Comments by "Mint" (@mint8648) on "Was Colonialism Good or Bad?" video.

  1. The British were much more mercantile and looking for a profit. Whereas the Spanish considered American territories a part of Spain itself, and had a much more permanent, centralized administration
    33
  2. Imo colonialism was uniquely exploitative, if not violent, compared to previous conquests
    7
  3. You mean when colonizers finally move on and let go. Look at Francafrique, for instance
    6
  4.  @yuzan3607 The Chinese sometimes conquered their neighbours, but never did they attempt to colonize countries thousands of miles away overseas, like the Europeans. Look up the Ming treasure voyages, for instance. And afterwards, the Chinese were relatively isolationist and protectionist, didn’t care for overseas colonization
    5
  5.  @levongevorgyan6789 That’s old-fashioned imperialism not colonialism
    5
  6. Read more history
    4
  7. Yes
    4
  8. Vietnam vs. Myanmar (in civil war), Chad vs. Sudan (in civil war)
    4
  9. Not a handful; the British EIC troops numbered in the tens of thousands, as they recruited from the native population
    3
  10.  @kushagraverma4943  Not really, the Marathas were very decentralized after the defeat at Panipat. They failed to overcome the Mysoreans too
    3
  11.  @deriznohappehquite that’s imperialism not colonialism
    3
  12.  @tomhalla426  Still not true… there was the Vijayanagara Empire, Rajputs, Mysoreans, Bengal Sultanate, Gujarat Sultanate, and Tamil Nayaks. All these polities existed after the Mongol invasions. Only the Delhi Sultanate, Deccani Sultanate, and the Mughals were foreigners in a meaningful sense
    3
  13. The British didn’t act out of malice, moreso neglect
    3
  14. Not really
    3
  15. Bro Moors weren’t Black
    2
  16. Nope
    2
  17.  @skullking5246  The last part isn’t true, like the Mughals, the British left 30% of India in the hands of local princes. They also appropriated the caste system to ensure brahmin loyalty. British administration was far from centralized
    2
  18. The conquest of Siberia saw many massacres of Buryats, Tungusic tribes by cossacks. But yea otherwise it was mostly the establishment of trade tributaries
    2
  19. British rule actually entrenched the caste system even deeper
    2
  20.  @thatonejoey1847  Yes I did imply that
    2
  21.  @giovanygoncalves8536  Tibet and Mongolia yielded little resources or any labour market, so the Ming were not interested in conquering them. It was only under the Qing, a foreign dynasty, that China expanded into those regions
    2
  22.  @zuesmaya8167  Yes the Arabs weren't as extractive, or seeking a profit. But their expansion still entailed mass settlement, cultural assimilation, and revenue taxation in the traditional Near Eastern mold
    2
  23.  @zuesmaya8167  Egypt declined under the Mamluks. It was not a rich area on the eve of Napoleon's invasion
    2
  24. The British literally deindustrialised India, killed 30+ million in famines, and stole 45 trillion in US dollars. India would be better off today divided but rich, rather than united but poor
    2
  25.  @francogiobbimontesanti3826 Look at the economic data by Angus Maddison, Broadberry, and Gupta. There is a clear decline in GDP per capita during the British period
    2
  26.  @CityRedesigner1945  Yes but it was led and directed by British loyalists
    2
  27.  @levongevorgyan6789  Armenia was not a colony of Rome because it was a vassal state and condominium. To be a colony implies lack of imperial integration (an administrative distinction between mother country and colony) as well as the absence of native rule (this leaves out most vassal states). You can colonize a territory in a biological sense, by settling the land, but it is not colonialism per se, because otherwise every single empire in history would be considered colonial.
    2
  28.  @levongevorgyan6789  The Turks colonized Armenia, but this alone does not make it “colonialism,” which entails the establishment of colonies. Armenia was very much not a colony but an eyalet, the first-level administrative division of the empire, like a province. Unless one would want to call Alsace-Lorraine a colony of Imperial Germany, Occitania a colony of France, or Catalonia a colony of Spain.
    2
  29.  @levongevorgyan6789  Well, then it is up to you to decide if province = colony. But good luck convincing people that Occitania is a colony of France
    2
  30. Nobody wanted a unified India at the time
    1
  31.  @orboakin8074  Rome and British slaughtered millions just like Mongolians and Arabs
    1
  32. Except for Carthage and Japan none were colonialism
    1
  33. Not exactly killed, just neglectful mismanagement of famines
    1
  34.  @basedchad6035  Tocharians didn't really inhabit the Gobi desert, and they weren't genocided by the Chinese. The Chinese presence lasted only a century and a half before the Tibetans and Uyghurs took over. The Tocharians intermingled with the Uyghurs, that's why there aren't many today.
    1
  35.  @KaiHung-wv3ul  That applied to everyone though. They often spared sedentary populations like the Novgorodians, and massacred nomadic tribes like the Tatars
    1
  36.  @basedchad6035  Neither the Uyghurs nor Chinese sought to exterminate the Tocharians, like why would they. Most of them were subservient client states until after the An Lushan Rebellion
    1
  37.  @basedchad6035  Something like that
    1
  38.  @mudra5114  Look up works of Angus Maddison, Broadberry Gupta, and Paul Bairoch. Indian GDP PPP per capita declined during the 19th century, before recovering slightly in the early 1900s. Additionally it is common knowledge that the British looted 45 trillion from India, over the course of two centuries.
    1
  39.  @mudra5114  The GDP PPP of Africa in 1700 was 25.776 billion, per Angus Maddison
    1
  40.  @Mauritiantrooper  good hbu
    1
  41.  @Mauritiantrooper  the video from edhaje?
    1
  42.  @zuesmaya8167 Facts
    1
  43.  @zuesmaya8167  It’s the other way around. Chinese rarely colonized, while Arabs colonized countless regions
    1
  44.  @peelsherrif0995  there are far more native customs, religious practices, and genetic ancestry compared to Anglo North America
    1
  45.  @giovanygoncalves8536  So did the UK what?
    1
  46.  @giovanygoncalves8536  This oversimplifies feudal politics but not much to disagree with…
    1
  47.  @zuesmaya8167  India remained the richest country under the Mughals, but real living standards declined starting in the 17th century. Foreign visitors found it jarring the disparity between rich and poor in Mughal India. All in all the Mughals and Delhi Sultans were heavily extractive states. Like I said it was not profit-driven in the same way as capitalist and industrial Europe, but more along the lines of traditional Near Eastern revenue collection
    1
  48.  @zuesmaya8167  According to the economists Angus Maddison, Stephen Broadberry, and Bishnupriya Gupta, there very much was a GDP per capita decline in India during the 17th century. Take a look yourself: Maddison Project 2020: Indian GDP PPP per capita in 1600: 735 (in 1990 international dollars) 1650: 691 1700: 676 1750: 621 1800: 601 1820: 545 1850: 551 1870: 494 Broadberry & Gupta (2010): Indian GDP PPP per capita in 1600: 782 (in 1990 international dollars) 1650: 736 1700: 719 1750: 661 1800: 639 1820: 580 1850: 586 1870: 526 I have yet to see any source that indicates an increase in Indian GDP PPP per capita. Also, it's true that polities like Mysore and Bengal had a GDP per capita comparable to Western European countries. But their regional circumstances simply cannot be extrapolated to other parts of India. By the 18th century, the average Indian's wages were below half of those in Europe.
    1
  49.  @joshuarichardson6529 Define colonialism first
    1
  50.  @mudra5114 Millions of Indians served in the British army during the World Wars.
    1
  51. ⁠ @mudra5114 The British looted 45 trillion from India. Worse than whatever the Turks and Arabs inflicted on subject populations
    1
  52. There is very much a distinction between conquest and colonization
    1
  53.  @captainfury497 ​​⁠Look at Angus Maddison, and Gupta Broadberry’s economic data. India’s gdp per capita stagnated and then declined under British rule during the mid-19th century, before recovering only slightly by 1900.
    1
  54.  @tomhalla426 You forgot Marathas
    1
  55.  @buddermonger2000 The British stole 45 trillion from India
    1
  56.  @Xo-3130  true
    1
  57. Timestamp?
    1
  58. Yes perhaps India would have been better off divided, economically speaking
    1
  59.  @giovanygoncalves8536 indians were not citizens of britain, they were subjects
    1
  60.  @chico9805  Far more Indians died under British rule. True, the Mughals were crueler, but the British were more neglectful. Every ten years a massive famine grappled British India, killing millions at a time. They cared for only profit, whilst the Mughals saw India as their new homeland and assimilated into the culture without exporting its riches to a faraway island.
    1