Also the balancing act of "dominance" and "economic growth" bring super hard to do because the subjects gaining economic clout sooner or later leads to calls for more self sufficiency or independence. Either from them or settlers demanding it because they feel "restricted" by the very empire that handed them everything on a silver platter and said settlers wanting "more".
Colonial admins had to deal with a lot of bullshit from settlers that they on one hand were beholden to, but on the other also had to control and curtail.
Mostly because there remains little to no Italian influence in Ethiopia. Even if they were temporarily conquered, it's maintained most of its culture and the attempts to 'Italize' it mostly failed or were minor.
>might makes right.
Might can't solve everything. Even many imperial powers know that. That's the reason why the Fashoda incident didn't blow up into another Euro war.
African imperialism specifically was moronic. Every government maintained their colonies at a loss, and in the end it seems that in spite of all of the rationalizations it was carried out just because the European aristocracies wanted something to do. The irrational justifications are all broken down in the book by J. A. Hobson.
Now however two hundred years later large amounts extremely poor individuals now know the language of the mother country and seek to get in, so congratulations on accomplishing that.
There are different kinds of imperialism as says, and he explains why classic imperialism is moronic. A much more sensible form of imperialism would be what the British did in Australia, Canada, the US and New Zealand. >Find sparsely populated continent filled with technologically backwards natives >Wipe out the natives and import people from your homeland homeland to the continent >Double, triple and quadruple the population over time >Economically integrate countries that despite being alien to Europe in environment are completely identical to an average North European nation >(Never got this far) Federalise the majority culturally white peoples into a megastate and become a superpower, while all the other countries are stuck dealing with Africans living in bronze age conditions
Pic rel is what could've been if the bongs realised that Africa was a black hole and should be avoided, and that North America holds ridiculous potential.
>Wipe out the natives and import people from your homeland homeland to the continent
All settler colonies used massive labour pools of people to mitigate labour costs. Australia constantly shipped in immigrants, Pacific Islanders and Mediterraneans. Southern Africa hinged 100% on African and coloured labour. Nearly all new world colonies made use of indentured labourers and/or slaves.
>Economically integrate countries that despite being alien to Europe in environment are completely identical to an average North European nation.
Never was the case. Settler states all had unique situations that never ever made them 1:1 with Northern European states.
>(Never got this far) Federalise the majority culturally white peoples into a megastate and become a superpower, while all the other countries are stuck dealing with Africans living in bronze age conditions
Why the frick would they federalist with some homosexuals back in the metropole that's liek chaining yourself to a bunch of old fricks. Even the southern African colonies that made use of post-Iron age Africans still sought to split from Europe post ww2
>All settler colonies used massive labour pools of people to mitigate labour costs. Australia constantly shipped in immigrants, Pacific Islanders and Mediterraneans. Southern Africa hinged 100% on African and coloured labour. Nearly all new world colonies made use of indentured labourers and/or slaves
Only with lands that warranted or whose only method of income production was slave heavy due to shitty soil. The south had absolutely shit soil so they had to dump all their economics on slavery, while 90% of the rest of the country got along just fine with the waves of free German immigrant labor
1 year ago
Anonymous
>Only with lands that warranted or whose only method of income production was slave heavy due to shitty soil
Yet you say indentured labour and forced labour allover areas with good land in countless instances?
>while 90% of the rest of the country got along just fine with the waves of free German immigrant labor
That's not even remotely accurate. Even that free labour wasn't exactly free.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>That's not even remotely accurate. Even that free labour wasn't exactly free.
Define the terms you are using chudlet. Instead of just going “nuh-uh” every time I use the term “free” or “labor”
1 year ago
Anonymous
Because the issue of wage slavery was often brought up by people in the north (and south). Alongside that many areas had indentured labour contracts that often were exploitative due to the employer not exactly caring about the welfare of their workers.
1 year ago
Anonymous
That was a general trait of industry, not unique to colonialism
>that North America holds ridiculous potential.
That was only realized long long long after their colonial ambitions were finished in NA, the British did not have the ability to see 250+ years into the future and Am,ercia was successful BECAUSE it split from the UK. In Africa they had access to massive labour resevoirs and cash crops as well as pool of people to export products too. That's why India and Africa shared simialr dynamics in several aspects.
>Every government maintained their colonies at a loss,
Massive cope. Those Colonies were run on shoestring budgets and had massive cost cutting measures revisionists refuse to acknowledge
How did Ethiopia get cucked out of a coastline so hard? This bothers me. They used to be a regional power and at times could extend their influence into the Arab peninsula as well.
When it collapses it gets chaotic. Super slow in reforms.
Also the balancing act of "dominance" and "economic growth" bring super hard to do because the subjects gaining economic clout sooner or later leads to calls for more self sufficiency or independence. Either from them or settlers demanding it because they feel "restricted" by the very empire that handed them everything on a silver platter and said settlers wanting "more".
Colonial admins had to deal with a lot of bullshit from settlers that they on one hand were beholden to, but on the other also had to control and curtail.
For example one Italian admin in Italian Eritrea had to deal with soldiers killing each other over feuds.
True
Why don't people colour in that gray patch with the Italian flag like they should?
Mostly because there remains little to no Italian influence in Ethiopia. Even if they were temporarily conquered, it's maintained most of its culture and the attempts to 'Italize' it mostly failed or were minor.
Because it was made by an ethiopian
Its a pre-WW1 map, hence why Germany's colonies are shown
nothing. It's inevitable, might makes right.
>might makes right.
Might can't solve everything. Even many imperial powers know that. That's the reason why the Fashoda incident didn't blow up into another Euro war.
African imperialism specifically was moronic. Every government maintained their colonies at a loss, and in the end it seems that in spite of all of the rationalizations it was carried out just because the European aristocracies wanted something to do. The irrational justifications are all broken down in the book by J. A. Hobson.
Now however two hundred years later large amounts extremely poor individuals now know the language of the mother country and seek to get in, so congratulations on accomplishing that.
There are more French speakers in West Africa th in France.
It can come back to bite you in the ass.
>It can come back to bite you in the ass.
Only if the country decides to let them in
>Hobson argues that capitalist business activity brought about imperialism.
So Vladimir Lenin was right.
There are different kinds of imperialism as says, and he explains why classic imperialism is moronic. A much more sensible form of imperialism would be what the British did in Australia, Canada, the US and New Zealand.
>Find sparsely populated continent filled with technologically backwards natives
>Wipe out the natives and import people from your homeland homeland to the continent
>Double, triple and quadruple the population over time
>Economically integrate countries that despite being alien to Europe in environment are completely identical to an average North European nation
>(Never got this far) Federalise the majority culturally white peoples into a megastate and become a superpower, while all the other countries are stuck dealing with Africans living in bronze age conditions
Pic rel is what could've been if the bongs realised that Africa was a black hole and should be avoided, and that North America holds ridiculous potential.
I'm moronic i forgot the pic
>Wipe out the natives and import people from your homeland homeland to the continent
All settler colonies used massive labour pools of people to mitigate labour costs. Australia constantly shipped in immigrants, Pacific Islanders and Mediterraneans. Southern Africa hinged 100% on African and coloured labour. Nearly all new world colonies made use of indentured labourers and/or slaves.
>Economically integrate countries that despite being alien to Europe in environment are completely identical to an average North European nation.
Never was the case. Settler states all had unique situations that never ever made them 1:1 with Northern European states.
>(Never got this far) Federalise the majority culturally white peoples into a megastate and become a superpower, while all the other countries are stuck dealing with Africans living in bronze age conditions
Why the frick would they federalist with some homosexuals back in the metropole that's liek chaining yourself to a bunch of old fricks. Even the southern African colonies that made use of post-Iron age Africans still sought to split from Europe post ww2
>All settler colonies used massive labour pools of people to mitigate labour costs. Australia constantly shipped in immigrants, Pacific Islanders and Mediterraneans. Southern Africa hinged 100% on African and coloured labour. Nearly all new world colonies made use of indentured labourers and/or slaves
Only with lands that warranted or whose only method of income production was slave heavy due to shitty soil. The south had absolutely shit soil so they had to dump all their economics on slavery, while 90% of the rest of the country got along just fine with the waves of free German immigrant labor
>Only with lands that warranted or whose only method of income production was slave heavy due to shitty soil
Yet you say indentured labour and forced labour allover areas with good land in countless instances?
>while 90% of the rest of the country got along just fine with the waves of free German immigrant labor
That's not even remotely accurate. Even that free labour wasn't exactly free.
>That's not even remotely accurate. Even that free labour wasn't exactly free.
Define the terms you are using chudlet. Instead of just going “nuh-uh” every time I use the term “free” or “labor”
Because the issue of wage slavery was often brought up by people in the north (and south). Alongside that many areas had indentured labour contracts that often were exploitative due to the employer not exactly caring about the welfare of their workers.
That was a general trait of industry, not unique to colonialism
>that North America holds ridiculous potential.
That was only realized long long long after their colonial ambitions were finished in NA, the British did not have the ability to see 250+ years into the future and Am,ercia was successful BECAUSE it split from the UK. In Africa they had access to massive labour resevoirs and cash crops as well as pool of people to export products too. That's why India and Africa shared simialr dynamics in several aspects.
>Every government maintained their colonies at a loss,
Massive cope. Those Colonies were run on shoestring budgets and had massive cost cutting measures revisionists refuse to acknowledge
When BIPOC do it?
Nothing.
we don't even know what imperialism is
It wastes money.
How did Ethiopia get cucked out of a coastline so hard? This bothers me. They used to be a regional power and at times could extend their influence into the Arab peninsula as well.