems, but it is not attributed for their success.
Earlier armies/generals like Caesar and Alexander are even less known for their logistical systems.
Is it just because tactics and strategy are more interesting? There must have been some sort of logistical system to support even the smallest armies.
edit:
To clarify what I'm wondering:
It seems clear that logistics has always been an important part of the overall campaign, but has it ever evolved from being a side show to being a more important topic of study?
i.e. Did it use to be that a general primarily hungered for the glory of battle, and only as an afterthought asked "oh, do we have enough food for dinner tonight?". Versus "okay, lets make sure we have enough food, then worry about how we're going to make contact with the enemy."
11 Answers 2014-07-30
Examples are the Partitions of Poland, and pre-WW2 plans by the USSR and Germany, among others
What about Poland (and all its related precursor states) was so valuable to these greater powers that Poland was constantly divided?
2 Answers 2014-07-30
1 Answers 2014-07-30
1 Answers 2014-07-30
1 Answers 2014-07-30
It is thought now that modern humans arrived in the Americas as early as 14,500 years ago. However, I have not been able to find out when these modern humans would have ceased intermingling with the Asiatic people across the Pacific. Would it be as soon as the Bering land bridge ceased to exist? Or would it have been much more recent than that?
To add on this I have a tie in question. I have heard that all humans likely have a Most Recent Common Ancestor as early as 5,000-10,000 ya. However, if humans ceased to mingle between North America and Asia then how could this be? Would this suggest that all current descendants of the Native Americans have mixed heritage with Europeans and Africans that arrived after 1492? I suppose nearly 500 years makes this not too unlikely of an answer.
1 Answers 2014-07-30
I've been reading John Keay's "China: A History" and in it he mentions that nomadic tribes from the steppe periodically controlled much of northern and western China, and that they did in in a pluralistic way, being essentially both "Qughans" of the nomadic tribes they were the heads of, and Emperors in the Han fashion of their Chinese settled subjects.
Now, this may be a dumb question, but how would that have worked? Did they really just keep their nomadic tradition and just show up with a gigantic horde once in a while to check in and issue edicts? I'm sure its more complex than that (it always is) but I'm having trouble visualizing the subject.
1 Answers 2014-07-30
2 Answers 2014-07-30
2 Answers 2014-07-30
1 Answers 2014-07-30
Akin to colonisation of the Americas, Australia or India. Even Scotland, Denmark, Courland and Sweden tried establishing colonies in the Amercas. It seems Europe left it fairly late to colonise Africa, especially if the Congress of Berlin provides any indication.
1 Answers 2014-07-30
I've found myself in a debate about the 3/5ths clause of the US Constitution. The precise wording is such:
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."
I know that the standard interpretation is that the phrase "all other Persons" means everyone not specifically mentioned previously (i.e. slaves) should be counted as 3/5ths of a person. Does the previous phrase "excluding Indians not taxed" have any baring on the 3/5ths mentioned immediately after it? Is there any discussion in the debates about the meaning of the 3/5ths compromise that has anything to do with Indians paying taxes at 3/5ths the rate of other people?
1 Answers 2014-07-30
1 Answers 2014-07-30
It seems like a strange move spiritually, politically, economically to identify as escaped slaves. How did people react to that story at the time?
1 Answers 2014-07-30
I recently learned there was an attempted coup against the Japanese emperor near the end of WWII to stop him from surrendering to the US. This lead me to wonder if the US or other Allies faced any uprisings during post-WWII occupation of Germany and Japan. Are there any accounts of Allied soldiers encountering armed rebellion against their occupation?
1 Answers 2014-07-30
I've been watching the Man at Arms series on Youtube lately and forging a weapon seems like a lot of work even with modern technology. How did blacksmiths do it back in the good old days before heat treating furnaces and all that heavy machinery? Were the products of poor quality? Were only a small group of people in charge of the forging during times of need? Other insights are much appreciated!
This subreddit is awesome and I thank you guys so much for this!
2 Answers 2014-07-30
1 Answers 2014-07-30
3 Answers 2014-07-30