How much did European states actually benefit from empire? I remember hearing that India was the only holding that ever turned a profit for the British, and that Malaysia was far more valuable to them as an independent trading partner than as a colonial holding.

/u/tenminutehistory -- How do you perceive Russian continental (in contrast to overseas) colonialism in Asia in comparison to other forms of colonialism? From the Cossack expeditions in Siberia in the Early Modern Era to the wars fought by Imperial Russia in Central Asia, do you think that there was a particular Russian "imperial project" in the east? Was it specifically written out at some point? Or would you say it was more an opportunistic expansionism, unchecked by the lack of a regional rival with comparable military capabilities? (Broadly stated of course!) Considering the huge timespan covered (~1500-1914), maybe it is misleading to speak of a single Russian expansion.

If you do link Russia's eastern expansion to other European colonial projects, how do you think does it compare to the colonization of the Americas (be it of Spanish, British, or French type), the Scramble for Africa, or, most interestingly, to the "internal" settler colonialism of the American "Wild" West?

I apologize if this is too general of a question, I can try to be more specific if you want to.

Two post-colonial African questions:

• How did the communists overthrow the monarchy in Ethiopia in the 1970's? Did they have extensive popular support?

• Did Thomas Sankara improve the conditions of Burkino Fasso after he came to power in Upper Volta? What was his rule like?

The Spanish Empire colonised most of what is now Latin America in just a few decades in the early 16th century. How were they able to take such massive and often inhospitable areas of land so quickly?

Why was the Habsburg Monarchy, with ready access to the Adriatic after 1721, unable to engage in the colonial expansion of the eighteenth century?

I have two questions regarding pre-colonial and colonial Africa, so it's mainly directed at /u/khosikulu, /u/commustar, /u/esotericr, but of course the insight of other panelists is welcome!

• I've been interested in J.F.A. Ajayi's (among others) approach to emphasize pre-colonial African history, framing the period of European colonial rule as "ephemeral" to the big picture of the history of a large and diverse continent. While this view is somewhat exaggerated by me to illustrate a point, what is your professional opinion on contextualizing colonial rule in Africa by emphasizing the continuity of native power structures, native agency, and reevaluating the actual impact of Europeans? Do you think that the period of direct European rule over Africa is overemphasized by western and western-influenced historiography at the expense of the bigger picture of African history? A remnant of the "colonialism of the mind" (Ngũgĩ)?
• Could you shed some light on what Hargreaves called the "African partition of Africa"? I'm not very knowledgeable about Africa before 1880 but as far as I know up to the incursion of "direct" European rule (the extent of it being debatable) into the interior of the continent in the late 19th century, there was a period of considerable centralization and armed expansion of African empires in the 18th and 19th centuries. (The Fulani Jihad, the Bornu Empire, the Zulu in South Africa to name some.) Is there anything that explains the concurrent development in several parts of Sub-Saharan Africa at the time? The European arms and slave trade? Or is the entire premise of an exceptional age of African expansionism false and this is a blanket claim that tries to link totally different processes together?

Thank you for your time.

/u/esotericr: Would you agree that Zaire (and its successor state the DRC) was one of the most disastrously failed post-colonial states in Africa, if not the world, and what aspects of Belgian colonial policy were mainly to blame for this state of affairs?

I'm getting on a plane soon, but I just wanted to ask a very broad question (inspired in part by my answer here, and not knowing whether Italian colonies were profitable) that's sort of the flip side to /u/dandan_noodles question "How much did European states actually benefit from Empire?": which colonies were unprofitable? And did it matter?

I know many of the small Caribbean and Central American colonies set up in the 17th and 18th century by minor colonial powers (Sweden, Denmark, Scotland, etc) proved to be unprofitable, but I'm wondering which colonies were money losers to more famous metropoles? Did this matter to the colonial powers?

Here's two questions. I was thinking of them in the context of British Africa, but I'd be happy to hear about anything.

• What did Europeans expect or think was likely for their former colonies as they gained independence after WWII? What did the people in these countries that had been subject to colonialism expect? Were there similarities in their viewpoints and expectations?
• Did any Imperial powers attempt to steer their former colonies in directions they wanted after independence? If so how did they do this? Was it covert or open? Could this be considered a "soft" form of colonialism (that may not be a good way to put it, but it's the best I can come up with. I vaguely remember reading something about this in relation to Nigeria but I can't remember exactly.

This is a broad question about the nature of colonialism. What motivated the countries in the 18-19th centuries to decide to subdue, fight and conquer the places they did, rather than engage with them as trading partners. More so with some of the places, kingdoms, territories in the Near East and the South Asia and India many of which were old established trading powers in the region. Was it only racism or something else?

And a related question, how were the European Colonial empires different in the way they saw their colonies from the ancient empires of Rome, Alexander's Empire or Persia.

I have a question about humanitarian aid in so called third world nations (maybe you could also tell me the proper nomenclature for them). What is the role for an outsider in providing developmental aide to countries that have a history of colonialism? Are we just perpetuating certain points of view of what development should mean for them? Is there such as thing as outside help that could help bring emancipatory potential to a post colonial area? Who are some thinkers that do investigation in this area?

I'm hoping to gather more information regarding the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai'i.

My questions are for all panel members offering insight.

• Is the overthrow/ annexation of the Kigdom of Hawai'i technically considered legal? Or is it technically considered illegal occupation?

• Can you explain to me about the role of the provisional government and the republic in between becoming a territory of the United States?

• Can you provide me information related to the The Kū'ē Petitions/ Anti-Annexation Petitions?

• I often study this topic and find articles containing excerpts like this-

" When the Hawaiian islands were formally annexed by the United States in 1898, the event marked end of a lengthy internal struggle between native Hawaiians and white American businessmen for control of the Hawaiian government. In 1893 the last monarch of Hawaii, Queen Lili'uokalani, was overthrown by party of businessmen, who then imposed a provisional government.

Soon after, President Benjamin Harrison submitted a treaty to annex the Hawaiian islands to the U.S. Senate for ratification. In 1897, the treaty effort was blocked when the newly-formed Hawaiian Patriotic League, composed of native Hawaiians, successfully petitioned the U.S. Congress in opposition of the treaty. The League's lobbying efforts left only 46 Senators in favor of the resolution, less than the 2/3 majority needed for approval of a treaty.

The League's victory was shortlived, however as unfolding world events soon forced the annexation issue to the fore again. With the explosion of the U.S.S. Maine in February of 1898 signaling the start of the Spanish American War, establishing a mid-Pacific fueling station and naval base became a strategic imperative for the United States. The Hawaiian islands were the clear choice, and this time Congress moved to annex the Hawaiian islands by Joint Resolution, a process requiring only a simple majority in both houses of Congress. On July 12, 1898, the Joint Resolution passed and the Hawaiian islands were officially annexed by the United States."

• Would you say that the above written is accurate?

• Is there anything you can expand on involving the illegal overthrow/ annexation of Hawai'i?

Thank you. I'm hoping to expand my current knowledge on the subject and appreciate any and all input or links from this panel of historians. Aloha.

I was wondering why the Ottomans never attempted to colonize. (Or did they?)
As far as I know they had one of the biggest fleets in Europe. Westwards could be hard because Spain controls Gibraltar, but eastward they had plenty of potential. The Red Sea and Persian Gulf were easily accessible. Did they just not have a naval presence outside of the Mediterranean? Did they send pirates at the passing Europeans? Or were they just content with their land routes.

Methodology and Historiography questions for all:

1. What is your favorite book/article/chapter on conceptualizing empire and why?

2. In your subfield, how has the trend of oceanic history affected the study of imperial history? I'd be especially interested to hear of unexpected links or perceived negatives.

I've heard it said that Native Americans did not really go to join any of the colonies, outside of political reasons like marriages. Was this true in the English colonies in America?

Also, how often did Europe use natives to help run their colonies in Africa while the slave trade was occurring (in areas they controlled)? Or did they usually use non-Africans in areas they directly controlled? Was any African working for them subject to the possibility of being enslaved themselves?

In what ways were religion incorporated into material and cultural colonialism and was there a great amount of competition between the various Christian sects?

What I know of religious elements of colonialism is mostly about the effects and how they were catalysts for events in Asia rather than their European/American roots so I wondered if someone could answer that for me!

How was the discovery and colonisation of the New World seen outside Europe? Did any non-European powers consider colonising too?

How did the unified Italian kingdom come to terms with Empire so relatively quickly in its history? It seems odd that a nation that whose early history is filled with irredentist conflict and ethnic liberation would turn around and participate in the subjugation of ethnic groups overseas.

Unrelatedly, 'Imperialism' as a historical concept tends to be held against a standard and model that Western and European nations created in their empire-building. How does 'Imperialism' and 'Empire' apply to non-Western nations that we attach those labels to? Is there a distinct Asian imperialism? Does the study of empire creation and postcolonial legacy change when we talk about the Japanese Empire, is there such a thing as 'Chinese Imperialism', or would it be disingenuous to compare a European Empire to an Asian Empire?

Steve Biko's writing and involvement in the Black Consciousness Movement was massively influential in the Apartheid resistance movement in South Africa. Did he or the BCM in South Africa have an impact in other colonial states in Africa?

Can someone please explain to me what Homi Bhabha is talking about with mimicry. Was in a seminar on post colonial studies and just couldn't wrap my head around that. The class didn't help either.

Why were so few pre-colonial states able to act as sovereign entities within the Westphalian system?

Especially in South Asia, there are a wide variety of fairly sophisticated native polities who weren't terribly different from the Europeans in their level and types of political organization. For example, what about the Ottomans or the Siamese or the Japanese made the European states need to treat them as nominal equals?

Is there a most successful decolonization model? Colonial powers tend to get flak in discussions of decolonization both for delaying it 'until they're ready', and for handing over control before the indigenous people are ready for self government. Is there a goldilocks example historians can point to, or has it always been erring on one side or the other?

Hi /u/yodatsracist (or anyone else that may be able to answer): these are more theoretical questions.

1. Why do values and beliefs persist over thousands of years? Areas which were Hindu in the past, are Hindu today. Places which were Christian in the past are Christian today.

2. What is the mechanism through which values are transmitted from generation to generation? Is it familial, political, etc.? Which mechanism had the strongest effect?

3. Would two groups - or individuals - with different value systems be able to effectively cooperate (whether politically or economically)? What conditions would need to be met?

4. Do you know of any studies about religious or cultural distance within China and the change in this distance measure over time?

When Russia was expanding east, at what point did they realize the extent to which the continent stretched east? And were they just trying to reach the coast, or were they expanding without a goal in mind? (/u/tenminutehistory)

/u/tenminutehistory , could you talk about the relationship between Caucasian peoples (Georgians especially) and ethnic Russians in the Early USSR?

After the fall of the Empire Georgians tried to make an independent state with Armenians and Azeris, but at the same time there were many Georgians within the Communist movement. Then together with Ukrainians and Russians I tend to see them almost overrepresented in Soviet film in the 60s-70s, but I haven't heard of what happened in the early Soviet days (say, before the GPW)

Technically questions about 'Empire': /u/tenminutehistory, how likely was the restoration of the traditional Russian Empire during the Russian Civil War? Was there any chance of restoration after the execution of the Romanovs? How did the Civil War affect far-flung areas of the Empire, such as Sibera and the Far East? Further, how does the Russian Empire (and the later USSR) conform to models of European overseas colonialism, and where does it notably differ?

How was the current life in german colonies ? How were the relations between the Germans and the Natives ?

Why the Southern Cameroons voted for an union with the Cameroun while Northern Cameroons stayed with Nigeria ?

Is there are colonies who did not wanted independence and who preferred to stay a colony ?

/u/snapshot52 In the American Girl series, one of the girls featured is Kaya a Nez Perce girl. Do you feel that her story (before contact with white people) was portrayed accurately and respectfully?

I'm a little late to this, but to /u/tenminutehistory - many people call the Russian expansion into Siberia a form of colonialism, but what of westward expansion? Is the Russian obtainment of Finland, the Baltics, and a large percentage of Poland also considered colonial in nature by any stretch of the imagination?

Did the Soviet government give any reparations or otherwise 'special treatment' to colonized nations within its borders (Siberian peoples, Turkic peoples, etc)? If so, what did it consist of, and how extensive was it?

This is for /u/myrmecologist. Is there another example of a collaboration between Indians and the British in science and maths, in the earlier years of EiC and British rule. Apart from the early 20th century with Ramanujam , CV Raman and Bose and others.

How did European nations evolve from having trading partners and a few trading outposts to creating empires ? What did they try to achieve and did they succeed ?

What did the Catholic Church's involvement in colonialism work (or state churches) and what about specifically in Brazil?

Why did Franklin D. Roosevelt did not like Charles De Gaulle, and what was the relationship between De Gaulle and Leopold Senghor like? Are there any resources I can visit for these questions?

How much actual control over areas beyond Kazan (I think all of it falls under "Siberia" but idk really hence the specific nature of the question) did Russia have during the 1800's? If I remember correctly this was before the trans-Siberian railway.

Compared to other nationalities, are the British more cunning and Machiavellian underneath their appearance of dignity and honour?

I ask because the British Empire and some members of the House of Lords (who theoretically should be more just and moral than others) perpetrated atrocities, evil and malice especially during Colonialism: famines in India and Ireland, Boer War concentration camps, Mau Mau Uprising, Opium Wars.