[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n

Did I claim that? I do not recall specifically mentioning India.

I did present evidence showing how Ireland benefited from colonialism in India in the past.

[wat0n]

@wat0n

Did I claim that? I do not recall specifically mentioning India.

I did present evidence showing how Ireland benefited from colonialism in India in the past.

Then please elaborate further. Name the countries whose wealth has been extracted by Ireland since the 1990s...

[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n

The indigenous nations of the Americas, Australia, and NZ are the obvious example.

[wat0n]

@wat0n

The indigenous nations of the Americas, Australia, and NZ are the obvious example.

Since the 1990s? Please explain how in great detail.

[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n

Okay. I will use a hypothetical example.

First, let us imagine a farm in Canada where barley is grown. This farm only exists because of colonialism, and the indigenous people who legally own the land are currently dispossessed of it. Because the indigenous people own the land, they are also entitled to the resources of the land; i.e. the barley.

Now, the farmer sells the barley to a beer maker in Ireland. This money does not go to the indigenous owners, but instead goes to the settler nation we call Canada, or more specifically, a member thereof. Ireland, or more specifically, the brewery in Ireland benefits by being able to buy a product.

Now, Ireland can also then sell the beer made from the barley and turn a profit by selling beer to Canada. This is an additional benefit.

Obviously, this is a simplified model of how international trade works, but you get the gist.

[wat0n]

@Pants-of-dog and yet the barley could have been exported to Germany, Argentina, Nigeria or even to the Oklahoma Territory - so I guess they could have all potentially benefited from colonialism then. This is clearly grasping at straws.

[ckaihatsu]

Ireland has never been colonialist or imperialist to other countries. It's had more *in common* with India than being dissimilar, as both countries have been *colonized* by the British.

Countries without a state able to provide such crutches suffered. This was certainly the case with Ireland, whose native capitalists suffered as Westminster parliaments placed restrictions on their trade. It was increasingly true of India, as the officials of the British East India Company pillaged Bengal without providing anything in return. Once British capitalism had established a dominant position, capitalist classes elsewhere would need state support if infant industries were not to be strangled at birth.

Harman, _People's History of the World_, p. 260

[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n

Yes, all those countries will also benefit from colonialism. That is how capitalism works.

The developed west, with its legacy of colonialism, has a preferred advantage in this system. No one is going to argue that Botswana is profiting as much from colonialism as the USA, Canada, and its economic allies (i.e, the First World).

[wat0n]

@wat0n

Yes, all those countries will also benefit from colonialism. That is how capitalism works.

The developed west, with its legacy of colonialism, has a preferred advantage in this system. No one is going to argue that Botswana is profiting as much from colonialism as the USA, Canada, and its economic allies (i.e, the First World).

What makes you believe Ireland is benefiting more from international trade (hint: That's the right term) than developing and emerging economies like China, India, most of South Asia or most of Latin America?

Also, Botswana has ironically been one of the fastest growing economies in the world during the 21st century and has been able to take advantage of the opportunity brought by international trade to do so.

[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n

Are you changing your argument? We were discussing if Ireland benefited and benefits from colonialism. You seem to be now agreeing that Ireland has, but you are now saying that other countries also do so. And since I already agreed to that, this seems pointless.

Are you arguing that Botswana is profiting as much from colonialism as the USA, Canada, and its economic allies (i.e, the First World)?

[wat0n]

@Pants-of-dog

I'm simply pointing out your concept of "benefiting from colonialism" is so broad that everyone is doing so

[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n

And I am pointing out that this does not make me wrong. It is simply how global capitalism works.

Because Ireland is part of Europe and white, the rich from Ireland were just as capable as any other European rich to invest their money, and then benefit from, colonialist projects. And noblemen of Irish ancestry were present in the Americas as well, and not just the British Empire. Bernardo O’Higgins was part Irish.

[wat0n]

@wat0n

And I am pointing out that this does not make me wrong. It is simply how global capitalism works.

Because Ireland is part of Europe and white, the rich from Ireland were just as capable as any other European rich to invest their money, and then benefit from, colonialist projects. And noblemen of Irish ancestry were present in the Americas as well, and not just the British Empire. Bernardo O’Higgins was part Irish.

But because of how global capitalism works, even countries like Botswana can benefit through similar mechanisms (indeed, their growth is based on diamond mining). It's certainly not something limited to people of a particular race.

[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n

Yes, you said that.

[wat0n]

@Pants-of-dog then if all countries can benefit through international trade, why is it that some manage to develop themselves while others don't?

[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n

What dies that have to do with my argument?

[wat0n]

@Pants-of-dog you provided an example of international trade being an example of countries benefiting from colonialism - even when they never owned any colonies during their existence as independent nations. But as I said, pretty much any destination of Canadian barley exports could be said to be benefiting of colonialism, even poor countries that used to be colonies.

[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n

Yes, and?

[wat0n]

@wat0n

Yes, and?

Then "benefiting from colonialism" as under your definition isn't the reason why some countries are developed while others are not.

[Pants-of-dog]

No. You are confusing how modern capitalism benefits from ongoing colonialism with the larger wealth transfers that occurred during the colonial era.

You asked me how Ireland is benefiting from current imperialism, then you incorrectly assumed that I was referring to this dynamic (and only this dynamic) for all of Ireland’s colonial history.