Comments by "buddermonger2000" (@buddermonger2000) on "Was Colonialism Good or Bad?" video.

Except Britain didn't strip India of anything with the local lords still having a lot of power, while also giving institutions and technology to the country. Meanwhile, the reason India was poor was because it already was poor as that's the human norm. However, due to industrialization, massive wealth could be created and so agglomerated among the industrial states and left the rest of the world behind. This is why the European powers had more economic might after abandoning their colonies than when they had them.
11
The problem is that populations without education in that way often never learn how to actually use the technologies or use them properly themselves. Separately, why do you think Nigeria has been in decline when it's been pretty consistently growing?
5
@chico9805 How about you actually answer instead of absolving yourself of having to actually defend your position?
4
 @richardmetzler7909 He's being sarcastic
4
Was India a nation at all before the Brits? This is a serious question. And frankly, China, who was never directly ruled, also fell deeply behind as a result of European growth. In comparison, the Japanese were also colonized, but immediately changed and managed to grow immensely, and so much that they are among the wealthiest in the world as well. This is simply due to industrialization rather than the factors of being colonized. Look at Latin America, who is still behind despite being a colony (as well as Spain frankly), and then the former British settler colonies who are also immensely wealthy despite being resource economies.
4
@chico9805 The British settler states are all doing it. Even the French are and the Spanish also have. So I have to disagree there
3
@chico9805 Still actually pretty well, as seen from say the Kenyan and Nigerian populations who make up much of Britain's foreigners. And no the settler states are important to discuss, because they had near nothing to start and still managed to become wealthy, and then you can compare cultural abilities in that you see one set remain poor, and the other ascend to wealth.
3
@chico9805 You did not. You simply said "I'm from the UK and we're balkanizing" so I asked you to specify, and it's why I brought up the waning independence movements among the UK nationalities (and really only exists of size in Scotland) which would actually be Balkanization. It's not a matter of research, it's about being able to tell what you have. Because the breakdown of the UK migrants are overwhelmingly from Europe and the Indian subcontinent with some Nigerian and Chinese. I'm telling you to defend your position. That requires answering questions, because only when you have your positions laid bare like that can you establish what is happening. That's how discussions work.
3
@ataraxia7439 Probably not tbh since they needed the colonies to be profitable, and bringing a lot of labor was hard. Slaves were made out of conquered people who were usually very aggressive on contact (and later integrated), or from the African trade which was already ongoing and then later abolished. And it could have only been abolished after first taking part.
3
I think the most interesting characteristics about the west is how it believes itself to be so morally superior that they genuinely cannot come to grips with the fact that they've not lived up to an artificial standard and feel that being better than most of the world is a blemish upon their moral record. In contrast, the saddest thing about the colonial leaders is that they do their best to divest themselves of all blame by blaming their problems on the west, and use its own moral system against it for freebies and as a scapegoat so that they don't have to improve. At which point my only question becomes: "When do these societies eventually take responsibility for themselves and stop blaming their parents for their own mistakes, and accept what they gave them?" Finally, i think the most interesting part about colonization was that it was basically impossible to control and most often looked more like inter-tribal warfare, wars among local lords, or simply normal business ventures, than any specific efforts by the governments of these empires.
2
Not really. Colonialism didn't actually do a ton for the developed countries. The natural resources were nice, but only in relation to the hungry industrial structures and not a ton more. The undeveloped countries in exchange got infrastructure and schools, even though it was mostly for the elite and so wasn't that much. The reality is a bit more muted in each direction than you posit.
2
Because it's concentrated among a very small group, which is the point which has been made. It's why incels Exist at all. Apart from prostitution, most guys aren't finding relationships (which is how sex normally comes) with many women cycled among a small "chad" class rather than more evenly distributed. Due to all conventions being released, it's easily attainable... for the guys who are most sought after. If you're not sought after, you don't get much.
2
The appropriate question to this is if the conquest is discussing just that of direct European contact, of which that 55 to 60 million surely is not doing, because most of the disease was spread from already infected indigenous populations. Thus, they're not directly responsible. 8 million died in present day Mexico from the conquest, but the lions share even there was disease. Because of disease, by 1650 (before most colonies were established), that 55 million figure was already gone.
2
@zuesmaya8167 Many, but not all, and the relevant technologies were not the technologies of industrialization itself. Also, no I don't think they actually had true universities. That's something a bit unique to the western model. Schools yes, but research institutions which teach students how to research and find truth was pretty unique to the west and was very rare across almost any other societies and it's unlikely they're similarly unique as the Europeans there. Also, since basically no political structures survived industrialization, I don't think they did have the political structures to do so.
1
@chico9805 The mass influx of who? Where are they from? And what lines is it Balkanizing on? The lines of national identities which have already existed in Ireland, Scotland, and Wales which has slowly been decreasing, or ethnic lines which are much newer and have less behind them?
1
@cristianhurtadocabezas208 Still less than that. Since industrialization made the low class workers far more wealthy. Not to mention how many people who settled really did prefer it to the homeland.
1
Completely stupid anyway
1
yeah that one is a bit mistaken
1
Viewing this as colonialism is a mistake given this is just normal empire. But these all have goals and the populations at the time supported these activities. This can't really be separated. Not to mention how geopolitics as a whole is governed by power, not morals, and so you have to look at it through that lens.
1
@Vritzien Yeah that evidence is misplaced in time frame at best, and simply very suspect at worst. Germ theory didn't even exist until the 1600s (well after Aztec's and Inca's conquest) and you still simply had too few colonists in there for them to be the ones spreading that disease for the most part. So no.
1