What all the developed countries have in common - Page 8 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15106400
@wat0n

Since you are the one making the claim, it owuld be odd for me to define the terms. I could, for example, define one as “strawberry tarts” and other as “exhuming” and thereby make your argument nonsensical.

As for the issues of policies and development, I did describe how policies affected the level of growth in colonising nations, yes. It would, however, be incorrect to cherry pick that single dynamic from my broader point.
#15106412
@wat0n

I disproved that claim when it comes to Ireland, and you have provided ni evidence to support your claim with the other two countries.

It is illogical to use a contested and unsupported assertion to argue another assertion.
#15106416
@wat0n

Please see my previous link about the Irish nobleman who worked in the colonial system extracting wealth from India.

And since this is a interesting topic


    England’s first colony was Ireland and English imperial chauvinism was derived from contact and confrontation with the Irish. These facts are indisputable. What is lessremarked upon is the role that Irish men and women played in the creation and maintenance of the British empire. Far from empathising with indigenous peoples overseas, the Irish, whatever their experience at home, were as brutal as any other white colonisers. Not surprisingly, this paradoxical involvement in British imperialism hasyielded an ambivalent heritage.
    The Irish were involved from the outset. In the seventeenthcentury the Irish participated in the development of the sugar economy on the islands conquered from the Spanish in the Caribbean. Some came as planters, most came as indentured servantsto work the plantations, others were sentastransporteesfor political or social reasons. Poor Irish from the southern province of Munster were lured by the prospects of economic opportunity in spite of the high mortality amongst whites. English authorities and plantation owners in the islands were loath to accept them but had little choice. They considered the Irish to be lazy and seditious, who, under the direction of Catholic priests, were a threat to the internal and external security of the islands. Becauseof English prejudices and fears, the Irish were forced to work in conditions not much differing to those of the African slaves.The Irish were denied the rights of other indentured servants to the extent that they were ‘derided by the negroes and branded with the epithet of “white slaves” ‘. The planters lived in continuous fear of a joint Irish-African revolt, especially in Barbados. This alliance never materialised but in the Leeward islands, where the Irish formed the majority of indentured servants, they rendered active assistanceto French occupation of St Kitts on two occasions. In the eighteenth century, with the dispersal of Irish concentrations and with the preponderance of African slave labour, the threat ended. Up to 50,000 Irish went to the islands in the early modern period. The people of Monserratt still lay claim to an Irish heritage but should be wary about doing so. The main lesson to be drawn from this Caribbean episode is that the Irish did not make common cause with the blacks slaves whose economic conditions they shared, but rather with their white, European co-religionists, the French.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/sdfe/pdf/ ... t-page-pdf
#15106434
@Pants-of-dog and as I also mentioned, Indian noblemen also worked in the very same colonial system. Indeed, they actually fought for the British and were part of their Indian Army. The British were smart and generally aimed to get along with the local elites, which is how they managed to expand their Empire so well. This also happened with Native Americans to a rather significant extent via their alliances with some tribes.
#15106485
Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n

And what were the broader economic implications?


To enrich the British (and specifically the British) and the local elites they were aligned with at their opponents' expense. As importantly, it doesn't seem to have had any clear effect on development itself - it would depend a lot on those local elites if there would be any positive effects for their societies at large. A classic case of how the quality of elites (who are the ones who have the greater means to shape institutions and concrete policies) matters for the collective good.
#15106542
Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n

How does this relate to the topic?


You want to talk about how colonialism shaped development, right? That depended both on the colonizers' elites but also on the colonized's elites (the average guy had little bearing in this, particularly before the 19th century).
#15106580
wat0n wrote:@Pants-of-dog it's not about cherry picking though. There are also developed countries with no history of colonization abroad (e.g. Ireland, Singapore, South Korea) so it seems that the real issue has to do with policies rather than colonization.

Colonization is certainly a factor, but one of many factors.

Also, Japan and South Korea are essentially client states of the US and have benefited from that relationship. But again, that's one of many factors. People like to use a single variable to explain complex cause and effect that involve multiple variables.
#15106584
And even close examination of a single factor often shows that the single dynamic manifests in complex ways. Colonialism, for example, had similar effects on colonised natikns but diverse effects on colonising nations, and a country could be both coloniser and colonsied. What looks like one facet of an issue becomes a multifaceted issue in itself.
#15106609
Pants-of-dog wrote:And even close examination of a single factor often shows that the single dynamic manifests in complex ways. Colonialism, for example, had similar effects on colonised natikns but diverse effects on colonising nations, and a country could be both coloniser and colonsied. What looks like one facet of an issue becomes a multifaceted issue in itself.


Yes i agree.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

Thank you Crantag for replying. Not in order. As I[…]

Trump digs his political grave

Worse people? Sure. Worse people that are this in[…]

We are getting rid of the name Redskins now anyway[…]

Turnout data also suggests that Trump will win thi[…]