Colonialism not being profitable is a vast oversimplification. Colonies are rarely profitable through *direct revenue figures* - but most of the wealth in colonial projects came from trade companies, concessions, shipping lines, private enterprise (figures like Cecil Rhodes and Leopold II who made vast fortunes off of the New Imperialism moment in Africa), joint ventures, etc, etc. Colonialism was an upfront expenditure that greatly benefited the revenue of the nation long-term through enriching private citizens who's enterprises provided jobs and could be taxed and levied by the state in numerous ways down the line, in addition to providing captive markets for industrial goods that shipped out of the colonizing nation. In this way the colonizing countries benefited hugely from their colonial ventures. The Dutch East India Company was the largest and most profitable corporation in human history. Its stockholders became fabulously wealthy beyond their wildest dreams and used that wealth to build up their own private enterprises, both at home and abroad, which could further be taxed by the state in steps. It is thus impossible to detangle the dramatic economic growth of Europe in the industrial age from its colonial ventures. Both fed each other in lockstep.
What's important to remember about this it that it made people rich; not countries. In the short and mid term colonialism only really served the bourgeisie of the colonising nations and wasn't the deciding factor in the high standards of living in these countries today. The secondary effects from the industrial revolution are harder to quantify, especially considering that we're still very much living the consequences and our actions will contribute to whether or not it was a net good or bad, but without it the standards of living possible in the world today would be unimaginable.
Conflating colonialism with early global trade is a rather major error in your logic here. Most fortunes generated by private individuals in the eras of note were from trade, and specifically by states granting the exclusive rights to sell X good to their kingdom/empire (a monopoly). Once colonialism began (read: actual settlement by Europeans and the imposition of European systems of law and governance on colonies), colonies became a HORRIBLE financial prospect. They were the 18th and 19th century equivalent of landing people on the moon. "Ooh we have a colony in Africa" was pretty much the equivalent of today of saying "we have a moon/Mars base and space station." The creation of the African colonies in fact was originally even viewed as a charitable mission of "civilization"-bringing western ideas and values to Africa was viewed as capable of giving the population better and more productive lives. (Much in the same way charities go to Africa to impose western values today, by the very same people who decry colonialism, I might add.) Colonies were never profitable for empires, global trade, an early industrialization and good access to sea lanes generated historic European wealth to a far more impactful degree. Your argument is essentially the same as people claiming that, because Lockheed Martin makes money off of American Wars, America makes money going to war (when in fact it costs us money to buy weapons). Expenditures by government always allow the creation of corrupt wealth, that weath taken from the state and then being taxed doesn't make the country rich though.
@@hippocleides7105 Africa was colonised mainly to prevent other powers from settling in and to provide stronger connection with other colonies, like Indian and South-East Asian territories. Governments often value the interests of the rich, so there is no contradiction between colonies or wars and the lack of profit they have for the the general public.
Considering how Germany, Austria, Sweden, Northern Italy lacked significant colonial holdings and greatly industrialized just like Britain and France im not convinced.
@@pulse3554 Of course, things like hard work, education, IQ, and the rule of the law. etc. have nothing to do with wealth? Was the US in Europe as well? Did it create massive industrialized regions, bigger than anything Europe had, by looting from the natives? Then I wonder why Mongolia never became rich even when it had the largest contiguous empire ever. While Singapore that never had any colonies or resources is one the most affluent countries.
@@_robustus_ lol públic education is a joke anyone who can flees to private school. Education in America is the best why do you think Harvard isn’t in Finland. Don’t trust the education rankings they’re crap
This was a weak effort. It largely ignored the role of individual and business interest in expanding empires. Individuals and businesses became extremely wealthy through imperial conquest.
Your comment is true and will be true in the future as we colonize other worlds, like the Moon and Mars. Doubtless Governments will foot the bill for early exploits but big business will actually do the colonization and reap the profits. These worlds do not have populations to enslave but the people who go to these colonies will be so dependent on the sponsoring corporations that they will be ersats slaves, down several generations. To be a Martian, will be an insult here on the Earth, but Humans always find a way to survive and to profit and succeed so in several hundred years, Martians may, at last, be respected as many former colonies are today. Such things don't really change that much.
Yes, but they're the exception, not the norm. In fact, you can really only point to the East India companies to that end. Almost everything else were simply companies who set up shop in the new land (which I don't think is really getting rich off of conquest since you could potentially do that anywhere), and not to mention how they were usually quite expensive to maintain which meant that almost any riches gained were not actually affecting the balance sheet for a net positive
I think they did reference at least British corporations quite a bit, but mostly in context of operating within a system of British colonialism. And not going into detail about the East India Company, or Hudson's Bay Company.
The amount of wealth extracted from the Americas in precious metals, produce, and naval quality lumber was unprecedented. Where did Britain get all that wood to become the #1 naval superpower? Spain was shipping back so much silver that they crashed the market.
1:36 fun fact: Henry the Navigator was _not_ a keen sailor. He understood the craft, and the Portuguese age of exploration wouldn't have gotten started without his funding and drive, but the one time he went on a ship, he got so horribly seasick he swore off doing it himself for the rest of his life.
He actually had to go plenty of times to north africa, where i suppose he went on ship multiple times, but yes, he was mostly patron and was a feudal persona with little to no technical knowledge of sea sailing himself
colonialism was mainly rooted in the framework of a mercantile society. This meant that having colonies wasn't so much as being profitable but rather keeping your rivals from getting the colonies instead. colonialism and especially slavery was largely unprofitable for most, however it viewed as necessary to build an empire and prevent another empire from getting more powerful than you. This did change with the advent of factories as colonies were viewed now as new markets and places for rare resource extraction.
"As Veblen said, 'The wealth that's extracted from Imperialism goes into the coffers of the select few, whereas the cost of Empire are paid out of the common treasure of the people.' And so it was with the British Empire in India. It was the Brits, the ordinary working people, who paid for the cost of Empire. It was the Bank of England and the East India Trading Company that got the cream." - Michael Parenti, US Interventionism, the Third World, and the USSR, a speech held in April, 1986 at the University of Colorado.
This exactly. The same with modern day (US) Empire. As a whole, the whole perpetual war in the Middle East is way more costly, but it's incredibly profitable for a few companies
It's still like this today. Big banks gamble on the markets, if they win, the owners get rich, if they lose, the owners get compensated by the taxpayer (whose pensions and savings are what was gambled with in the first place).
No. Columbus brought back those people for show, not as a present. He than tryed to sell them into slavery, which resulted in him being summoned by the Queen. She roasted him like hell, along the lines of "How dare you sell MY subjects into slavery?!" and forced him to buy out those already sold, and release everyone he brought.
@@tomlxyz Either they went with the gypsys because of discrimination or they grinded and moved across Europe because of discrimination. Some probably became indentured servants to other people, went to North Africa or taken in by other nobles to show off as “exotic” displays of wealth. Like oh look I have a free but foreign person as my servant.
No, this is all very misleading. Britain didn't decide to go out and create or conquer colonies. Instead, private British interests (and privateers, pirates by any other name) went around the world setting up missions and trading businesses. When these private missions inevitably came under attack from local interests, the crown stepped in with military power. Military outposts followed and eventually these private colonies were nationalized. This was the pattern for many British colonies, excepting the earliest one, Ireland.
It's something like saying "Your honor I swear to god I didn't want to rob the bank, but on that day my daughter went inside the bank and started dripping her melted ice-cream on the floors, and the guardian tried to grab her by the hand and take her out, to which I responded by pulling out my gun to protect her from his grip, and whilst I was there I asked them to put all the 5, 10 and 20 pound notes in a large bag" ... NO! JUST NO!
@@miha_ity That's exactly what it was like complete with the absurdity. People would flee Britains industrial hellscape and move to new areas not as cultural immigrants keen to assimilate with the native inhabitants but economic migrants who bought their values and culture with them. The natives who saw this as invasion of their ancestral homelands would reject them (much like anti-immigrant groups that get criticised today), that conflict would escalate into bloodshed as people with vastly different values and no desire to compromise found they couldn't coexist - at which point the colonists would pull on their citizenship and play victim like a bully calling in the older brother after getting beaten up by their target and Britain would 'intervene' on behalf of its citizens, turning the migrants into a protected class which inevitably changed into a ruling class with an unhealthy disdain towards others. The few times Britain tried to create protections for non-citizens to prevent that happening (through treaties and alliances) led to things like the American war of independance when the colonists rebelled in large part so they could break the agreements and guarantees Britain made with the neighbouring native nations in order to continue expanding or 'manifesting their destiny'. There's a reason the Trail of Tears (most of the targeted tribes were ex-British associates/allies) and the worst abuses of antebellum-style slavery (which lacked the protections of common law) only occured *after* Britain left. Britain basically looked at individualism and collectivism and melded the worst bits of both - allowing it citizens the freedom to do awful things while abroad alongside protecting them from the wrath of the wronged, leading to a sense of inherrited entitlement that poisoned the minds of colonial leaders who sometimes fell so far they viewed the native parts of the populationa as subhuman. Sadly, some of that entitlement still lingers to this day alongside an entirely new form of entitlement - that inherrited by the descendents of the victimised - threatens to perpetuate the cycle of conflict.
@@lubumbashi6666 you are very correct here in Zambia we still informally refer to our government as BOMA, meaning British overseas military administration. But most people don't know that, they think its just another name for the government.
That's like saying roads aren't profitable because you have to pay for their construction and maintenance. They facilitate economic activity which the government will tax while creating a higher standard of living for the population to boot.
To say colonialism wasnt profitable is a very wide claim. As you say, colonialism lasted for hundrerds of years, and the profitability of it changed dramaticaly over these years. Colonialism was profitable, the question is to who. It was certainly profitable to the companies, and in some cases, to the crown as well. However, just like modern day, it isnt all about money, its about power and control. However in the XVII century the spanish monarch was incredibily rich and it was mostly from the acomplisments of colonialism.
No, overall, not correct. Some companies and some colonies did well but most failed or were a constant drain on national resources. Consider the famed East India Company and the various other enterprises, similarly, named by the Dutch and other nations, most of which went bankrupt and had to be taken over by their nation state. Cecil Rhodes prospered however. Spain did become fabulously wealthy due to the gold and silver mines in Mexico and Peru. And I think you also correct about power, control and I would add ego, religion, White man's burden, spread civilization, adventure, exploration, military conquest etc...
@@thomassenbart I agree. Its like i said in the beginning. Its a wide claim not a wrong one. As you say some companies had periods of immense profit, and periods of bankrupcy. Colonialism lasted severall centuries its impossible to talk about profitability whithout spliting into different years.
@@thomassenbart if colonialism was a failure, why was it so persistent for centuries? Why were European countries so consistent in waging wars against each other and go into massive debt for them? (The 7 years war especially comes to mind). Another simple example, the sugar plantations in the Caribbean in the 1600 and 1700’s were regarded as among the most profitable enterprises in the world, and were fought over by European powers as prize jewels. Like, you say these enterprises like the East India Company went bankrupt, but that’s ignoring the odd history that they were successful for over 200 years and supposedly worth trillions of dollars in adjusted capital, never mind that when they “failed” they were bought out by the UK government and their shareholders were entitled to a whopping 10% dividend for 40 years, giving them a total of roughly 4 times the company’s value. Frankly, if I were uneducated, taking what you said about the company would grossly misrepresent how powerful they were and their importance in history (although some do overblow it in when they should equally consider rival companies). Anyways, the point I’m most curious about is what are the implications of what you are saying? That the colonies never should have existed, that they were a waste of time, or the more common one, that the people from former colonies should be grateful that the British Raj and other powers came to their countries and that colonialism is actually not that bad of a thing? What is the takeaway from the colonies being unsuccessful?
@@justachilldude8426 People from the former colonies should be grateful?? Colonialism was destructive and colonised peoples should have been left to develop their own societies in their own ways
@@giovanniacuto2688 I should have made my point much more clear. The other person I was replying to said that the colonies were largely unprofitable and mentioned how most went bankrupt like East India trading co. I said that was wrong and that companies like East India Trading co became stupid rich profiting off of exploitative labor, pointing out the dividends which actually reached as high as 40% at times and how it was eventually bought out by Britain’s gov for a hefty sum. I asked at the end what are the implications of saying that the British didn’t gain anything are because I think that it if you want to accurately portray the history you have to view it from the perspective of an unethical business, enforced by military might from a foreign power. So I apologize because I need to work on my communication, but I was also extremely vague at the end because I don’t want to accuse the other person of anything, but am concerned at the implications their reading of history could have on these exploited countries.
10:24 "...effectively created it's own business ecosystem." This was the main economic goal of the era. Even though it isn't as profitable as free trade and simply buying resources from the original nation, they had more important strategic concerns that took priority: 1. keep gold within your own nation's economy, gold being the lifeblood of armies 2. prevented a lack of one or another resource (or worse, that resource controlled by the FRENCH) from being used as leverage to weaken a war effort and lead to defeat. The shadow of war on the European continent was always looming, and affected every action a European nation took.
To be fair it's the reason Germany lost both world wars, the allies had all the resources they needed in their empires while Germany didn't. Its also why Hitler wanted to conqurer the ussr, and why Japan wanted to create the 'greater east Asian co-prosperity sphere'. Trade being cut, or just as bad haveing prices skyrocket, in a trade war or a real war is a real concern to a nation's stability. The pre-ww2 colonial system was largely replaced with post ww2 alliance system. Instead of guaranteeing trade via direct rule you create binding alliances. It feels less operessive and is less expensive (and thus more porfitable for more involved). But it also is less certain, after all nations can choose to leave the alliance at anytime and can't really be stopped atleast not without making yourself the bad guy (see Ukraine leaveing Russia's trade alliance)
Adam Smith wrote in his book that his era's economic system which prioritised gold over GDP was really stupid. I guess he would not have been a fan of colonialism if he saw this video.
@@Thunderdumpe It wasnt really a "Something happening, Must be good" It was maximising the nations self sufficiency, so that the only means foreign powers had to hold the nation accountable would be War.
Colonies also provided raw materials. Lumber from canada. Rubber from indonesia and phillipines, cocoa, cotton, and other crops. These provide industrial and recreational goods such as tobacco or chocolate, keeping the populace happy. Not everything is about money. Money is a tool, same with debt. These can be used to get better things.
The video says colonialism was not *profitable*, not that it did not provide ANY value. The cost of running the colonies exceeded the benefits accrued, hence not profitable.
A lot of generalizations to make the video 10 minutes long. Also a sin you dart around charter companies and skip over the Dutch imperial model that created the foundation for the British imperial model before the napoleonic wars.
Also economical spies everywhere e.g. In 2014 former US intelligence officer Edward Snowden stated that America's National Security Agency was engaged in industrial espionage and that they spied on German companies that compete with US firms. He also highlighted the fact the NSA uses mobile phone apps such as Angry Birds to gather personal data.[37] In September 2019, security firm Qi An Xin published report linking the CIA to a series of attacks targeting Chinese aviation agencies between 2012 and 2017.
Actually , the companies that were established were very corrupt and they had ways to show net loss . In India , British serving were very rich but east India company took loans to survive . In one famous instance founder of Yale University ,stole so much money that he couldn't spend it completely and founded Yale University as one of his side ventures.
During the "age of misery", the populations of every part of the British Empire tripled. That being so, how much more miserable must life have been before this?
@@kv4648 I don't necessarily, but the ultimate measure of the comfort of life is how many of us stay alive long enough to procreate. By that measure, in the Old World colonialism didn't do so badly. (In the New World, Australasia and Oceania, of course, Old World pathogens led initially to massive population loss, but this was down to the fact of contact, not colonialism per se).
@@markaxworthy2508 that is massive copium to try to justify colonialism lol. There were massive famines as a result of the fact the decisions these powers made. Why does the population growth have to do so much with whatever the British did? What if they could have grown much faster without them? You don't know that? 3 times x doesn't say as much as you're claiming. Don't you know that most of the boom in the population happened after independence?
8:42 /sigh. Actually, those colonists felt that they had been left to their own devices during the 7 Years War, and then taxed to pay for it without having a proper say in Parliament. That's why American textbooks have often historically (haha) viewed the French and Indian War and the Seven Years War as separate conflicts. Since only so much wealth and so many natural resources existed, the Crown established colonies (and monopoly companies like the East India Company) in order to funnel resources to the parent nation, in order to grab as much of the pie as they could - since otherwise other people would use their piece to steal yours. In return, the colonists got protection and infrastructure, as well as the opportunity to build their own wealth. This system is called Mercantilism, and the colonists knew the deal - they just felt that the Crown wasn't holding up its end of the social contract. *That's* how history works. Similarly, a basic knowledge of economics tells you that if the Crown is increasing the size of its economy (its GDP) and then taxing a portion of that economy, the Crown is still making actual money, and not just benefiting because "people have jobs, and we get to spread Jesus!" That's how economics works.
@@tomlxyz Good question. The colonies actively thought of themselves as different polities. The term "State" in the US Constitution is used in the same sense as in "state secrets," for example. The colonies in what is now Canada had different experiences in the war, and didn't share the lower 13 colonies' sense of abandonment and persecution. In fact, when the Continental Army tried to head north and "liberate" Canada, they were told "no, thank you" - at gunpoint. And in truth, the "American" colonies weren't on terribly firm ground with their arguments. The Crown -had- provided infrastructure, roads, soldiers, and protection (as the new-minted USA found out after they stepped out from under the aegis of the British Navy.) But the colonists still felt that they had been left -enough- on their own that they were entitled to more local control and representation (the French and Indian War did start ~2 years before the 7 Years War.) The British Crown, on the other hand was -not- being dictated to by colonials halfway across the globe, and insisted on its lawful decrees being followed - with increasingly heavy-handed measures. So both sides had a point, with the Colonies thinking they deserved more self-governance, and the Crown saying "we PUT you people over there to tax you to pay for wars!" It's probable that if the Crown had sent someone to calm things down and try diplomacy, they could have headed the whole thing off, and the southern 13 colonies would have remained with the crown.
Unlike certain misguided or idealistic individuals, states and companies generally don’t go in for unprofitable ventures (or at least it is not their intent to do so, regardless of what the outcome might be) except in order to invest in some future gain and advantage, or else, to avert or delay perceived impending disasters. ADDENDUM (edit.): In short, if “colonialism wasn’t profitable”, it wouldn’t happen - that’s “how history works”.
When looking to this situation one has to distinguish between private and public wealth, colonies opened doors to individuals and special interests to enrich themselves. While the state or the crown might have to deal with the expanding liabilities without necessarily having a wider tax base or extra sources of revenues. Even when the Spanish crown got the mother load by having large amounts of silver that wasn't a good thing in the long run, since the higher inflation led eventually to the Spanish colonies to divert the silver to trade for Chinese and Japanese goods. And after several wars the Spanish crown eventually defaulted on its debts enough times to destroy the Italian banking system.
Well colonialism actually gave a proper name to Portugal and a massive abundance of wealth, alongside with great deals for protection and trading so I don’t really understand the title..
@@kingoliever1 wrong. The silver from south America was not even enough to cover the wars in which Spain was involved. Sure too much silver was not a good thing for the economy but It was already devasteted by the heavy taxation from the state (and we are mainly talking about Castille not the other territories of the Kingdom of Aragon).
Does Portugal and Spain look like wealthy by European standard to you now ? Portugal and Spain never recovered from colonialism. People need to understand that amassing gold is useless for a country in the long term. Economic development isn't made with a huge gold reserve, but with infrastructures, investments, education, etc... Spain and Portugal elite invested everything in the colonies, letting their home country in shambles, scrapped for the investment in the new world. They never developed the infrastructure needed for the industrialization unlike Germanic and Nordic countries did.
But it was wildly profitable. The Spanish mined so much silver from the Americas that they suffered obscene levels of inflation. The control of shipping lanes and tariffs charged by dominant trading powers like the British navy produced huge quantities of wealth. The East India Company was the most valuable company in history, worth more than $2 trillion at its peak. Black pepper is native to the Indonesian islands, and when the Dutch controlled the spice trade, they made ridiculous amounts of wealth. The US literally makes money from stationing troops in every corner of the world. You said it yourself, it protects their interests, that’s money and resources. What exactly is going on here?
Yeah idk, I like how money works and was surprised to see his history channel, but this intersection of history and money is just wrong and makes me question both channels. The colonies were so profitable they paid for more colonies and they paid for industrialization and they paid for the defensive wars against the Ottomans and they paid for all the advancements made from the renaissance to 1750. They were THE reason Europe was the richest, most developed region until ww1 and if they were not profitable, how do you propose they sustained them for 450 years? If 450 years is a bubble then you can call anything a 'bubble' Rome, Persia, literally every civilization that ever existed. Honestly; on that note, this is like saying 'Rome wasn't "profitable" because it collapsed" [face palm]
Financial magic is more profitable than subjugation of everyone and violence against your enemies. White elites, black elites, Asian elites and other elites are in the same game of exploiting surplus value from their workers globally.
I notice a premise that governments exist for profit. The video doesn't provide a basis for it but just runs with it. Also, virtually all businesses eventually fail, go bankrupt, or otherwise shut down. Also, the video provides zero evidence that the governments and royal families did not own any investments in the businesses that profited.
Colonialism was extremely profitable and when combined with mercantilism created one of the most successful imperial systems in human history. The only reason it fell out of use was the combination of two world wars sapping the strength of the main imperial powers and American willingness to provide global security guarantees for territory and international trade.
Colonial Mercantilism can be critiqued in economic terms as a system where, for the first couple of years there is new wealth for everyone even if it's not evenly distributed. But over time the amount of new wealth in the colony decreases and the amount of infrastructure in the colony increases: There comes a point where basically only the officials who run the colony actually make any money off of it and the nation as a whole is losing. But at the same time the colony can't be abandoned because thousands of citizens live there.
@@nicholascarter9158 Also its not just about money. There is raw materials being exported for various entertainment and industrial uses. Rubber, cocoa, coffee, cotton, and etc. These are all useful materials for an empire's military and industrial goals.
@@MasterGhostfExactly, there's a reason why Germany lost the world wars. They didn't have any colonies. While the British and France have plenty of resources to spare.
net benefit analysis ... Europe receives coffee and cocoa from Africa and the European people have to pay retail plus tax for the goods ... Africa receives roads, running water, sewage systems, railroads, schools, hospitals, etc., and the African people pay nothing except curtailing certain hunting and fishing days. Africans received a greater net benefit from colonialism than Europeans. Communists infiltrate Africa and trick the Africans into thinking having a share land will bring them happiness. Europeans are terrorized off the continent and Africa lives with modern convenience and technology. Africans absolutely win the colonial game when they deport their mentally ill and convicts across the Mediterranean to invade and exploit Europe. Putin is having the lulz of his life as he carves up Africa to share with China as the Africans continue to curse their former benevolent colonial patrons.
I believe this Video tries to cut things a bit too short. On an obvious note the spanish brought back a lot of Gold from their colonies. Also countries like the netherlands sustained around 1/4 of their Budget through colony incomes. Though i believe the Video has a fair point. (See the british empire in ww2 controling 1/4 of the earth but only beeing able to make less use of it) i think i Cuts things a little too short
Spanish brought back a lot of silver, not gold, from their colonies in the Americas. This eventually led to the Spanish currency becoming inflated which might have discouraged proto-industrialization in Spain. In the long-term, Spain lost more than it gained from colonization but in the short-term, it had the wealth to be the most powerful monarchy in Europe.
well there are two types of colonization in my eyes. the old fashioned ways like with the brits and Spanish all the way to the mongels where you conquer land and hold it to extract as much as possible. And the economic colonization of the Dutch where its more about buying goods for as cheap as fucking possible, and then selling it back home for a massive profit by holding the minimum amount of land possible focusing on ports and harbors. With the former netting you shit loads money in the short-term by pillaging as much as possible but end up poor investments cause you have to hold on to these now economically destroyed regions with expensive armies. While the latter with the Dutch being the more sensible way of colonization by holding on to the strategic bits which can allow for more investment to be focused on a point. now this is to say that its not that individuals didn't exploit the land and make a fortune but the government and the overall population didn't see any of the benefits directly until way later.
@@pulse3554 I mean they did empty entire cities and installed themselves as rulers. Now to say is it the same as European colonization? Short answer no. Long answer is yes and no. as they colonized the steppes of Ukraine old fashioned way with them killing the locals then moving in with their family as the steppes of Ukraine was like the homeland of the Mongol steppes. while being unable to colonize the middle east as it was already entrenched and is much harder to survive as a nomadic herders in a hot and dry climate.
@@songcramp66 the English industrial revolution was funded with brazilian gold acquired from its trades with Portugal. The reason why spain and portugal did not industrialize is not because " too much rare metal bad", its because they did nothing useful eith these treasures. They built churches of gold and spent the rest of the moneu buying stuff from other more industrious nations, like England.
Exactly. Throughout many, many centuries history (European and others) for many kings/emperors and princes, going to war to try to conquer more land, power and glory, was kind of "Royal's game"... [or "Game of thrones"] (money was not irrelevant but it was a bit secondary over "more power and prestige"). So, when the Portuguese (a small kingdom, with a very small population) started creating an Empire through maritime exploration, other European Royal houses took notice and the "race was on"! (A good example of FOMO [Fear Of Missing Out]) But starting and running an overseas empire was a pricey and risky venture. Many tried and failed.
@@lfmsimoes1 That's why the US founders and elites were so smart for not engaging into greater imperialism. They were forced to engage into smaller projects like Cuba and the Phillipines but later refrained from doing more. With those "colonies", the US doesn't enforce strict imperialism like what European colonies were doing but the US allowed a free market economy to thrive with the local population can participate.
Colonialism was an outgrowth of earlier economic theories. Basically, it said, "we go to a new place and take what wealth we fund there for ourselves." it's essentially an extended viking raid. The investors for both Jamestown and Plymouth Rock wanted their people search for gold and jewels. If a Northern Inca, Maya or Aztec culture had been found, they would have sent a well armed raiding party to steal it just as the Spanish had done. And honestly, many nations still practice this, to this day.
Never has the world known greater benevolence than the merchant class of Europe. net benefit analysis ... Europe receives coffee and cocoa from Africa and the European people have to pay retail plus tax for the goods ... Africa receives roads, running water, sewage systems, railroads, schools, hospitals, etc., and the African people pay nothing except curtailing certain hunting and fishing days. Africans received a greater net benefit from colonialism than Europeans. Communists infiltrate Africa and trick the Africans into thinking having a share land will bring them happiness. Europeans are terrorized off the continent and Africa lives with modern convenience and technology. Africans absolutely win the colonial game when they deport their mentally ill and convicts across the Mediterranean to invade and exploit Europe. Putin is having the lulz of his life as he carves up Africa to share with China as the Africans continue to curse their former benevolent colonial patrons.
Not exactly. China, Russia, the US engage its financial imperialism but not direct imperialism anymore (except for territories that are vital for security purposes). It's better to make profit from financial magic rather than subjugating everyone.
"Colonialism isn't Profitable" Russian Fur Depot which produces 12 premium furs from turkic tribes in the 16th century in the Middle of siberia on its way to make more money than a mcdonals restaurant's yearly income: 🗿
Why didn't you talk about the Dutch VOC? If it wasn't profitable to colonize then how come that this organization had become so big? So big that if you count inflation that no other company in our entire history even comes close how much of the entire world GDP they owned during the Dutch golden age.
Holding & administering territory was what was expensive and unprofitable not the trading itself The voc didn't hold all that much land and the places it did hold were wildly profitable so overall the balance sheet remained amazing
Colonial expeditions were also highly leveraged enterprises. It was about the highest risk investment possible in the 16th-early 20th centuries. The only way to make those investments appealing was to promise unlikely amounts of growth and returns. This over reliance on high risk investment is what made for the huge boom and bust cycles of the major European colonial economies. They became reliant on bigger and bigger, increasingly risky, bets on unrealistic projections, even as wars and competition grew. This also affected other industries, eg if India didn't keep buying more clothes, the over-leveraged cloth factories in England were worthless investments and would lay off English workers.
Yeah idk, I like how money works and was surprised to see his history channel, but this intersection of history and money is just wrong and makes me question both channels. The colonies were so profitable they paid for more colonies and they paid for industrialization and they paid for the defensive wars against the Ottomans and they paid for all the advancements made from the renaissance to 1750. They were THE reason Europe was the richest, most developed region until ww1 and if they were not profitable, how do you propose they sustained them for 450 years? If 450 years is a bubble then you can call anything a 'bubble' Rome, Persia, literally every civilization that ever existed. Honestly; on that note, this is like saying 'Rome wasn't "profitable" because it collapsed"
Another factor, especially in later imperialism was gaining prestige, having big possesions across the world meant that the country in question would be seen as more capable and resourceful in the diplomatic scene, also a lot of times goverments used colonial expansion to solidify their legitimacy, like the 3rd French Republic massively expanding after the humiliation in the Franco-Prussian war, for example
Indeed colonialism, much like the Buccaneers of the 17th century was about individuals exploiting the riches of foreign people and lands. For states though, it was about power, even if it came at a net loss. You can see it with the scramble for Africa as well, while some notable individuals got rich with their businesses, states like France, Britain and Italy competed over strategic advantages. This is one of the reasons the french went to West Africa, where little to no profits were to be made. Like a lot of people mentioned, it is hard to untangle those effects from each other, as both reinforced the dynamics of colonial expansion. Also you should consider, that prior to the industrial revolution, there were natural constraints on GDP per capita, given by agrarian lifestyles and simple technologies. Expanding your territory was the de facto recipe to increase the wealth of your home region, as more people and more land amplified the possible accumulation of capital by your country's elites. This also applies to ancient times and only trade hubs used to be the exception.
4:13 is wrong, no Papal Bull ever supported slavery. Quite the opposite, in 1434/5 Creator Omnium and Sicut dudum were issued and condemned and forbid slavery of the canary islands which were the first African colonies. As later many Papal bulls extended it to the Americas, the rest of Africa, and Asia, all of which were simply to enforce the already existing ban on slavery. Don't blame the Catholic Church for Portugal's and Spain's slavery.
The British working class and poor paid for the colonial machine in the form of high taxes. The rich were the ones who benefited from colonialism as they pay little or no taxes but yet get to rule these foreign lands. If the British rich had to pay the same rate of taxes she the working class did, they would not stay rich very long.
Yes i was thinking along these same lines. From the perspective of the government and the population, these colonies were unprofitable. However these Corporations and Colonies were extensions of the State (nobility/aristocracy) and were basically advancements of technique for rulership/power. Also certain resources (like mining) are always notoriously unprofitable without slave labor or modern machines, yet they are intrinsic to rulership. So ultimately, powerful individuals within the ruling class profited tremendously in both money and raw power. Colonialism was also used to socially engineer populations that they came in contact with, just like how Catholic (translation: Universal) Church had previously purged other forms of Christianity and Paganism within the population to create a universal utopia. Colonialism was when the ruling class socially engineered colorism/modern racism in order to stratify the working class and ‘divide and conquer’ for the purpose of counter-revolution. So its a pretty narrow view of “profit” to say that Colonialism was “unprofitable” from the perspective of those who benefited from colonialism. A bunch of other information from this video sounds like its from Wikipedia or made up (like Columbus being a Spaniard when he was Genoese). And the host has the energy of a TMZ or Entertainment Tonight personality
"The rich" is/was "rich" due to their assets, not their cash money. They actually pay higher tax rate on what they earn and equal rate on what they consume (e.g. In the US, the top 10% own ~60% of the wealth, and contribute ~70% of total tax revenue, meaning they actually already pay their fair share). However, since it is very difficult to assess and tax their asset (especially those bonds and stocks), they can retain (and grow) their "wealth" easier/better than the working class.
Taxes in those days were more or less none existent especially if you were lower class, people as a whole in the west pay more tax now then they ever have and the wealthy still shoulder the majority of that burden.
@@ciaranthompson3375 There was no income tax, but there were various taxes, from land tax, poll tax, to alcohol and salt tax. But I get your point, we have to pay so much more taxes than our ancestors centuries ago.
@@ihl0700677525 What is a fair share for the rich is really distorted by the modern economics. The 99% do 99% of the work, but they will certainly not get 99% of the wealth they create. Modern economics mostly ignore the land which is one of the main reasons that the rich 1% gets claims on the wealth that is created by the 99%. The wealth is transferred to the rich in form of rents and land value gains. If you look back just 25 years the low prices of housing seems completely unreal. Where I live wages rose around 30-40% during that period, but the price of the housing tripled. Small condominium would cost eround 60 000€, but now that same condominium could cost 200 000€. So if someone wanted to buy just a meager home they would have to pledge many years of their future income to pay the previous owner plus interest to the bank. These price gains did not come when the owners improved the building. Instead they came because of the improvements made in the local community funded by both private and public money(schools, shops, infrastructure etc.) Thus these price gains are mostly unearned income that is extracted from someone elses back. The rich would fund think tanks that peddle simplistic slogans to cover up this fact eg "Everyone earns what they produce, so they have no right to demand more" by John Bates Clark. This slogan comes in to question when when you look land ownership in UK. Just 5% of the land is owned by ordinary homeowners, while the old aristocracy and gentry owns 30%. There is another 17% that is unaccounted, but it's also likely owned by the old aristocracy. The enlightenment philosophers and classical economists from John Locke to Adam Smith understood that the land ownership is a monopoly and it can be used to extract wealth from those that are forced to rent the land simply to exist. Their solution to the problem was to fund the government with tax on the land values which would disincentivize land speculation which is the root cause of the high cost of housing in modern western economies.
Oh wow the amount of mistakes in this video is mind blowing. Next time do your research better because this is a really poorly made video, even the names are wrong... There is no John or Henry in Portugal that's English names not Portuguese names, Columbus wasn't even Spanish too
Some were profitable because the colonized regions were already rich with an already existing profitable trade route. Take India and South East Asia for example. Those regions had always been trading with one another and with other people. It was basically an early form of extensive free trade. Basically all lived in harmony until Europeans attacked and stole those trade routes. Those regions were basically crippled and criminally robbed. As for the Americas and maybe parts of Africa (not all, other parts do have extensive trade routes) the trade environment wasn’t as extensive or established yet in comparison to India and South East Asia hence why for a time colonizers didn’t profit from them as much; they had to build and develop from scratch certain industries.
This video is so stupid, the only way to arrive at this conclusion is to ignore the obvious benefits of additional land and resources and totally misunderstand the difference between private profits and public liabilty maybe the people of colonial empires werent seeing money from colonies but there governments were
🤣🤣 I learned that Columbus was Italian from a Soprano's clip. The American Italians talk about Columbus being a hero and explorer. They ask the Italian Italian, Furio, what he thinks of this dressing down of Columbus' legacy. To their surprise they fund out he hates Columbus because he was from Genoa and they oppressed the region where Furio is from. It's so hilarious. Probably not describing it correctly
@@MK-we9sw Italy exists. Italians don't. There's a famous quote attributed to Massimo d 'Azeglio "We have made an Italy, now we must make Italians" Christopher Columbus was Genoese.
@@MK-we9sw I think he’s referring to the fact that most Italians before the 1800’s identified more with their city states and regions more than an Italian nationality. Italy has only been a state for around 170 years similar to Germany and most people would identify as Genoese, Venetian, or Napoli rather than “Italian”, which while a prominent idea among Italian intellectuals like Machiavelli as far back as the Middle Ages didn’t come to being until the 1800’s when Napoleonic France spread the idea of the nation state and republicanism around Europe including Italy which even while United today still has regional divisions like some languages in Sicily being more intelligible with Spanish than Italian.
One thing to consider about Spain is that it was a Crusader State(they just finished the Reconquista and are facing off against both the Protestants and Ottoman Turks) trying to LARP as the Roman Empire(The Last Recognized Roman Emperor gifted the title to the Spanish Monarchy in his will) so it didn't matter if colonization was profitable or not, as long as there are more Catholics int he world and that they uphold the legacy of Rome.
The Spanish weren't really larping as the Romans. (also the *re*conquesta is called that for a reason. It was a liberation movement. Ofcaurse technicaly speaking the crusades were too but they ended up diverging form their orginal goal {helping the byzantines liberate lost land})
Yes, the silver extracted from South America allowed Spain easy access for trade with China, same case with all of Europe who trade with the Spanish to obtain the silver. Spain became poor because it was at constant war with everyone, not by choice anyhow.
This is a weird thesis. The colonies did not directly profit the crown, but they enriched the empires' businesses and citizens, which in turn enriched the crown indirectly. Between 1500 and 1650 Spain imported 181 tons of gold and 16000 tons of silver. Spain also went from a peninsula of poor, petty kingdoms to the richest empire in the world. Colonialism was profitable for Spain. From 1707 to 1900 UK GDP went from about 8.5 million pounds to just shy of 200 million. Empire was absolutely profitable.
The government was the icebreaker that took upon itself the initial expenses of opening the new markets and the subsequent companies that profited from the newly established network were making big bucks. Also, often people in government were directly invested into those enterprises and were making money off of it. But where does the government take that money? Taxation, so the people. So simple peasants were squeezed to finance a whole infrastructure for robbers to plunder faraway lands. This is how colonialism works and how imperialism works even today. The costs of empire are passed to the general public and a small clique is syphoning everyone's work and ressources. That's how it's done today as well. The semiconductor industry was a big government project, financed from public money and benefited from government financed research that later on got bit by bit privatized. Nationalise expenses and privatise profits, that's the slogan and essence of capitalism. Colonialism is just the cradle that forged its first form.
It wasn't profitable for the crown or government is what he means here. It's like how US government funnels money into Ukraine which makes US companies profit but downside fir government.
Colonialism may be dead, but the idea is very much still alive and has improved since that time. A really good example of modern colonialism is the whole thing with shell and Nigeria.
I don't think the point of colonialism is to only gain money, the cultural victory is the most important thing. The proliferation of English, French, and Spanish language is a testament to that. Some people do have visions beyond money- the pride of knowing you are better than others by virtue of your race, for example.
Corporations are designed to make money. Governments have no use for it. They can just print it. Governments have economic interests but not in profit generation explicitly. Governments typically seek strategic security, expanse of its ideology and faith, as well as abstract ideas like scientific discovery and exploration. Money is a tool for governments, not typically a goal.
Monarchs absolutely were in the business of making money, and even now, western governments are just the popular front for the ultra wealthy capitalists who control them, and capitalists are only in it for the money.
@@robertblume2951 It wasn't exactly like that they use gold and silver but they also combined their coins with other metals so the empire could spend more. Coins were weighed and studied by merchants so they could determine a value for each coin. When there were rumors that the country would increase the amount for tin for example the coins usually loss value, sometimes those rumors were financed by nerby kingdoms to weaken them for an upcoming war.
If you look at the raw data (which I'm not sure you even are) and decide that since they lost money up front, you're totally missing the point: that colonialism in all forms is an upward vertical transfer of wealth. The Crown didn't pay for nothing. They raised that money through taxes that were taken without providing representation in return. The profits on the other hand were put directly into their pockets, therefore it was extremely profitable for the individuals involved, including the monarchy.
Hello, You are mistaken. Colonialism existed for all of history. Your sole focus Euro or Western Colonialism fails to admit to Islamic Colonialism, Egyptian Colonialism, Sumerian Colonialism, Aztec Colonialism, Inca Colonialism, Han Colonialism, Mongolian Colonialism, Cambodian Colonialism, Native American Colonialism, etc. The conquest ethic has always been something human beings struggle against. Capitalism is voluntary and develops self and others. It is not Mercantilism or Socialism. Still, an economic system is not a political system. Republics and Democracies are not Dictatorships, Monarchies and Oligarchies. With such said, you will not be part of the solution until you rid yourself of antiChristian bias, AntiWest bias, and historical myopia.
This is complete nonsense. When we had foot shortages I remember, we would direct food away from the colonies to us. This saved us from spending money on food. It also cause famines in the colonies. The Dutch East Indies company was the first mega-corporation - they didn't become mega-rich by not being profitable. Next, the British East India company was so rich, that the stakeholders went into politics and bought hereditary titles. A disproportionate number of hereditary Lords in the UK are descended from the formerly commoner merchants who founded the British East India company.
I feel that you saying that "colonialism wasn't profitable" for the Spanish/English royal families is a bit of a gross over simplification. Because while the establishment of colonies required the European nations to increase on military spending in order to maintain the colony, the resources extracted from the colonies more than made up for it. The European access to luxury goods like tobacco, tea, sugar, cocoa, coffee, and cotton was only made cheap through their colonial plantations. The extracting of precious metals and resources like silver, gold, diamonds, rubber, and oil would only come about due to conquering the land that held said resources. By setting up colonies the Europeans were able to take resources cheaply from an area, refine/manufacture other items out of them, and have a closed market in which only they were legally allow to sell items. This would allow merchants and trader to make vast fortunes off the colonies and the trade between the home nation of their colonies. So while the European empires might not directly gain wealth from a colony (if you are looking at direct income and expenses associated with a colony), they would still be able to improve the lives of their European citizens which would indirectly increase the amount of wealth they would be able to get through tariffs and taxation of the now richer citizens.
It wasn't about profit, it was about political-geographical-industrial-etc. equity. You don't own your home for profit, and you don't have a bigger home for more profit. If you get into a dick measuring contest with your neighbor, then you're not putting additions on your home for even greater profit. Colonialism was about increasing a nation's total economic and military might to win wars rather than min-maxxing its economic investments' returns. And when colonialism was about profit, you saw massive private corporations set up to exploit the land and resources of the colonies. Owners of these private companies were typically noblemen or members of legislative bodies that heads of state ate dinner with. (And in the case of the United Kingdom, both of these at once). If you and France are in a constant state of military rivarly aka a security dilemma, then to secure yourself against them you need to expand your power. In the early modern period that meant taking your surplus resources and conquering/settling new territory to provision you with more resources, manpower, and naval bases to spend on conquering more territory.
Colonies were largely to get raw materials at low prices that could be processed into goods the nation could sell cheaper than other countries. Under mercantilism this kept money in the country and gained money from other countries. Adam Smith changed the purpose to making goods more efficiently at a lower cost. To Adam Smith money had no real intrinsic value, it was a tool to enable increased productivity. One of the reasons Britain had colonies was to find homes and employment for her surplus population. Slavery was for Britain, a way to get workers where workers didn't want to go, starting in the second half of the 17th century in the Caribbean where sugar could be produced. Because Britain set prices for American goods far below market value small farmers in places like Virginia small farmers wouldn't grow the crops Britain valued. In about the last quarter of the 17th century Britain began to encourage using slaves who couldn't refuse to grow crops like tobacco and indigo.
The only people who say colonialism wasn't profitable is fascists trying pass off the imperialism of their nations as benevolent. And the only way way this statement can not be a bold faced lie is by looking EXCULSIVELY at the DIRECT tax revenue of a colony, while pain stakingly adding up every expense that can be attributed to the colony, no matter how flimsy it is to attribute it solely to the colony.
Here is something to consider net benefit analysis ... Europe receives coffee and cocoa from Africa and the European people have to pay retail plus tax for the goods ... Africa receives roads, running water, sewage systems, railroads, schools, hospitals, etc., and the African people pay nothing except curtailing certain hunting and fishing days. Africans received a greater net benefit from colonialism than Europeans. Communists infiltrate Africa and trick the Africans into thinking having a share land will bring them happiness. Europeans are terrorized off the continent and Africa lives with modern convenience and technology. Africans absolutely win the colonial game when they deport their mentally ill and convicts across the Mediterranean to invade and exploit Europe. Putin is having the lulz of his life as he carves up Africa to share with China as the Africans continue to curse their former benevolent colonial patrons.
Bring untold misery to millions? This assumes millions were not already in misery, which they were. In general, populations conquered and governed by the Europeans were no worse off under their rule and in fact gained considerable knowledge, education for elites, religion, technology and a host of other advantages which no one has abandoned after gaining independence. No, free labor was not exported to Europe making colonialism profitable. Very few Africans were brought to Europe to serve as slaves. the same is true for American Indians or any other colonized population. Dumb comment. Spain was vastly enriched by its acquisition of colonies in the New World. The gold and silver mines in Mexico and Peru changed the entire European economy, created significant inflation and made Spain the greatest power in Europe, if not the world. Later, the plantations established throughout these territories, especially in the Carribean were extremely valuable. Haiti at the time of the slave revolt, was generating more income than all 13 American colonies combined, which were also, quite wealthy and productive.
Colonialism was all about control and domination, and it *was* very profitable for a very few, very select people (traders, the bureaucratic apparatus, corporations, etc.). It was *not* "profitable" for the masses of commoners within the imperialist states, whose labor was fleeced and the real profits funneled up to the very top.
You usually put more effort into your videos in How Money Works ? But you didn't even do basic research for this one. India contributed 1/3rd of the world GDP for atleast 1000 years and 25% upto the 1600s. And you just named it as a trading post.
You have an obsession with switching images and video clips frequently that leads to you frequently using inherently misrepresentative images over your narrative. The one that bothered me most was showing a slave ship filled with black African slaves while talking about how Portuguese people had been captured and enslaved by North Africans.
If your mentioning colonialism and the british empire I think its worth mentioning the Royal Navy's efforts from 1807 to 1860 to end slavery. Few other countries can claim that and I think it is a major distinction that sets Britain apart.
@@phaedrussmith1949 In a nutshell, capturing slave ships and basically offering an ultimatum, turn around and take them back somewhere where the African slave traders wouldn't be able to recapture them, or be arrested and have the Royal Navy take the ship back instead.
@@phaedrussmith1949 The British Empire is the key to the abolishment of slavery. OP is pointing out is when they sent their navies to hunt down any slave ship to free them from captivity. Without the British Empire and colonialism we should never had seen the end of slavery. You needed to be that big to enforce something like this and get everyone involved in the idea.
@@Smoothbluehero True for some or a small number in power maybe but in general not true for those doing the work. It was a genuine show of virtue and honour.
Am an African, and I believe anyone should clearly see that the colonialists gained a lot from the territories. We. Can't say that they didn't profit, it doesn't matter who enjoyed those profits but they were made
Colonialism wasn't about profit ,it's about survival, imagine french getting enormously wealthy with colonies for a short amount of time and using that resource to annex Britain at least irland. So this became a rat race ,like the cold war between USA and USSR
lol this is basically hollywood accounting for pro-imperialist historians "see, the balance sheet says we didn't make any money from colonialism, so long as you ignore all the stuff we didn't include in the balance sheet"
You are right that it wasn't profitable, but, it was done to secure supply routes and influence geopolitics, though it really benefited the colonised people in the LONG-TERM, I am Indian and I am damn grateful that I can speak English because of the British, we have a great central bank, and we have a great education system, and great railways (better than the modern-day UK) Edit: 1:50 correct me if I am wrong but Prester John was thought to live in Ethiopia
I'm happy to see this. I get annoyed with Indian netizens who whine about British rule, rather than seeing what they can do now to develop their nation.
@@matthewtymczyszyn8948 it's because that's what they study in the schools and hear in the media, it's a total circle jerk unfortunately, while it wasn't all good in our past, one must try to analyse the situation through various points of views, unfortunately, foreigners are very easy scapegoats, every problem in our country has one answer: the bad white person stole our riches That's why it's important to study history using various reputable sources on Google scholar and reputable books :)
@@matthewtymczyszyn8948 Coptic Christians usually live in Egypt, Ethiopia is mostly catholic (43% of the population) and the title of being the world's first Christian country is disputed between Armenia and Ethiopia
Clickbait title. Of course it was profitable. Expanding markets and new natural resources including people (slaves). Not to mention how countries were in competition with others over new areas to colonize. Obviously colonialism is bad but to say it wasn’t profitable is misrepresenting it. You’re applying our current view of profitability to a time where capitalism was very new and monarchies were still in power.
Colonies cost money and brought nothing but troubles for the vast majority of people. At various times. Not to mention the current orchestrated & retarded 'colonial guilt' and the invasions by foreigners of ALL Euro/Euro founded countries (Afghanis in Sweden because?..). Etc
You have the complete cliché of colonization, it wasn't at all like that. Unlike many people believe, most colonies were agrarian not mining. Most of the natural resources of Africa was discovered only after WW2 and close to the end of colonialism. Europeans stopped slavery during the course of the 19th century, at that time, Africa and Asia were barely colonized. When the scramble of Africa happened in 1870, the practice by Europeans was extinct, only Africans continued slavery for few decades until Europeans stopped them. Asia was a good export market for Europe, still is today, but not Africa. Africa was at time very scarcely populated It was profitable only for an handful of rich European who owned farmland in the colonies, but clearly not for European countries, otherwise Portugal or Spain would be amongst wealthiest European countries while Sweden and Norway would be poor. The Portugal/Spain are actually perfect example on how colonies could easily ruin a country.
Aga, so the governments did not get money from colonies. Trade corporations and land owners did, and they paid taxes to the government, taxes that are not technically coming from the colonies. smart ;)
Many in the comment section do not seem to understand what PROFITABLE means. The video says colonialism was not *profitable*, not that it did not provide ANY value. The cost of running the colonies exceeded the benefits accrued.
This is literally rewriting history and manipulating public opinion lol, so wicked and unsound, its like comvincing how a rape isnt really fun nor rewarding because the perpetrator had to struggle
When Britain came to India Indian GDP collectively was almost 25% of the world. They left it impoverished. Bengal famine is a classic example of it. While Clement Atlee's govt was about leave India, Churchil reportortedly whispered or cried (?) " at least keep a part of it". Such was THE LOOT that took place. The British industrial revolution is funded by Indian money. It wasn't commonwealth it was one sided LOOT and EXTRACTION. I completely agree with John Oliver when he said British museum is an actual crime scene. Britain owes India reparations.
The idea that industrialisation was made with Indian money is just not true tho. The money that was made in India never really reached Britain it just stayed in the hands of British people in India. The cities that industrialised first in Britain were not really involved in colonisation, port cities actually never really industrialised at all. The cities that industrialised were the ones that had easy access to coal and iron mines and were normally more inland. What Britain didn’t have was cotton, even tho India produced a lot of it, the cotton used in British industry mostly came from the American south. Belgium, the US and Prussia were the next three countries to start industrialising, and none of the had colonies in the begging of the 19th century. The countries that did have large colonial empire like Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands were actually between the last to industrialize in Western Europe. It’s a common misunderstanding of history to think that colonisation made industrialisation when honestly it kind of worked against it. Industrialisation did help in colonisation tho. The conquest of Africa could not have happened with out it since African nations actually had a good record in resisting European prior to the 1800s and Europeans didn’t fair well in Africa with out modern medicine. The reason India doesn’t have 25% of the worlds economy anymore is not because India become poorer, but because the west and east Asia become way more wealthy. If you look at countries that were never colonised and compare them to their neighbours that were you will actually see that they aren’t any more developed. Look at Iran and gulf states or Azerbaijan for example, Ethiopia and Kenya, Thailand and Malaysia, China and korea, Nepal and india. In África the countries that were colonised the longest like South Africa and Nigeria are actually the richest. Colonisation is unjustifiable and should not have happened, the colonisers are responsible for numerous atrocities and human suffering, but modern nations that were colonies in the past aren’t poor because of colonisation. Weather, Geography and especially post colonial administrations is what has dictated the current situation. We have seen nation with healthy political systems like Chile, Botswana, Uruguay, Singapore etc be extremely successful nations. Argentina is poor compared to western nations now but was actually the richest country per capita in the world in the turn of the 20th century, 80 years after they had declared independence. Their disastrous government has placed them back in the list of third world countries. What politicians in third world countries like to do is blaming their current problems in colonisation to hide the fact they they are corrupt and terrible administrators permitting them to stay in power. Look at the protests in iran for example. The police brutally beat up a woman to death for showing a bit of her hair. The first thing the government did when the population started to revolt was to say it was all a western lie and it was western spies dressed as Iranian police that killed the women.
The British Empire and the other European Empires all operated in unique and different ways that all changed the legacy they left. They were incredibly complex and important institutions in human history and they really aren’t understood at all by the vast of majority people, yet people love to discuss them all the time.
Even though most don’t like to admit it colonialism was probably the best thing for the world. It brought modern civilization to places that would have otherwise stayed in the Stone Age
Colonialism improved the societal complexity of basically nowhere because if you dig into the details it always involved finding a place with a developed culture, putting pressure on the cracks in that culture until it broke down, waiting about 50-100 years for the whole thing to come apart, then waltzing into the chaos and declaring the preceding nation a barbaric children's story. People's like the Mali, Ethiopian, and Aztec went through a mad max period, then Europeans strolled in and said "Australia is a lie that never existed, you've always just been mad max"
@@luisandrade2254 that is not true, there where Kingdoms and Empires on the tech lvl somewhere between middle ages and napoleonic era plus the different hunter gatherers and pastoralists. Ehtiopia specifically was a Kingdom reaching back over a 1000 years. The Americas had all the Central and Southamerican high cultures with something akin to advanced neolitic bronze age with one area starting to reach iron works. Aside from that the Mississippi culture, Inka and Central Americans had highly stratifified societies. Unfortunately, we don't have much in the amazonian cultures who were devastated by disease before any significant notice was taken.
![[UA] NAVI проти G2 Esports | Blast Premier Fall Final](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QWlIm4FGESQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Colonialism not being profitable is a vast oversimplification. Colonies are rarely profitable through *direct revenue figures* - but most of the wealth in colonial projects came from trade companies, concessions, shipping lines, private enterprise (figures like Cecil Rhodes and Leopold II who made vast fortunes off of the New Imperialism moment in Africa), joint ventures, etc, etc. Colonialism was an upfront expenditure that greatly benefited the revenue of the nation long-term through enriching private citizens who's enterprises provided jobs and could be taxed and levied by the state in numerous ways down the line, in addition to providing captive markets for industrial goods that shipped out of the colonizing nation. In this way the colonizing countries benefited hugely from their colonial ventures. The Dutch East India Company was the largest and most profitable corporation in human history. Its stockholders became fabulously wealthy beyond their wildest dreams and used that wealth to build up their own private enterprises, both at home and abroad, which could further be taxed by the state in steps.
It is thus impossible to detangle the dramatic economic growth of Europe in the industrial age from its colonial ventures. Both fed each other in lockstep.
What's important to remember about this it that it made people rich; not countries. In the short and mid term colonialism only really served the bourgeisie of the colonising nations and wasn't the deciding factor in the high standards of living in these countries today. The secondary effects from the industrial revolution are harder to quantify, especially considering that we're still very much living the consequences and our actions will contribute to whether or not it was a net good or bad, but without it the standards of living possible in the world today would be unimaginable.
Conflating colonialism with early global trade is a rather major error in your logic here. Most fortunes generated by private individuals in the eras of note were from trade, and specifically by states granting the exclusive rights to sell X good to their kingdom/empire (a monopoly).
Once colonialism began (read: actual settlement by Europeans and the imposition of European systems of law and governance on colonies), colonies became a HORRIBLE financial prospect. They were the 18th and 19th century equivalent of landing people on the moon. "Ooh we have a colony in Africa" was pretty much the equivalent of today of saying "we have a moon/Mars base and space station."
The creation of the African colonies in fact was originally even viewed as a charitable mission of "civilization"-bringing western ideas and values to Africa was viewed as capable of giving the population better and more productive lives. (Much in the same way charities go to Africa to impose western values today, by the very same people who decry colonialism, I might add.)
Colonies were never profitable for empires, global trade, an early industrialization and good access to sea lanes generated historic European wealth to a far more impactful degree.
Your argument is essentially the same as people claiming that, because Lockheed Martin makes money off of American Wars, America makes money going to war (when in fact it costs us money to buy weapons). Expenditures by government always allow the creation of corrupt wealth, that weath taken from the state and then being taxed doesn't make the country rich though.
@@hippocleides7105
Africa was colonised mainly to prevent other powers from settling in and to provide stronger connection with other colonies, like Indian and South-East Asian territories.
Governments often value the interests of the rich, so there is no contradiction between colonies or wars and the lack of profit they have for the the general public.
Considering how Germany, Austria, Sweden, Northern Italy lacked significant colonial holdings and greatly industrialized just like Britain and France im not convinced.
@@pulse3554 Of course, things like hard work, education, IQ, and the rule of the law. etc. have nothing to do with wealth?
Was the US in Europe as well? Did it create massive industrialized regions, bigger than anything Europe had, by looting from the natives? Then I wonder why Mongolia never became rich even when it had the largest contiguous empire ever. While Singapore that never had any colonies or resources is one the most affluent countries.
Columbus wasn't a Spaniard. He was Genoese working for the Spanish monarchy.
Maybe one shouldn’t trust this cat’s knowledge of history.
True. Columbus’ descendants were though. They married the local aristocracy and there are several descendants of Columbus in Spain today.
Americans aren’t known for their geographical knowledge 😂
@@luisandrade2254
Indeed we are not. USA is number 27 globally in public education. Step up Europe. Clearly our best days are behind us.
@@_robustus_ lol públic education is a joke anyone who can flees to private school. Education in America is the best why do you think Harvard isn’t in Finland. Don’t trust the education rankings they’re crap
This was a weak effort. It largely ignored the role of individual and business interest in expanding empires. Individuals and businesses became extremely wealthy through imperial conquest.
Very much agree with you. Far too superficial and missed out on so many aspects of the 'colonial age'.
Your comment is true and will be true in the future as we colonize other worlds, like the Moon and Mars. Doubtless Governments will foot the bill for early exploits but big business will actually do the colonization and reap the profits. These worlds do not have populations to enslave but the people who go to these colonies will be so dependent on the sponsoring corporations that they will be ersats slaves, down several generations. To be a Martian, will be an insult here on the Earth, but Humans always find a way to survive and to profit and succeed so in several hundred years, Martians may, at last, be respected as many former colonies are today. Such things don't really change that much.
Yes, but they're the exception, not the norm. In fact, you can really only point to the East India companies to that end. Almost everything else were simply companies who set up shop in the new land (which I don't think is really getting rich off of conquest since you could potentially do that anywhere), and not to mention how they were usually quite expensive to maintain which meant that almost any riches gained were not actually affecting the balance sheet for a net positive
I think they did reference at least British corporations quite a bit, but mostly in context of operating within a system of British colonialism. And not going into detail about the East India Company, or Hudson's Bay Company.
The amount of wealth extracted from the Americas in precious metals, produce, and naval quality lumber was unprecedented. Where did Britain get all that wood to become the #1 naval superpower? Spain was shipping back so much silver that they crashed the market.
1:36 fun fact: Henry the Navigator was _not_ a keen sailor. He understood the craft, and the Portuguese age of exploration wouldn't have gotten started without his funding and drive, but the one time he went on a ship, he got so horribly seasick he swore off doing it himself for the rest of his life.
I did a project on him in 5th grade and I didn’t know that
He actually had to go plenty of times to north africa, where i suppose he went on ship multiple times, but yes, he was mostly patron and was a feudal persona with little to no technical knowledge of sea sailing himself
colonialism was mainly rooted in the framework of a mercantile society. This meant that having colonies wasn't so much as being profitable but rather keeping your rivals from getting the colonies instead. colonialism and especially slavery was largely unprofitable for most, however it viewed as necessary to build an empire and prevent another empire from getting more powerful than you. This did change with the advent of factories as colonies were viewed now as new markets and places for rare resource extraction.
The sad thruth of colonisme is it's was the largest dick messering context
Sooooo.... Basic Game Theory?
@@NoFlu that’s what international relations is ultimately all about
Average strategy game fan
**Laughs in Spanish colonies**
"As Veblen said, 'The wealth that's extracted from Imperialism goes into the coffers of the select few, whereas the cost of Empire are paid out of the common treasure of the people.' And so it was with the British Empire in India. It was the Brits, the ordinary working people, who paid for the cost of Empire. It was the Bank of England and the East India Trading Company that got the cream." - Michael Parenti, US Interventionism, the Third World, and the USSR, a speech held in April, 1986 at the University of Colorado.
This exactly. The same with modern day (US) Empire. As a whole, the whole perpetual war in the Middle East is way more costly, but it's incredibly profitable for a few companies
It's still like this today. Big banks gamble on the markets, if they win, the owners get rich, if they lose, the owners get compensated by the taxpayer (whose pensions and savings are what was gambled with in the first place).
Capitalism is the greatest!
No. Columbus brought back those people for show, not as a present. He than tryed to sell them into slavery, which resulted in him being summoned by the Queen. She roasted him like hell, along the lines of "How dare you sell MY subjects into slavery?!" and forced him to buy out those already sold, and release everyone he brought.
What did those people do then given that they're in a totally different place now?
@@tomlxyz Dunno.
@@tomlxyz Either they went with the gypsys because of discrimination or they grinded and moved across Europe because of discrimination. Some probably became indentured servants to other people, went to North Africa or taken in by other nobles to show off as “exotic” displays of wealth. Like oh look I have a free but foreign person as my servant.
@@tomlxyz they all died
No, this is all very misleading. Britain didn't decide to go out and create or conquer colonies. Instead, private British interests (and privateers, pirates by any other name) went around the world setting up missions and trading businesses. When these private missions inevitably came under attack from local interests, the crown stepped in with military power. Military outposts followed and eventually these private colonies were nationalized. This was the pattern for many British colonies, excepting the earliest one, Ireland.
It's something like saying "Your honor I swear to god I didn't want to rob the bank, but on that day my daughter went inside the bank and started dripping her melted ice-cream on the floors, and the guardian tried to grab her by the hand and take her out, to which I responded by pulling out my gun to protect her from his grip, and whilst I was there I asked them to put all the 5, 10 and 20 pound notes in a large bag" ... NO! JUST NO!
Exactly. Just like the Dutch with their VOC.
@@miha_ity That's exactly what it was like complete with the absurdity. People would flee Britains industrial hellscape and move to new areas not as cultural immigrants keen to assimilate with the native inhabitants but economic migrants who bought their values and culture with them. The natives who saw this as invasion of their ancestral homelands would reject them (much like anti-immigrant groups that get criticised today), that conflict would escalate into bloodshed as people with vastly different values and no desire to compromise found they couldn't coexist - at which point the colonists would pull on their citizenship and play victim like a bully calling in the older brother after getting beaten up by their target and Britain would 'intervene' on behalf of its citizens, turning the migrants into a protected class which inevitably changed into a ruling class with an unhealthy disdain towards others.
The few times Britain tried to create protections for non-citizens to prevent that happening (through treaties and alliances) led to things like the American war of independance when the colonists rebelled in large part so they could break the agreements and guarantees Britain made with the neighbouring native nations in order to continue expanding or 'manifesting their destiny'. There's a reason the Trail of Tears (most of the targeted tribes were ex-British associates/allies) and the worst abuses of antebellum-style slavery (which lacked the protections of common law) only occured *after* Britain left.
Britain basically looked at individualism and collectivism and melded the worst bits of both - allowing it citizens the freedom to do awful things while abroad alongside protecting them from the wrath of the wronged, leading to a sense of inherrited entitlement that poisoned the minds of colonial leaders who sometimes fell so far they viewed the native parts of the populationa as subhuman. Sadly, some of that entitlement still lingers to this day alongside an entirely new form of entitlement - that inherrited by the descendents of the victimised - threatens to perpetuate the cycle of conflict.
@@lubumbashi6666 you are very correct here in Zambia we still informally refer to our government as BOMA, meaning British overseas military administration. But most people don't know that, they think its just another name for the government.
That's like saying roads aren't profitable because you have to pay for their construction and maintenance. They facilitate economic activity which the government will tax while creating a higher standard of living for the population to boot.
To say colonialism wasnt profitable is a very wide claim. As you say, colonialism lasted for hundrerds of years, and the profitability of it changed dramaticaly over these years. Colonialism was profitable, the question is to who. It was certainly profitable to the companies, and in some cases, to the crown as well. However, just like modern day, it isnt all about money, its about power and control. However in the XVII century the spanish monarch was incredibily rich and it was mostly from the acomplisments of colonialism.
No, overall, not correct. Some companies and some colonies did well but most failed or were a constant drain on national resources. Consider the famed East India Company and the various other enterprises, similarly, named by the Dutch and other nations, most of which went bankrupt and had to be taken over by their nation state. Cecil Rhodes prospered however.
Spain did become fabulously wealthy due to the gold and silver mines in Mexico and Peru. And I think you also correct about power, control and I would add ego, religion, White man's burden, spread civilization, adventure, exploration, military conquest etc...
@@thomassenbart I agree. Its like i said in the beginning. Its a wide claim not a wrong one. As you say some companies had periods of immense profit, and periods of bankrupcy. Colonialism lasted severall centuries its impossible to talk about profitability whithout spliting into different years.
@@thomassenbart if colonialism was a failure, why was it so persistent for centuries? Why were European countries so consistent in waging wars against each other and go into massive debt for them? (The 7 years war especially comes to mind).
Another simple example, the sugar plantations in the Caribbean in the 1600 and 1700’s were regarded as among the most profitable enterprises in the world, and were fought over by European powers as prize jewels. Like, you say these enterprises like the East India Company went bankrupt, but that’s ignoring the odd history that they were successful for over 200 years and supposedly worth trillions of dollars in adjusted capital, never mind that when they “failed” they were bought out by the UK government and their shareholders were entitled to a whopping 10% dividend for 40 years, giving them a total of roughly 4 times the company’s value. Frankly, if I were uneducated, taking what you said about the company would grossly misrepresent how powerful they were and their importance in history (although some do overblow it in when they should equally consider rival companies).
Anyways, the point I’m most curious about is what are the implications of what you are saying? That the colonies never should have existed, that they were a waste of time, or the more common one, that the people from former colonies should be grateful that the British Raj and other powers came to their countries and that colonialism is actually not that bad of a thing? What is the takeaway from the colonies being unsuccessful?
@@justachilldude8426 People from the former colonies should be grateful?? Colonialism was destructive and colonised peoples should have been left to develop their own societies in their own ways
@@giovanniacuto2688 I should have made my point much more clear. The other person I was replying to said that the colonies were largely unprofitable and mentioned how most went bankrupt like East India trading co. I said that was wrong and that companies like East India Trading co became stupid rich profiting off of exploitative labor, pointing out the dividends which actually reached as high as 40% at times and how it was eventually bought out by Britain’s gov for a hefty sum. I asked at the end what are the implications of saying that the British didn’t gain anything are because I think that it if you want to accurately portray the history you have to view it from the perspective of an unethical business, enforced by military might from a foreign power. So I apologize because I need to work on my communication, but I was also extremely vague at the end because I don’t want to accuse the other person of anything, but am concerned at the implications their reading of history could have on these exploited countries.
10:24 "...effectively created it's own business ecosystem." This was the main economic goal of the era. Even though it isn't as profitable as free trade and simply buying resources from the original nation, they had more important strategic concerns that took priority:
1. keep gold within your own nation's economy, gold being the lifeblood of armies
2. prevented a lack of one or another resource (or worse, that resource controlled by the FRENCH) from being used as leverage to weaken a war effort and lead to defeat.
The shadow of war on the European continent was always looming, and affected every action a European nation took.
Sounds a bit like GDP, "as long as more net SOMETHING is going on inside the borders, we are probably more powerful'
To be fair it's the reason Germany lost both world wars, the allies had all the resources they needed in their empires while Germany didn't.
Its also why Hitler wanted to conqurer the ussr, and why Japan wanted to create the 'greater east Asian co-prosperity sphere'.
Trade being cut, or just as bad haveing prices skyrocket, in a trade war or a real war is a real concern to a nation's stability.
The pre-ww2 colonial system was largely replaced with post ww2 alliance system. Instead of guaranteeing trade via direct rule you create binding alliances. It feels less operessive and is less expensive (and thus more porfitable for more involved). But it also is less certain, after all nations can choose to leave the alliance at anytime and can't really be stopped atleast not without making yourself the bad guy (see Ukraine leaveing Russia's trade alliance)
Adam Smith wrote in his book that his era's economic system which prioritised gold over GDP was really stupid. I guess he would not have been a fan of colonialism if he saw this video.
@@Thunderdumpe It wasnt really a "Something happening, Must be good" It was maximising the nations self sufficiency, so that the only means foreign powers had to hold the nation accountable would be War.
😳 God damn French !
Colonies also provided raw materials. Lumber from canada. Rubber from indonesia and phillipines, cocoa, cotton, and other crops. These provide industrial and recreational goods such as tobacco or chocolate, keeping the populace happy. Not everything is about money. Money is a tool, same with debt. These can be used to get better things.
You sir, are trutly beyond our knowledge
Ikr this is pretty stupid
My Brother in Christ, that's what profit means.
The video says colonialism was not *profitable*, not that it did not provide ANY value. The cost of running the colonies exceeded the benefits accrued, hence not profitable.
It was greatly profitable, this guy's an idiot.
Clickbait title, the video provides one example of non profitable colonies then talks how colonies are profitable for companies
Thank you, don’t need to waste my time now
0:34
Strawman
Thank you, clickbait cop
One example? He provides multiple from multiple countries.
Really, the actual outcome is that it was only profitable for one country.
“Not all treasure is silver and gold, mate.”
Some treasure is tiddies but that treasure soon loses its luster as gravity conquers beauty.
A lot of generalizations to make the video 10 minutes long. Also a sin you dart around charter companies and skip over the Dutch imperial model that created the foundation for the British imperial model before the napoleonic wars.
US bases around the world DO make business sense in the same way nearby Roman legions made the empire safe for long-range trade.
Maybe for the ultra rich who want to take advantage of cheap labour. Doesn't benefit the common american in any way.
Also economical spies everywhere e.g. In 2014 former US intelligence officer Edward Snowden stated that America's National Security Agency was engaged in industrial espionage and that they spied on German companies that compete with US firms. He also highlighted the fact the NSA uses mobile phone apps such as Angry Birds to gather personal data.[37]
In September 2019, security firm Qi An Xin published report linking the CIA to a series of attacks targeting Chinese aviation agencies between 2012 and 2017.
Be more specific in what you say
Actually , the companies that were established were very corrupt and they had ways to show net loss .
In India , British serving were very rich but east India company took loans to survive .
In one famous instance founder of Yale University ,stole so much money that he couldn't spend it completely and founded Yale University as one of his side ventures.
lulz
Colonialism is largely corruption for bureaucratic elites.
During the "age of misery", the populations of every part of the British Empire tripled. That being so, how much more miserable must life have been before this?
Life was easier beforehand because there was far less competition for resources.
@@Ggdivhjkjl So why the much lower populations, if life was easier beforehand?
Why do you conflate population growth as a sign of comfort of life for everyone?
@@kv4648 I don't necessarily, but the ultimate measure of the comfort of life is how many of us stay alive long enough to procreate. By that measure, in the Old World colonialism didn't do so badly. (In the New World, Australasia and Oceania, of course, Old World pathogens led initially to massive population loss, but this was down to the fact of contact, not colonialism per se).
@@markaxworthy2508 that is massive copium to try to justify colonialism lol.
There were massive famines as a result of the fact the decisions these powers made.
Why does the population growth have to do so much with whatever the British did? What if they could have grown much faster without them? You don't know that?
3 times x doesn't say as much as you're claiming.
Don't you know that most of the boom in the population happened after independence?
8:42 /sigh. Actually, those colonists felt that they had been left to their own devices during the 7 Years War, and then taxed to pay for it without having a proper say in Parliament. That's why American textbooks have often historically (haha) viewed the French and Indian War and the Seven Years War as separate conflicts. Since only so much wealth and so many natural resources existed, the Crown established colonies (and monopoly companies like the East India Company) in order to funnel resources to the parent nation, in order to grab as much of the pie as they could - since otherwise other people would use their piece to steal yours. In return, the colonists got protection and infrastructure, as well as the opportunity to build their own wealth. This system is called Mercantilism, and the colonists knew the deal - they just felt that the Crown wasn't holding up its end of the social contract. *That's* how history works.
Similarly, a basic knowledge of economics tells you that if the Crown is increasing the size of its economy (its GDP) and then taxing a portion of that economy, the Crown is still making actual money, and not just benefiting because "people have jobs, and we get to spread Jesus!" That's how economics works.
Why didn't it happen in other colonies?
@@tomlxyz Good question. The colonies actively thought of themselves as different polities. The term "State" in the US Constitution is used in the same sense as in "state secrets," for example. The colonies in what is now Canada had different experiences in the war, and didn't share the lower 13 colonies' sense of abandonment and persecution. In fact, when the Continental Army tried to head north and "liberate" Canada, they were told "no, thank you" - at gunpoint.
And in truth, the "American" colonies weren't on terribly firm ground with their arguments. The Crown -had- provided infrastructure, roads, soldiers, and protection (as the new-minted USA found out after they stepped out from under the aegis of the British Navy.) But the colonists still felt that they had been left -enough- on their own that they were entitled to more local control and representation (the French and Indian War did start ~2 years before the 7 Years War.) The British Crown, on the other hand was -not- being dictated to by colonials halfway across the globe, and insisted on its lawful decrees being followed - with increasingly heavy-handed measures.
So both sides had a point, with the Colonies thinking they deserved more self-governance, and the Crown saying "we PUT you people over there to tax you to pay for wars!" It's probable that if the Crown had sent someone to calm things down and try diplomacy, they could have headed the whole thing off, and the southern 13 colonies would have remained with the crown.
Unlike certain misguided or idealistic individuals, states and companies generally don’t go in for unprofitable ventures (or at least it is not their intent to do so, regardless of what the outcome might be) except in order to invest in some future gain and advantage, or else, to avert or delay perceived impending disasters. ADDENDUM (edit.): In short, if “colonialism wasn’t profitable”, it wouldn’t happen - that’s “how history works”.
When looking to this situation one has to distinguish between private and public wealth, colonies opened doors to individuals and special interests to enrich themselves. While the state or the crown might have to deal with the expanding liabilities without necessarily having a wider tax base or extra sources of revenues.
Even when the Spanish crown got the mother load by having large amounts of silver that wasn't a good thing in the long run, since the higher inflation led eventually to the Spanish colonies to divert the silver to trade for Chinese and Japanese goods. And after several wars the Spanish crown eventually defaulted on its debts enough times to destroy the Italian banking system.
Well colonialism actually gave a proper name to Portugal and a massive abundance of wealth, alongside with great deals for protection and trading so I don’t really understand the title..
Pretty sure Spain even crashed there economy by taking to much gold.
@@kingoliever1 it was their fault due to lack of regulations, but the same did not happen in Portugal
@@kingoliever1 it was all the silver, but yes they devalued it by bringing so much back.
@@kingoliever1 wrong. The silver from south America was not even enough to cover the wars in which Spain was involved. Sure too much silver was not a good thing for the economy but It was already devasteted by the heavy taxation from the state (and we are mainly talking about Castille not the other territories of the Kingdom of Aragon).
Does Portugal and Spain look like wealthy by European standard to you now ?
Portugal and Spain never recovered from colonialism.
People need to understand that amassing gold is useless for a country in the long term. Economic development isn't made with a huge gold reserve, but with infrastructures, investments, education, etc...
Spain and Portugal elite invested everything in the colonies, letting their home country in shambles, scrapped for the investment in the new world. They never developed the infrastructure needed for the industrialization unlike Germanic and Nordic countries did.
But it was wildly profitable. The Spanish mined so much silver from the Americas that they suffered obscene levels of inflation. The control of shipping lanes and tariffs charged by dominant trading powers like the British navy produced huge quantities of wealth. The East India Company was the most valuable company in history, worth more than $2 trillion at its peak. Black pepper is native to the Indonesian islands, and when the Dutch controlled the spice trade, they made ridiculous amounts of wealth. The US literally makes money from stationing troops in every corner of the world. You said it yourself, it protects their interests, that’s money and resources. What exactly is going on here?
Yeah idk, I like how money works and was surprised to see his history channel, but this intersection of history and money is just wrong and makes me question both channels. The colonies were so profitable they paid for more colonies and they paid for industrialization and they paid for the defensive wars against the Ottomans and they paid for all the advancements made from the renaissance to 1750. They were THE reason Europe was the richest, most developed region until ww1 and if they were not profitable, how do you propose they sustained them for 450 years? If 450 years is a bubble then you can call anything a 'bubble' Rome, Persia, literally every civilization that ever existed. Honestly; on that note, this is like saying 'Rome wasn't "profitable" because it collapsed" [face palm]
Same economics then as now: private profits, public liabilities. It just went from monopolizing colonial companies to banks and financiers.
Socialism for corporations
Not even close to true.
@@thomassenbart Enlighten me.
Financial magic is more profitable than subjugation of everyone and violence against your enemies. White elites, black elites, Asian elites and other elites are in the same game of exploiting surplus value from their workers globally.
I notice a premise that governments exist for profit. The video doesn't provide a basis for it but just runs with it. Also, virtually all businesses eventually fail, go bankrupt, or otherwise shut down. Also, the video provides zero evidence that the governments and royal families did not own any investments in the businesses that profited.
Colonialism was extremely profitable and when combined with mercantilism created one of the most successful imperial systems in human history. The only reason it fell out of use was the combination of two world wars sapping the strength of the main imperial powers and American willingness to provide global security guarantees for territory and international trade.
Colonial Mercantilism can be critiqued in economic terms as a system where, for the first couple of years there is new wealth for everyone even if it's not evenly distributed. But over time the amount of new wealth in the colony decreases and the amount of infrastructure in the colony increases: There comes a point where basically only the officials who run the colony actually make any money off of it and the nation as a whole is losing. But at the same time the colony can't be abandoned because thousands of citizens live there.
@@nicholascarter9158 Also its not just about money. There is raw materials being exported for various entertainment and industrial uses. Rubber, cocoa, coffee, cotton, and etc. These are all useful materials for an empire's military and industrial goals.
Simply not correct. Some colonies were wildly profitable but overall, not so.
@@MasterGhostfExactly, there's a reason why Germany lost the world wars. They didn't have any colonies. While the British and France have plenty of resources to spare.
net benefit analysis ... Europe receives coffee and cocoa from Africa and the European people have to pay retail plus tax for the goods ... Africa receives roads, running water, sewage systems, railroads, schools, hospitals, etc., and the African people pay nothing except curtailing certain hunting and fishing days. Africans received a greater net benefit from colonialism than Europeans. Communists infiltrate Africa and trick the Africans into thinking having a share land will bring them happiness. Europeans are terrorized off the continent and Africa lives with modern convenience and technology. Africans absolutely win the colonial game when they deport their mentally ill and convicts across the Mediterranean to invade and exploit Europe. Putin is having the lulz of his life as he carves up Africa to share with China as the Africans continue to curse their former benevolent colonial patrons.
I believe this Video tries to cut things a bit too short. On an obvious note the spanish brought back a lot of Gold from their colonies. Also countries like the netherlands sustained around 1/4 of their Budget through colony incomes.
Though i believe the Video has a fair point. (See the british empire in ww2 controling 1/4 of the earth but only beeing able to make less use of it) i think i Cuts things a little too short
Spanish brought back a lot of silver, not gold, from their colonies in the Americas. This eventually led to the Spanish currency becoming inflated which might have discouraged proto-industrialization in Spain. In the long-term, Spain lost more than it gained from colonization but in the short-term, it had the wealth to be the most powerful monarchy in Europe.
well there are two types of colonization in my eyes. the old fashioned ways like with the brits and Spanish all the way to the mongels where you conquer land and hold it to extract as much as possible. And the economic colonization of the Dutch where its more about buying goods for as cheap as fucking possible, and then selling it back home for a massive profit by holding the minimum amount of land possible focusing on ports and harbors. With the former netting you shit loads money in the short-term by pillaging as much as possible but end up poor investments cause you have to hold on to these now economically destroyed regions with expensive armies. While the latter with the Dutch being the more sensible way of colonization by holding on to the strategic bits which can allow for more investment to be focused on a point.
now this is to say that its not that individuals didn't exploit the land and make a fortune but the government and the overall population didn't see any of the benefits directly until way later.
@@pulse3554 I mean they did empty entire cities and installed themselves as rulers. Now to say is it the same as European colonization? Short answer no. Long answer is yes and no. as they colonized the steppes of Ukraine old fashioned way with them killing the locals then moving in with their family as the steppes of Ukraine was like the homeland of the Mongol steppes. while being unable to colonize the middle east as it was already entrenched and is much harder to survive as a nomadic herders in a hot and dry climate.
This video is laughable wrong
@@songcramp66 the English industrial revolution was funded with brazilian gold acquired from its trades with Portugal. The reason why spain and portugal did not industrialize is not because " too much rare metal bad", its because they did nothing useful eith these treasures. They built churches of gold and spent the rest of the moneu buying stuff from other more industrious nations, like England.
Colonialism was also about prestige and control. If you don't take that land (no matter if its profitable or not) your rivals will do.
Like China colonizing Africa right now
Exactly. Throughout many, many centuries history (European and others) for many kings/emperors and princes, going to war to try to conquer more land, power and glory, was kind of "Royal's game"... [or "Game of thrones"] (money was not irrelevant but it was a bit secondary over "more power and prestige").
So, when the Portuguese (a small kingdom, with a very small population) started creating an Empire through maritime exploration, other European Royal houses took notice and the "race was on"! (A good example of FOMO [Fear Of Missing Out])
But starting and running an overseas empire was a pricey and risky venture. Many tried and failed.
@@lfmsimoes1 That's why the US founders and elites were so smart for not engaging into greater imperialism. They were forced to engage into smaller projects like Cuba and the Phillipines but later refrained from doing more. With those "colonies", the US doesn't enforce strict imperialism like what European colonies were doing but the US allowed a free market economy to thrive with the local population can participate.
Colonialism was an outgrowth of earlier economic theories. Basically, it said, "we go to a new place and take what wealth we fund there for ourselves." it's essentially an extended viking raid. The investors for both Jamestown and Plymouth Rock wanted their people search for gold and jewels. If a Northern Inca, Maya or Aztec culture had been found, they would have sent a well armed raiding party to steal it just as the Spanish had done.
And honestly, many nations still practice this, to this day.
Never has the world known greater benevolence than the merchant class of Europe.
net benefit analysis ... Europe receives coffee and cocoa from Africa and the European people have to pay retail plus tax for the goods ... Africa receives roads, running water, sewage systems, railroads, schools, hospitals, etc., and the African people pay nothing except curtailing certain hunting and fishing days. Africans received a greater net benefit from colonialism than Europeans. Communists infiltrate Africa and trick the Africans into thinking having a share land will bring them happiness. Europeans are terrorized off the continent and Africa lives with modern convenience and technology. Africans absolutely win the colonial game when they deport their mentally ill and convicts across the Mediterranean to invade and exploit Europe. Putin is having the lulz of his life as he carves up Africa to share with China as the Africans continue to curse their former benevolent colonial patrons.
Not exactly. China, Russia, the US engage its financial imperialism but not direct imperialism anymore (except for territories that are vital for security purposes). It's better to make profit from financial magic rather than subjugating everyone.
This video was brought to you by the american education system.
"Colonialism isn't Profitable"
Russian Fur Depot which produces 12 premium furs from turkic tribes in the 16th century in the Middle of siberia on its way to make more money than a mcdonals restaurant's yearly income: 🗿
Why didn't you talk about the Dutch VOC? If it wasn't profitable to colonize then how come that this organization had become so big? So big that if you count inflation that no other company in our entire history even comes close how much of the entire world GDP they owned during the Dutch golden age.
Holding & administering territory was what was expensive and unprofitable not the trading itself
The voc didn't hold all that much land and the places it did hold were wildly profitable so overall the balance sheet remained amazing
Colonial expeditions were also highly leveraged enterprises. It was about the highest risk investment possible in the 16th-early 20th centuries. The only way to make those investments appealing was to promise unlikely amounts of growth and returns. This over reliance on high risk investment is what made for the huge boom and bust cycles of the major European colonial economies. They became reliant on bigger and bigger, increasingly risky, bets on unrealistic projections, even as wars and competition grew. This also affected other industries, eg if India didn't keep buying more clothes, the over-leveraged cloth factories in England were worthless investments and would lay off English workers.
Yeah idk, I like how money works and was surprised to see his history channel, but this intersection of history and money is just wrong and makes me question both channels. The colonies were so profitable they paid for more colonies and they paid for industrialization and they paid for the defensive wars against the Ottomans and they paid for all the advancements made from the renaissance to 1750. They were THE reason Europe was the richest, most developed region until ww1 and if they were not profitable, how do you propose they sustained them for 450 years? If 450 years is a bubble then you can call anything a 'bubble' Rome, Persia, literally every civilization that ever existed. Honestly; on that note, this is like saying 'Rome wasn't "profitable" because it collapsed"
Another factor, especially in later imperialism was gaining prestige, having big possesions across the world meant that the country in question would be seen as more capable and resourceful in the diplomatic scene, also a lot of times goverments used colonial expansion to solidify their legitimacy, like the 3rd French Republic massively expanding after the humiliation in the Franco-Prussian war, for example
absolutely awful, awful content
Indeed colonialism, much like the Buccaneers of the 17th century was about individuals exploiting the riches of foreign people and lands. For states though, it was about power, even if it came at a net loss. You can see it with the scramble for Africa as well, while some notable individuals got rich with their businesses, states like France, Britain and Italy competed over strategic advantages. This is one of the reasons the french went to West Africa, where little to no profits were to be made. Like a lot of people mentioned, it is hard to untangle those effects from each other, as both reinforced the dynamics of colonial expansion. Also you should consider, that prior to the industrial revolution, there were natural constraints on GDP per capita, given by agrarian lifestyles and simple technologies. Expanding your territory was the de facto recipe to increase the wealth of your home region, as more people and more land amplified the possible accumulation of capital by your country's elites. This also applies to ancient times and only trade hubs used to be the exception.
4:13 is wrong, no Papal Bull ever supported slavery. Quite the opposite, in 1434/5 Creator Omnium and Sicut dudum were issued and condemned and forbid slavery of the canary islands which were the first African colonies. As later many Papal bulls extended it to the Americas, the rest of Africa, and Asia, all of which were simply to enforce the already existing ban on slavery. Don't blame the Catholic Church for Portugal's and Spain's slavery.
You're right, but these dogshit UA-cam history channels rarely issue corrections, and more people will see this video than your comment.
Of course it was profitable. That’s why it lasted for centuries
The British working class and poor paid for the colonial machine in the form of high taxes. The rich were the ones who benefited from colonialism as they pay little or no taxes but yet get to rule these foreign lands. If the British rich had to pay the same rate of taxes she the working class did, they would not stay rich very long.
Yes i was thinking along these same lines. From the perspective of the government and the population, these colonies were unprofitable. However these Corporations and Colonies were extensions of the State (nobility/aristocracy) and were basically advancements of technique for rulership/power. Also certain resources (like mining) are always notoriously unprofitable without slave labor or modern machines, yet they are intrinsic to rulership. So ultimately, powerful individuals within the ruling class profited tremendously in both money and raw power.
Colonialism was also used to socially engineer populations that they came in contact with, just like how Catholic (translation: Universal) Church had previously purged other forms of Christianity and Paganism within the population to create a universal utopia. Colonialism was when the ruling class socially engineered colorism/modern racism in order to stratify the working class and ‘divide and conquer’ for the purpose of counter-revolution. So its a pretty narrow view of “profit” to say that Colonialism was “unprofitable” from the perspective of those who benefited from colonialism.
A bunch of other information from this video sounds like its from Wikipedia or made up (like Columbus being a Spaniard when he was Genoese). And the host has the energy of a TMZ or Entertainment Tonight personality
"The rich" is/was "rich" due to their assets, not their cash money.
They actually pay higher tax rate on what they earn and equal rate on what they consume (e.g. In the US, the top 10% own ~60% of the wealth, and contribute ~70% of total tax revenue, meaning they actually already pay their fair share).
However, since it is very difficult to assess and tax their asset (especially those bonds and stocks), they can retain (and grow) their "wealth" easier/better than the working class.
Taxes in those days were more or less none existent especially if you were lower class, people as a whole in the west pay more tax now then they ever have and the wealthy still shoulder the majority of that burden.
@@ciaranthompson3375 There was no income tax, but there were various taxes, from land tax, poll tax, to alcohol and salt tax.
But I get your point, we have to pay so much more taxes than our ancestors centuries ago.
@@ihl0700677525 What is a fair share for the rich is really distorted by the modern economics. The 99% do 99% of the work, but they will certainly not get 99% of the wealth they create. Modern economics mostly ignore the land which is one of the main reasons that the rich 1% gets claims on the wealth that is created by the 99%. The wealth is transferred to the rich in form of rents and land value gains.
If you look back just 25 years the low prices of housing seems completely unreal. Where I live wages rose around 30-40% during that period, but the price of the housing tripled. Small condominium would cost eround 60 000€, but now that same condominium could cost 200 000€. So if someone wanted to buy just a meager home they would have to pledge many years of their future income to pay the previous owner plus interest to the bank. These price gains did not come when the owners improved the building. Instead they came because of the improvements made in the local community funded by both private and public money(schools, shops, infrastructure etc.) Thus these price gains are mostly unearned income that is extracted from someone elses back.
The rich would fund think tanks that peddle simplistic slogans to cover up this fact eg "Everyone earns what they produce, so they have no right to demand more" by John Bates Clark. This slogan comes in to question when when you look land ownership in UK. Just 5% of the land is owned by ordinary homeowners, while the old aristocracy and gentry owns 30%. There is another 17% that is unaccounted, but it's also likely owned by the old aristocracy.
The enlightenment philosophers and classical economists from John Locke to Adam Smith understood that the land ownership is a monopoly and it can be used to extract wealth from those that are forced to rent the land simply to exist. Their solution to the problem was to fund the government with tax on the land values which would disincentivize land speculation which is the root cause of the high cost of housing in modern western economies.
Oh wow the amount of mistakes in this video is mind blowing. Next time do your research better because this is a really poorly made video, even the names are wrong... There is no John or Henry in Portugal that's English names not Portuguese names, Columbus wasn't even Spanish too
On par for UA-cam History channels
Some were profitable because the colonized regions were already rich with an already existing profitable trade route. Take India and South East Asia for example. Those regions had always been trading with one another and with other people. It was basically an early form of extensive free trade. Basically all lived in harmony until Europeans attacked and stole those trade routes. Those regions were basically crippled and criminally robbed. As for the Americas and maybe parts of Africa (not all, other parts do have extensive trade routes) the trade environment wasn’t as extensive or established yet in comparison to India and South East Asia hence why for a time colonizers didn’t profit from them as much; they had to build and develop from scratch certain industries.
Please link your sources and/or relevant readings
This video is so stupid, the only way to arrive at this conclusion is to ignore the obvious benefits of additional land and resources and totally misunderstand the difference between private profits and public liabilty maybe the people of colonial empires werent seeing money from colonies but there governments were
🤣🤣 I learned that Columbus was Italian from a Soprano's clip. The American Italians talk about Columbus being a hero and explorer. They ask the Italian Italian, Furio, what he thinks of this dressing down of Columbus' legacy. To their surprise they fund out he hates Columbus because he was from Genoa and they oppressed the region where Furio is from. It's so hilarious.
Probably not describing it correctly
Colombus was not Italian.
@@zamirroa where was he from?
@@MK-we9sw Italy exists.
Italians don't.
There's a famous quote attributed to Massimo d 'Azeglio "We have made an Italy, now we must make Italians"
Christopher Columbus was Genoese.
@@moritamikamikara3879 I did say he was from Genoa somewhere in that comment. Did I not?
@@MK-we9sw I think he’s referring to the fact that most Italians before the 1800’s identified more with their city states and regions more than an Italian nationality. Italy has only been a state for around 170 years similar to Germany and most people would identify as Genoese, Venetian, or Napoli rather than “Italian”, which while a prominent idea among Italian intellectuals like Machiavelli as far back as the Middle Ages didn’t come to being until the 1800’s when Napoleonic France spread the idea of the nation state and republicanism around Europe including Italy which even while United today still has regional divisions like some languages in Sicily being more intelligible with Spanish than Italian.
One thing to consider about Spain is that it was a Crusader State(they just finished the Reconquista and are facing off against both the Protestants and Ottoman Turks) trying to LARP as the Roman Empire(The Last Recognized Roman Emperor gifted the title to the Spanish Monarchy in his will) so it didn't matter if colonization was profitable or not, as long as there are more Catholics int he world and that they uphold the legacy of Rome.
The Spanish weren't really larping as the Romans.
(also the *re*conquesta is called that for a reason. It was a liberation movement. Ofcaurse technicaly speaking the crusades were too but they ended up diverging form their orginal goal {helping the byzantines liberate lost land})
Lmao turks larp as turkic when they are 40 percent greek and 60 percent mountain goat so yeah.
This 👆
On the same line of thought. I read a phrase that said "while others claim to be the new Rome, we were Rome, we were Romans"
Amazing.
Everything you said about Spain and Portugal is wrong
I don’t know man, look at the amount of silver and gold the Spanish were extracting. Seems like a sweet deal to me
Yes, Mexico and Peru were transformative for Spain and Europe overall and of course for the natives conquered.
Did you also take into account the fact it caused massive inflation and make gold and silver more worthless as well?
@@Cloud_Seeker yes, colonialism was so wildly profitable in Spain that it created massive inflation.
Yes, the silver extracted from South America allowed Spain easy access for trade with China, same case with all of Europe who trade with the Spanish to obtain the silver. Spain became poor because it was at constant war with everyone, not by choice anyhow.
This is a weird thesis. The colonies did not directly profit the crown, but they enriched the empires' businesses and citizens, which in turn enriched the crown indirectly. Between 1500 and 1650 Spain imported 181 tons of gold and 16000 tons of silver. Spain also went from a peninsula of poor, petty kingdoms to the richest empire in the world. Colonialism was profitable for Spain. From 1707 to 1900 UK GDP went from about 8.5 million pounds to just shy of 200 million. Empire was absolutely profitable.
The government was the icebreaker that took upon itself the initial expenses of opening the new markets and the subsequent companies that profited from the newly established network were making big bucks. Also, often people in government were directly invested into those enterprises and were making money off of it. But where does the government take that money? Taxation, so the people. So simple peasants were squeezed to finance a whole infrastructure for robbers to plunder faraway lands. This is how colonialism works and how imperialism works even today. The costs of empire are passed to the general public and a small clique is syphoning everyone's work and ressources. That's how it's done today as well. The semiconductor industry was a big government project, financed from public money and benefited from government financed research that later on got bit by bit privatized. Nationalise expenses and privatise profits, that's the slogan and essence of capitalism. Colonialism is just the cradle that forged its first form.
So basically it was profitable just not much or negative tax revenue so it was profitable for businesses
Depended on the business, when, for how long etc...
Who here came from the "How money works" channels?
wasn't the East India Company extremely profitable?
Yes
VoC was literally the biggest company that ever existed in the globe.
It wasn't profitable for the crown or government is what he means here.
It's like how US government funnels money into Ukraine which makes US companies profit but downside fir government.
Why only Spain and England?
From Italian city-states to the Dutch and the French, you're sure skipping a lot!
Colonialism may be dead, but the idea is very much still alive and has improved since that time.
A really good example of modern colonialism is the whole thing with shell and Nigeria.
Not just companies, countries who previously held the colonies still influence these countries nowadays
Modern colonization is taking place in many parts of Europe as well, and it's well entrenched in England.
I think I found the channel that's named exactly after the question that can be thought over endlessly and still remain interesting
But it was BASED asf. Almost as based as crusades
I don't think the point of colonialism is to only gain money, the cultural victory is the most important thing. The proliferation of English, French, and Spanish language is a testament to that. Some people do have visions beyond money- the pride of knowing you are better than others by virtue of your race, for example.
Did I just see a waterworld clip? 😆
Corporations are designed to make money. Governments have no use for it. They can just print it. Governments have economic interests but not in profit generation explicitly. Governments typically seek strategic security, expanse of its ideology and faith, as well as abstract ideas like scientific discovery and exploration. Money is a tool for governments, not typically a goal.
Monarchs absolutely were in the business of making money, and even now, western governments are just the popular front for the ultra wealthy capitalists who control them, and capitalists are only in it for the money.
Sorry my dude but no medieval gold backed economies couldn't just print money. Gold was definitely a huge concern for those kingdoms.
Governments cant just print money that's how you get inflation. aka a tax on everyone.
@@robertblume2951 It wasn't exactly like that they use gold and silver but they also combined their coins with other metals so the empire could spend more. Coins were weighed and studied by merchants so they could determine a value for each coin. When there were rumors that the country would increase the amount for tin for example the coins usually loss value, sometimes those rumors were financed by nerby kingdoms to weaken them for an upcoming war.
If you look at the raw data (which I'm not sure you even are) and decide that since they lost money up front, you're totally missing the point: that colonialism in all forms is an upward vertical transfer of wealth. The Crown didn't pay for nothing. They raised that money through taxes that were taken without providing representation in return. The profits on the other hand were put directly into their pockets, therefore it was extremely profitable for the individuals involved, including the monarchy.
So they did colonialism not to make money, but because it enriched them economically. Got it.
Great video, liked and subscribed. The way you say Jesus kinda sounds like the way blink 182 says it in “the anthem part 2”
Bahahaha
Geopolitics isn't about return on investment. Its about power.
Hello, You are mistaken. Colonialism existed for all of history. Your sole focus Euro or Western Colonialism fails to admit to Islamic Colonialism, Egyptian Colonialism, Sumerian Colonialism, Aztec Colonialism, Inca Colonialism, Han Colonialism, Mongolian Colonialism, Cambodian Colonialism, Native American Colonialism, etc. The conquest ethic has always been something human beings struggle against. Capitalism is voluntary and develops self and others. It is not Mercantilism or Socialism. Still, an economic system is not a political system. Republics and Democracies are not Dictatorships, Monarchies and Oligarchies. With such said, you will not be part of the solution until you rid yourself of antiChristian bias, AntiWest bias, and historical myopia.
Power projection also played a role didn't it? If you've got naval bases all over the world, you can strike anywhere in a shorter period of time
No, this is a subject of modern neocolonialism. Back then empires had all competitors right inside the Europe.
This is complete nonsense. When we had foot shortages I remember, we would direct food away from the colonies to us. This saved us from spending money on food. It also cause famines in the colonies. The Dutch East Indies company was the first mega-corporation - they didn't become mega-rich by not being profitable. Next, the British East India company was so rich, that the stakeholders went into politics and bought hereditary titles. A disproportionate number of hereditary Lords in the UK are descended from the formerly commoner merchants who founded the British East India company.
"I don't understand history nor economics" - this video
I feel that you saying that "colonialism wasn't profitable" for the Spanish/English royal families is a bit of a gross over simplification. Because while the establishment of colonies required the European nations to increase on military spending in order to maintain the colony, the resources extracted from the colonies more than made up for it. The European access to luxury goods like tobacco, tea, sugar, cocoa, coffee, and cotton was only made cheap through their colonial plantations. The extracting of precious metals and resources like silver, gold, diamonds, rubber, and oil would only come about due to conquering the land that held said resources. By setting up colonies the Europeans were able to take resources cheaply from an area, refine/manufacture other items out of them, and have a closed market in which only they were legally allow to sell items. This would allow merchants and trader to make vast fortunes off the colonies and the trade between the home nation of their colonies. So while the European empires might not directly gain wealth from a colony (if you are looking at direct income and expenses associated with a colony), they would still be able to improve the lives of their European citizens which would indirectly increase the amount of wealth they would be able to get through tariffs and taxation of the now richer citizens.
I didn’t even realize you had a second channel. Instant subscribe. Thanks for the great content.
Much appreciated, welcome to How History Works!
Is this the first or second channel?
@@matthewtymczyszyn8948 second
You've got Boston Tea Party completely wrong. In fact the protest was about taxes *decreasing*.
4:30 As others have pointed out, he was only serving the Spanish crown, not Spanish himself.
It wasn't about profit, it was about political-geographical-industrial-etc. equity. You don't own your home for profit, and you don't have a bigger home for more profit. If you get into a dick measuring contest with your neighbor, then you're not putting additions on your home for even greater profit. Colonialism was about increasing a nation's total economic and military might to win wars rather than min-maxxing its economic investments' returns. And when colonialism was about profit, you saw massive private corporations set up to exploit the land and resources of the colonies. Owners of these private companies were typically noblemen or members of legislative bodies that heads of state ate dinner with. (And in the case of the United Kingdom, both of these at once). If you and France are in a constant state of military rivarly aka a security dilemma, then to secure yourself against them you need to expand your power. In the early modern period that meant taking your surplus resources and conquering/settling new territory to provision you with more resources, manpower, and naval bases to spend on conquering more territory.
Columbus: "I couldn't find you guys the gold I promised, BUT I did bring back some guys you can use as slaves"
Colonies were largely to get raw materials at low prices that could be processed into goods the nation could sell cheaper than other countries. Under mercantilism this kept money in the country and gained money from other countries. Adam Smith changed the purpose to making goods more efficiently at a lower cost. To Adam Smith money had no real intrinsic value, it was a tool to enable increased productivity. One of the reasons Britain had colonies was to find homes and employment for her surplus population. Slavery was for Britain, a way to get workers where workers didn't want to go, starting in the second half of the 17th century in the Caribbean where sugar could be produced. Because Britain set prices for American goods far below market value small farmers in places like Virginia small farmers wouldn't grow the crops Britain valued. In about the last quarter of the 17th century Britain began to encourage using slaves who couldn't refuse to grow crops like tobacco and indigo.
The only people who say colonialism wasn't profitable is fascists trying pass off the imperialism of their nations as benevolent. And the only way way this statement can not be a bold faced lie is by looking EXCULSIVELY at the DIRECT tax revenue of a colony, while pain stakingly adding up every expense that can be attributed to the colony, no matter how flimsy it is to attribute it solely to the colony.
Here is something to consider
net benefit analysis ... Europe receives coffee and cocoa from Africa and the European people have to pay retail plus tax for the goods ... Africa receives roads, running water, sewage systems, railroads, schools, hospitals, etc., and the African people pay nothing except curtailing certain hunting and fishing days. Africans received a greater net benefit from colonialism than Europeans. Communists infiltrate Africa and trick the Africans into thinking having a share land will bring them happiness. Europeans are terrorized off the continent and Africa lives with modern convenience and technology. Africans absolutely win the colonial game when they deport their mentally ill and convicts across the Mediterranean to invade and exploit Europe. Putin is having the lulz of his life as he carves up Africa to share with China as the Africans continue to curse their former benevolent colonial patrons.
It was profitable for political class. Bismarck never understood the hype.
Considering the global economy went from like 47 dollars in like 50 BCE to like 70 trillion now I would say it was pretty profitable
This is a satirical comment and not intended as a legitimate commentary on history, duh
Bring untold misery to millions? This assumes millions were not already in misery, which they were. In general, populations conquered and governed by the Europeans were no worse off under their rule and in fact gained considerable knowledge, education for elites, religion, technology and a host of other advantages which no one has abandoned after gaining independence.
No, free labor was not exported to Europe making colonialism profitable. Very few Africans were brought to Europe to serve as slaves. the same is true for American Indians or any other colonized population. Dumb comment.
Spain was vastly enriched by its acquisition of colonies in the New World. The gold and silver mines in Mexico and Peru changed the entire European economy, created significant inflation and made Spain the greatest power in Europe, if not the world. Later, the plantations established throughout these territories, especially in the Carribean were extremely valuable. Haiti at the time of the slave revolt, was generating more income than all 13 American colonies combined, which were also, quite wealthy and productive.
A great video, Informative and entertaining. Well done!
Colonialism was all about control and domination, and it *was* very profitable for a very few, very select people (traders, the bureaucratic apparatus, corporations, etc.).
It was *not* "profitable" for the masses of commoners within the imperialist states, whose labor was fleeced and the real profits funneled up to the very top.
You usually put more effort into your videos in How Money Works ? But you didn't even do basic research for this one. India contributed 1/3rd of the world GDP for atleast 1000 years and 25% upto the 1600s. And you just named it as a trading post.
Eternal India will rise again.
You have an obsession with switching images and video clips frequently that leads to you frequently using inherently misrepresentative images over your narrative. The one that bothered me most was showing a slave ship filled with black African slaves while talking about how Portuguese people had been captured and enslaved by North Africans.
I love this new channel you are growing. Better than actual documentaries 👌🏾
Glad you like them!
It was profitable just look at the countries of the colonizers and the countries of the colonized!
If your mentioning colonialism and the british empire I think its worth mentioning the Royal Navy's efforts from 1807 to 1860 to end slavery. Few other countries can claim that and I think it is a major distinction that sets Britain apart.
What were those efforts?
Britain only did it because they were ahead of the curve on Industrialization and would gain the upper hand on not competing with Slavery
@@phaedrussmith1949 In a nutshell, capturing slave ships and basically offering an ultimatum, turn around and take them back somewhere where the African slave traders wouldn't be able to recapture them, or be arrested and have the Royal Navy take the ship back instead.
@@phaedrussmith1949 The British Empire is the key to the abolishment of slavery. OP is pointing out is when they sent their navies to hunt down any slave ship to free them from captivity. Without the British Empire and colonialism we should never had seen the end of slavery. You needed to be that big to enforce something like this and get everyone involved in the idea.
@@Smoothbluehero True for some or a small number in power maybe but in general not true for those doing the work. It was a genuine show of virtue and honour.
Am an African, and I believe anyone should clearly see that the colonialists gained a lot from the territories. We. Can't say that they didn't profit, it doesn't matter who enjoyed those profits but they were made
Colonialism wasn't about profit ,it's about survival, imagine french getting enormously wealthy with colonies for a short amount of time and using that resource to annex Britain at least irland.
So this became a rat race ,like the cold war between USA and USSR
So it was not about profit, but it was about getting enormously wealthy?
@@kevindelgado7083no ,it's about power,more like better military
@@pradhyudh and how would they get better military with colonialism?
@@kevindelgado7083 wealth, but purpose of wealth is to enhance lifestyle of people who hold it . spending on military doesn't improve lifestyle
That's basically what Spain tried to do with all the gold it extracted from America. They built a huge Armada to conquer England and failed
lol this is basically hollywood accounting for pro-imperialist historians
"see, the balance sheet says we didn't make any money from colonialism, so long as you ignore all the stuff we didn't include in the balance sheet"
You are right that it wasn't profitable, but, it was done to secure supply routes and influence geopolitics, though it really benefited the colonised people in the LONG-TERM, I am Indian and I am damn grateful that I can speak English because of the British, we have a great central bank, and we have a great education system, and great railways (better than the modern-day UK)
Edit: 1:50 correct me if I am wrong but Prester John was thought to live in Ethiopia
I'm happy to see this. I get annoyed with Indian netizens who whine about British rule, rather than seeing what they can do now to develop their nation.
Ethiopia is, I think, either Coptic or Orthodox Christian. So the Ethiopian king was a more plausible Prester John than an Indian prince.
@@matthewtymczyszyn8948 it's because that's what they study in the schools and hear in the media, it's a total circle jerk unfortunately, while it wasn't all good in our past, one must try to analyse the situation through various points of views, unfortunately, foreigners are very easy scapegoats, every problem in our country has one answer: the bad white person stole our riches
That's why it's important to study history using various reputable sources on Google scholar and reputable books :)
@@matthewtymczyszyn8948 Coptic Christians usually live in Egypt, Ethiopia is mostly catholic (43% of the population) and the title of being the world's first Christian country is disputed between Armenia and Ethiopia
It is literally less than 1 percent Catholic and around 40-45% Ethiopian Coptic mate. Do some basic research before you post.
For a channel called “How history works” There is way too many inaccuracies which makes me believe you don’t actually have a degree in history
Clickbait title. Of course it was profitable. Expanding markets and new natural resources including people (slaves). Not to mention how countries were in competition with others over new areas to colonize. Obviously colonialism is bad but to say it wasn’t profitable is misrepresenting it. You’re applying our current view of profitability to a time where capitalism was very new and monarchies were still in power.
Colonies cost money and brought nothing but troubles for the vast majority of people. At various times.
Not to mention the current orchestrated & retarded 'colonial guilt' and the invasions by foreigners of ALL Euro/Euro founded countries (Afghanis in Sweden because?..).
Etc
@@HAYAOLEONE did you really just use racism and ablest slurs and think this would somehow persuade me to change my opinion???
@@EthansSpace 😂 clown confirmed
Have a nice Sunday, girl.
The good old youtube comment section.. More soviet like yet more of a circus everyday..
You have the complete cliché of colonization, it wasn't at all like that.
Unlike many people believe, most colonies were agrarian not mining. Most of the natural resources of Africa was discovered only after WW2 and close to the end of colonialism.
Europeans stopped slavery during the course of the 19th century, at that time, Africa and Asia were barely colonized.
When the scramble of Africa happened in 1870, the practice by Europeans was extinct, only Africans continued slavery for few decades until Europeans stopped them.
Asia was a good export market for Europe, still is today, but not Africa. Africa was at time very scarcely populated
It was profitable only for an handful of rich European who owned farmland in the colonies, but clearly not for European countries, otherwise Portugal or Spain would be amongst wealthiest European countries while Sweden and Norway would be poor. The Portugal/Spain are actually perfect example on how colonies could easily ruin a country.
Aga, so the governments did not get money from colonies. Trade corporations and land owners did, and they paid taxes to the government, taxes that are not technically coming from the colonies. smart ;)
Many in the comment section do not seem to understand what PROFITABLE means.
The video says colonialism was not *profitable*, not that it did not provide ANY value. The cost of running the colonies exceeded the benefits accrued.
This is literally rewriting history and manipulating public opinion lol, so wicked and unsound, its like comvincing how a rape isnt really fun nor rewarding because the perpetrator had to struggle
When Britain came to India Indian GDP collectively was almost 25% of the world. They left it impoverished. Bengal famine is a classic example of it. While Clement Atlee's govt was about leave India, Churchil reportortedly whispered or cried (?) " at least keep a part of it". Such was THE LOOT that took place. The British industrial revolution is funded by Indian money. It wasn't commonwealth it was one sided LOOT and EXTRACTION.
I completely agree with John Oliver when he said British museum is an actual crime scene.
Britain owes India reparations.
The idea that industrialisation was made with Indian money is just not true tho. The money that was made in India never really reached Britain it just stayed in the hands of British people in India. The cities that industrialised first in Britain were not really involved in colonisation, port cities actually never really industrialised at all. The cities that industrialised were the ones that had easy access to coal and iron mines and were normally more inland. What Britain didn’t have was cotton, even tho India produced a lot of it, the cotton used in British industry mostly came from the American south. Belgium, the US and Prussia were the next three countries to start industrialising, and none of the had colonies in the begging of the 19th century.
The countries that did have large colonial empire like Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands were actually between the last to industrialize in Western Europe. It’s a common misunderstanding of history to think that colonisation made industrialisation when honestly it kind of worked against it. Industrialisation did help in colonisation tho. The conquest of Africa could not have happened with out it since African nations actually had a good record in resisting European prior to the 1800s and Europeans didn’t fair well in Africa with out modern medicine.
The reason India doesn’t have 25% of the worlds economy anymore is not because India become poorer, but because the west and east Asia become way more wealthy. If you look at countries that were never colonised and compare them to their neighbours that were you will actually see that they aren’t any more developed. Look at Iran and gulf states or Azerbaijan for example, Ethiopia and Kenya, Thailand and Malaysia, China and korea, Nepal and india. In África the countries that were colonised the longest like South Africa and Nigeria are actually the richest.
Colonisation is unjustifiable and should not have happened, the colonisers are responsible for numerous atrocities and human suffering, but modern nations that were colonies in the past aren’t poor because of colonisation. Weather, Geography and especially post colonial administrations is what has dictated the current situation. We have seen nation with healthy political systems like Chile, Botswana, Uruguay, Singapore etc be extremely successful nations. Argentina is poor compared to western nations now but was actually the richest country per capita in the world in the turn of the 20th century, 80 years after they had declared independence. Their disastrous government has placed them back in the list of third world countries.
What politicians in third world countries like to do is blaming their current problems in colonisation to hide the fact they they are corrupt and terrible administrators permitting them to stay in power. Look at the protests in iran for example. The police brutally beat up a woman to death for showing a bit of her hair. The first thing the government did when the population started to revolt was to say it was all a western lie and it was western spies dressed as Iranian police that killed the women.
@@francogiobbimontesanti3826 A sane and calm mind.
Average Macron while still wresting control over 20 West African countries be like:
More people need to know about this. Its fashionable to blame everything on colonialism and exaggerate its consequences
The British Empire and the other European Empires all operated in unique and different ways that all changed the legacy they left. They were incredibly complex and important institutions in human history and they really aren’t understood at all by the vast of majority people, yet people love to discuss them all the time.
why Cambodian under France for 100 years. and only after get freedom only met genocide
Even though most don’t like to admit it colonialism was probably the best thing for the world. It brought modern civilization to places that would have otherwise stayed in the Stone Age
Real
Colonialism improved the societal complexity of basically nowhere because if you dig into the details it always involved finding a place with a developed culture, putting pressure on the cracks in that culture until it broke down, waiting about 50-100 years for the whole thing to come apart, then waltzing into the chaos and declaring the preceding nation a barbaric children's story. People's like the Mali, Ethiopian, and Aztec went through a mad max period, then Europeans strolled in and said "Australia is a lie that never existed, you've always just been mad max"
@@nicholascarter9158
Stop making shit up, literally nothing of what you said is correct lmfao
@@nicholascarter9158 no place in Africa or America had a developed culture. Most places in Africa still don’t
@@luisandrade2254 that is not true, there where Kingdoms and Empires on the tech lvl somewhere between middle ages and napoleonic era plus the different hunter gatherers and pastoralists.
Ehtiopia specifically was a Kingdom reaching back over a 1000 years.
The Americas had all the Central and Southamerican high cultures with something akin to advanced neolitic bronze age with one area starting to reach iron works. Aside from that the Mississippi culture, Inka and Central Americans had highly stratifified societies.
Unfortunately, we don't have much in the amazonian cultures who were devastated by disease before any significant notice was taken.