One argument I have heard (no idea of the source, I might be able to google it up at some point) is that Western technology and prosperity has been achieved through the systematic exploitation of Third Worlders. This would argue that without slaves and colonies of their own to exploit, it will take Africans a much longer time to achieve the same goals.
There are plenty of counterexamples. Ignoring several other ones, let me present:
Japan.
Isolationist for a good part of its history, it did attempt to conquer outside holdings before this period (they failed however). The Japanese developed a sophisticated civilization, and once exposed to Western technology and institutions they quickly caught up. They only invaded Korea after they had already reached the level of middle tier Western powers.
This doesn’t prove prove that Europe didn’t benefit from colonialism, what it however does prove is that its possible to develop quite rapidly without it.
Nitpick: while Japan’s (first) invasion of Korea failed, Japan did take Sakhalin, & Okinawa and the Ryuku Islands early on; depending on what time periods you are considering, Taiwan might also count.
All civilizations in the history of the world conquered some of their neighbours at some point. Since the earliest conquests are primarily people very similar to the ones doing the conquering and since they spend so much time together after the event, some of these events are later called unifications. Often the reason behind the similarities is the influence of previously existing empires! (the unification of Italy, the various unifications of China ect.)
What is an outside holding, the term I used in my previous post, is of course open for debate or rather definition since this is not a binary matter. However let me emphasise several ways the Japanese early expansion that you mention differ from say British expansion in Africa or India.
With the exception of Taiwan (even that region today barley musters 1⁄6 of Japans population) the regions are demographically irrelevant, for the purpose of “exploiting” masses of cheap foreign labour. Also even if they weren’t, this wouldn’t be a point in favour of the theory erratio presents since they are also all part of the first world today. The Ryuku language to top it off is very similar to Japanese having branched off a little after the 7th century. French control of Corsica or perhaps Spanish control of the Balearic Islands is perhaps comparable on the outside/inside scale. Is this really what first comes to mind when hearing the word colonialism?
The African medieval states I’ll link to in a moment expanded far more in terms of sheer square km, I’m also willing to bet that they had a greater proportion of “conquered peoples” compared to Japan (the only time where this may not be true is during the height of Japanese occupation of China, but by then Japan was a developed nation):
I will however admit that the expansion into Sakhalin is comparable to British settlements in North America or perhaps Australia, being mostly a process of settling and taking new land with little use for the natives beyond small scale trade.
This is quite common argument, nevertheless I have never seen any detailed explanation of how having colonies could speed the developement. Comparison between different European countries suggests otherwise. For long time possessor of largest colonial empire, Spain, has briefly profited from colonial wealth in 16th century, a period followed by relatively slow developement leaving the country among the poorest in Europe in 19th century. There are many rich countries that never had any colonies.
And there is also quite standard argument that access to cheap labour or even slavery does more harm than good, because there is no motivation for inventions.
And there is also quite standard argument that access to cheap labour or even slavery does more harm than good, because there is no motivation for inventions.
Right, this is in line with what Collier says about having an abundance of lucrative natural resources paradoxically being detrimental to a developing world country.
One argument I have heard (no idea of the source, I might be able to google it up at some point) is that Western technology and prosperity has been achieved through the systematic exploitation of Third Worlders. This would argue that without slaves and colonies of their own to exploit, it will take Africans a much longer time to achieve the same goals.
There are plenty of counterexamples. Ignoring several other ones, let me present:
Japan.
Isolationist for a good part of its history, it did attempt to conquer outside holdings before this period (they failed however). The Japanese developed a sophisticated civilization, and once exposed to Western technology and institutions they quickly caught up. They only invaded Korea after they had already reached the level of middle tier Western powers.
This doesn’t prove prove that Europe didn’t benefit from colonialism, what it however does prove is that its possible to develop quite rapidly without it.
Nitpick: while Japan’s (first) invasion of Korea failed, Japan did take Sakhalin, & Okinawa and the Ryuku Islands early on; depending on what time periods you are considering, Taiwan might also count.
All civilizations in the history of the world conquered some of their neighbours at some point. Since the earliest conquests are primarily people very similar to the ones doing the conquering and since they spend so much time together after the event, some of these events are later called unifications. Often the reason behind the similarities is the influence of previously existing empires! (the unification of Italy, the various unifications of China ect.)
What is an outside holding, the term I used in my previous post, is of course open for debate or rather definition since this is not a binary matter. However let me emphasise several ways the Japanese early expansion that you mention differ from say British expansion in Africa or India.
With the exception of Taiwan (even that region today barley musters 1⁄6 of Japans population) the regions are demographically irrelevant, for the purpose of “exploiting” masses of cheap foreign labour. Also even if they weren’t, this wouldn’t be a point in favour of the theory erratio presents since they are also all part of the first world today. The Ryuku language to top it off is very similar to Japanese having branched off a little after the 7th century. French control of Corsica or perhaps Spanish control of the Balearic Islands is perhaps comparable on the outside/inside scale. Is this really what first comes to mind when hearing the word colonialism?
The African medieval states I’ll link to in a moment expanded far more in terms of sheer square km, I’m also willing to bet that they had a greater proportion of “conquered peoples” compared to Japan (the only time where this may not be true is during the height of Japanese occupation of China, but by then Japan was a developed nation):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mali_Empire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Songhai_Empire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Empire
I will however admit that the expansion into Sakhalin is comparable to British settlements in North America or perhaps Australia, being mostly a process of settling and taking new land with little use for the natives beyond small scale trade.
This is quite common argument, nevertheless I have never seen any detailed explanation of how having colonies could speed the developement. Comparison between different European countries suggests otherwise. For long time possessor of largest colonial empire, Spain, has briefly profited from colonial wealth in 16th century, a period followed by relatively slow developement leaving the country among the poorest in Europe in 19th century. There are many rich countries that never had any colonies.
And there is also quite standard argument that access to cheap labour or even slavery does more harm than good, because there is no motivation for inventions.
Right, this is in line with what Collier says about having an abundance of lucrative natural resources paradoxically being detrimental to a developing world country.
No motivation for inventions, or no motivation to improve the tools that slaves use?
Precisely, less motivation to improve work efficiency.