Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

malthar76 t1_ixvbmpp wrote

Were there ever “benevolent” colonial arrangements? Or ones that were at least purely commercial, not aggressively exploitative or land grabbing?

4

elmonoenano t1_ixwmw8y wrote

The basic answer is no. Colonial powers were never thinking about how to get the consent and agreement of the local peoples, unless it was to legitimize a land grab, how to co-rule, etc.

However, a lot of the conversation around colonialism that goes on is cartoonish in the way it portrays colonialism. It wasn't the same process from decade to decade. Over time goals changed as technologies changed and economies changed, or as political theory changed.

Another issue is often what was though as benevolent wasn't. During the 19th century when political theory had changed enough that colonial powers did feel they had responsibilities to the people they colonized, their idea of benevolence was to send in missionaries, to destroy cultures, to separate families, etc. Under the treaty of Tordesillas, the Spanish and Portuguese thought they were being benevolent in bringing Christianity and saving pagan souls, but in reality they brought one of the largest, if not the largest, genocide in world history. The British may or may not have believed their own story about being benevolent by enslaving Africans to Christianize and civilize them, and thereby conducting the other main contender for the world's largest genocide.

Often things the colonial powers for their own benefit had actual benevolent outcomes. The British didn't build railways in India for the sake of Indians, but it turned out to reduce the impact of famines, to help the colony form a national idea, to put thinkers in touch with each other through the mail, and later through telegraphs, to build a national independence movement of a unified India. It was actually the complete opposite of what the British wanted, but achieved a huge benefit to Indian nationalists that they're loathe to admit, even today. Hong Kong is probably the best example of this. There's no question British rule was racist and discriminatory, but it helped Hong Kong build a lot of the institutions that allowed China as a whole to modernize their economy on Mao's death. That was never British intention, but that's what happened.

The other issue is the areas that were colonized may have been seen as homogenous by the colonizers, but they rarely were. Cortez didn't differentiate against the peoples of Mexico, but they sure did. And those differences allowed huge groups of peoples to fight off Mexica control of their lands. They thought it would be a benefit to them to align with Cortez against the Mexica, and it was for a short time. Cortez was a greedy, selfish, liar. He's almost cartoonishly self interested. But, to his indigenous allies he was seen as providing benevolent assistance in overthrowing the hated Mexica, until a combination of political decentralization, pandemic disease, and ruthless and blood thirsty Spanish control left them in just as poor shape as the Mexica.

4

malthar76 t1_ixwvyy2 wrote

The Western European arrogance, greed, and racism set the tone for pretty much all of it, right?

I’m still fascinated by the risk takers, and the struggles and the failures. Grew up in southern NJ, knew about the English colony, a small bit about the Dutch, but knew nothing about New Sweden until I went down a Wiki-hole.

1

elmonoenano t1_ixx041h wrote

This is political, so it has elements of arrogance and greed and cultural chauvinism, but there's also a lot of politics. Part of the reason to colonize N. America for the English was to get rid of troublesome groups within the country. England had a lot of religious groups that were a pain in the ass to governing powers. They could warehouse them in North America where they were kind of out of sight, out of mind.

Spain had all these people that were no longer needed to fight the Moors. Having a large warrior class with nothing to do is dangerous. Letting them conquer another territory was unifying and focused trouble away from home.

France had severe budgetary problems. Colonies might provide the king with financial relief, and leverage against his own nobles, if enough wealth could be extracted.

The 30 Years War/War of Spanish Succession had put the Netherlands in a precarious position. Without population, they'd have to rely on mercenaries. Colonies provided a potential source of revenue to pay those mercenaries without levying heavy taxes on the local populations.

Countries were jealous of the wealth their competitors were achieving and wanted to gain stature against their neighbors.

This stuff is all very multifaceted and some reasons can be stated more openly than other reasons. Saying you want to Christianize the New World is great PR for Spain. Saying you need to find something to do with all these blood thirsty ruffians from Extremadura so you're going to send them to the edge of the world on some harebrained scheme is not. So you say one real loud and whisper the other.

The racism is a little more complicated. There's good research and writing on how it developed out of the needs of imperialism and probably wasn't a cause of imperialism, but it's awful offspring, until maybe beginning in the 17th century.

2

GSilky t1_ixzbgno wrote

I think the worst colonies were purely economic in focus.

There have been attempts at starting benevolent societies on the lands of other people, tmk it hasn't worked out. The closest thing I am aware of in American history is Pennsylvania, but even they annoyed ended up cross with the native people despite their efforts. The mindset of colonization is not productive to benevolent relationships.

3