|
|
Post by justiniano on Jul 13, 2022 3:33:26 GMT
keeping up with the Joneses; the civilising mission I'm going to bed soon as it's late here. I'll write my full response in the morning. But for now I want to ask. Was there anywhere that was actually civilized by Europeans? (not somewhere in europe) |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jul 13, 2022 3:36:56 GMT
Quite a few. North America, South America, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. Other parts depend on your interpretation of the suppression of suttee and thugee.
|
|
|
|
Post by justiniano on Jul 13, 2022 3:38:31 GMT
Disraeli buys the Suez Canal is this the video? |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jul 13, 2022 3:45:19 GMT
Yes, from the rather spiffing miniseries Disraeli.
|
|
|
|
Post by justiniano on Jul 13, 2022 4:23:03 GMT
your interpretation of the suppression of suttee and thugee. wym? |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jul 13, 2022 6:03:16 GMT
That both of those measures were viewed subjectively at the time as being civilising acts.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,835 
Likes: 13,224
|
Post by stevep on Jul 13, 2022 15:30:51 GMT
Yes, from the rather spiffing miniseries Disraeli.
Gods that's a blast from the past. Also shows how old Ian McShane is. I did watch it at the time IIRC. Disraeli had a darker side but a very skilled politician.
|
|
|
|
Post by justiniano on Jul 13, 2022 19:50:32 GMT
You are working from an incorrect premise in the presumption that colonialism was driven by profit. There was that as part of the overall motivation, but the Hobsbawnian Marxist explanation misses out on the human factors, as usual. Those are: a desire for national prestige; keeping up with the Joneses; the civilising mission; and the general glory of Empire in the period 1880-1914. Many colonies were not profitable, even if they provided raw materials and expanded markets. They were more valuable in intangible terms. Elsewise, why would hard nosed Germany plough so much money into peripheral colonies; the Belgians throw expositions; and the Portuguese base their whole self image around them? To understand, you need to think not with the perspective of a 2020s twenty something from the British Isles, but like a late 19th century statesman. I would commend the video of ‘Disraeli buys the Suez Canal’ to see the mindset. Bismarck made colonies a point of national pride. While I do think private companies and colonial ventures happen. I do not see the scramble itself happening |
|
|
|
Post by justiniano on Jul 13, 2022 19:53:26 GMT
That both of those measures were viewed subjectively What on earth doe suttee and thugee mean? |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jul 14, 2022 1:07:22 GMT
1.) Look them up
2.) Bismarck was not the sole reason for the SfA. At best, he was trying to use it to advance his own agenda in Europe. Without his action, all the basic drivers are still in place, so will just have a different catalyst. The parallel I’d draw is with the Balkans ‘powder keg’. The match that set it off in @ was Princip’s assassination, but that wouldn’t be the sole means of doing it.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,835
Likes: 13,224
|
Post by stevep on Jul 14, 2022 12:52:26 GMT
1.) Look them up 2.) Bismarck was not the sole reason for the SfA. At best, he was trying to use it to advance his own agenda in Europe. Without his action, all the basic drivers are still in place, so will just have a different catalyst. The parallel I’d draw is with the Balkans ‘powder keg’. The match that set it off in @ was Princip’s assassination, but that wouldn’t be the sole means of doing it.
IIRC wasn't he initially opposed to Germany having overseas colonies, thinking them - largely correctly - a waste of resources - and happy to have the French tie resources up across much of Africa? It was only latter in his career that political pressure forced him to support overseas colonies.
I would agree that as long as colonies are seen as sources of prestige/raw materials/areas for settlement then sooner or later the scramble will begin. Plus there were other issues such as the anti-slavery movement with Livingstone and the like encouraging missionary activity to help the locals and try and stop the devastating Muslim slave raids.
|
|
575
Captain
There is no Purgatory for warcriminals - they go directly to Hell!
Posts: 2,732
Likes: 4,109
|
Post by 575 on Jul 14, 2022 14:35:19 GMT
1.) Look them up 2.) Bismarck was not the sole reason for the SfA. At best, he was trying to use it to advance his own agenda in Europe. Without his action, all the basic drivers are still in place, so will just have a different catalyst. The parallel I’d draw is with the Balkans ‘powder keg’. The match that set it off in @ was Princip’s assassination, but that wouldn’t be the sole means of doing it.
IIRC wasn't he initially opposed to Germany having overseas colonies, thinking them - largely correctly - a waste of resources - and happy to have the French tie resources up across much of Africa? It was only latter in his career that political pressure forced him to support overseas colonies.
I would agree that as long as colonies are seen as sources of prestige/raw materials/areas for settlement then sooner or later the scramble will begin. Plus there were other issues such as the anti-slavery movement with Livingstone and the like encouraging missionary activity to help the locals and try and stop the devastating Muslim slave raids.
Indeed. Other Germans - his successors held the opposite view.
As simon darkshade have tried to tell there were drivers in place already. Since time immemorial Africa have been party to the world of Man. Egyptians attacked out of it for conquest. The Phoenicians built colonies (Carthage) there as did the Greeks (Cyrene/Cirenaika) in Antiquity. During Medieval times the Normans in Southern Italy and Sicily tried carving something out of Tunesia and the Christian Abyssinian King wanted to help the Crusaders in their endeavour.
Then came the Age of Exploration where the Portuguese and Spanish and later many other European Nations built waystations for sustaining their trading in India and China which was VERY lucrative. Then slavetrade from Africa when the Caribbean was seen as good sugarcane country but bad for Locals or Europeans to work there; and remember the Africans themselves took slaves too as had the Natives of America done and Europeans in Europe and Arabs in East Africa and probably a lot more. So all of them built forts to engineer the Slavetrade which was tied up on export of cheap European goods paid to WestAfrican Kings/Chieftains in return of slaves sailed to the Caribbean and from there Canesugar to Europe and on we go..
Then as the Slavetrade was outlawed the Europeans had gotten a new enemy in North Africa of the Barbary States going piracy in the North Atlantic and taking locals as slaves to be sold at markets back home thus on and off warfare with those by European Navies to get slaves released and that piracy stopped (enter the US Navy here too and the birth of US Marines "from the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripolis". A number of those European states that had enlarged their colonies in Africa was continueing this and others like the French conquered Algeria 1830. Around 1880 Portugal wanted to connect her African colonies on the east and west costs which made for a British NO and other nations also liked to get a share of the goodies. Other events like the expeditions to the source of the Nile contributed to the development of the situation like the British in South Africa wanting a railroad from Alexandria to Cape Town etc.
And for the Germans to say "so ein ding müssen wir auch haben" (we need such a thing too). Somehow the Belgian King then ended up with Congo on his hands..
This is just a brief sketch - go ahead look up the various issues its no way complete or exhaustive.  |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,835
Likes: 13,224
|
Post by stevep on Jul 14, 2022 15:21:51 GMT
IIRC wasn't he initially opposed to Germany having overseas colonies, thinking them - largely correctly - a waste of resources - and happy to have the French tie resources up across much of Africa? It was only latter in his career that political pressure forced him to support overseas colonies.
I would agree that as long as colonies are seen as sources of prestige/raw materials/areas for settlement then sooner or later the scramble will begin. Plus there were other issues such as the anti-slavery movement with Livingstone and the like encouraging missionary activity to help the locals and try and stop the devastating Muslim slave raids.
Indeed. Other Germans - his successors held the opposite view.
As simon darkshade have tried to tell there were drivers in place already. Since time immemorial Africa have been party to the world of Man. Egyptians attacked out of it for conquest. The Phoenicians built colonies (Carthage) there as did the Greeks (Cyrene/Cirenaika) in Antiquity. During Medieval times the Normans in Southern Italy and Sicily tried carving something out of Tunesia and the Christian Abyssinian King wanted to help the Crusaders in their endeavour.
Then came the Age of Exploration where the Portuguese and Spanish and later many other European Nations built waystations for sustaining their trading in India and China which was VERY lucrative. Then slavetrade from Africa when the Caribbean was seen as good sugarcane country but bad for Locals or Europeans to work there; and remember the Africans themselves took slaves too as had the Natives of America done and Europeans in Europe and Arabs in East Africa and probably a lot more. So all of them built forts to engineer the Slavetrade which was tied up on export of cheap European goods paid to WestAfrican Kings/Chieftains in return of slaves sailed to the Caribbean and from there Canesugar to Europe and on we go..
Then as the Slavetrade was outlawed the Europeans had gotten a new enemy in North Africa of the Barbary States going piracy in the North Atlantic and taking locals as slaves to be sold at markets back home thus on and off warfare with those by European Navies to get slaves released and that piracy stopped (enter the US Navy here too and the birth of US Marines "from the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripolis". A number of those European states that had enlarged their colonies in Africa was continueing this and others like the French conquered Algeria 1830. Around 1880 Portugal wanted to connect her African colonies on the east and west costs which made for a British NO and other nations also liked to get a share of the goodies. Other events like the expeditions to the source of the Nile contributed to the development of the situation like the British in South Africa wanting a railroad from Alexandria to Cape Town etc.
And for the Germans to say "so ein ding müssen wir auch haben" (we need such a thing too). Somehow the Belgian King then ended up with Congo on his hands..
This is just a brief sketch - go ahead look up the various issues its no way complete or exhaustive.
I have seen it suggested, in a book on the scramble that the trigger was the falling out between France and Britain over the occupation of Egypt to suppress the Urabi uprising against the Khedive in 1879-82. Britain and France intervened and the British PM Gladstone, who was himself against further colonization offered a joint occupation with France but the French seem to have taken umbridge at Britain's primary role in the operation and sought their own gains in NW Africa which lead to the take over of Tunisia and growing influence on the Moroccan kingdom. Those factor the book suggested triggered the scramble.
In terms of the Congo the history as I understand it is clear if tragic. Henry Stanley - after locating Livingstone - became a prominent explore himself and became the 1st European to explore much of the Congo basin. He was American but of British birth and approached the British government offering them the region as a colony but again under a Liberal government that idea wasn't welcomed. Stanley wanted something to come of his work and sought other backers. However given the size of the region and expected wealth that might be developed from trade Britain, which was the dominant power in terms of Africa south of the Sahara didn't want it coming under the control of another nation which would bring it into their tariff zone and as such block British trade in the region. [This was a period of protectionism and Britain was the only real exception, clinging to free trade ideas]. As such after a lot of political maneuvering they supported the suggestion of king Leopold who was looking for a colonial territory to boost his prestige and personal wealth as long as it was a free trade area. He promised to fighting to bring 'civilisation' i.e. European values and end the slave trade and to a degree did but the private company he used to run the colony maintained a brutal system to extract goods from the population with his full knowledge. This was exposed after a number of years prompting the Belgium government to reluctantly take over the colony in 1908. See more details here.
|
|
|
|
Post by justiniano on Jul 18, 2022 6:25:19 GMT
Britain didn't engage in colonialism because they wanted to ''civilize the savages'' that was a justification for engaging in colonialism. Afaik france is the only power that engaged in colonialism for this reason |
|
|
|
Post by justiniano on Jul 18, 2022 6:31:39 GMT
What you’ve put up here is an incomplete brainstorm. ok, well is that incomplete brainstorm accurate? |
|
