There is a popular myth in the USA - repeated here - that the yoke of British colonialism was overthrown in 1776. But what you are overlooking is that it was the colonialists themselves who rebelled - NOT the indigenous peoples of the North American continent. Those indigenous peoples had already largely been subjugated by the very colonialists who later cocked a snook at their king and their empire.
@@redavni1 Maybe you misunderstood me. My point was simply that in 1776 it was the BRITISH colonialists who rebelled against their own king and empire. It was NOT a scenario of an occupied, subjugated people shaking off the yoke of their oppressors (apologies for the CAPS. How do you select italic here?).
@@douglasporter9623 I would argue it is true or wrong depending of the viewpoints. I would argue that after multiple wars like Austrian succession, Anglo-Spanish and especially the 7 years war created an accelleration of the distance between the 'americans' and the brits and thus an new identity was there before the rebellion. Now that also the French left and many native americans came under British rule created many rebellions between natives and the Brittish rulers as the French were mainly traders and not as much 'out for land'. Another consequence of the French leaving NA is that according to the 'americans', the previous French controlled areas are now free to grab, which the Brits agreed with Natives to not go beyond the Appalacians for settling. This combined (with the tax story added) created a common goal and ambitions for the settlers, thus an identity needed to overtrow the oppressor.
@@PHIL_123 Everything you say is true. Nevertheless, the "oppressor" of the colonialists was still their own king and empire - a very different scenario from an invading force subjugating the existing population.
@@douglasporter9623 Completely agree, I was making the argument that calling it a myth is a bit of a hyperbole. But indeed, many people look at history in black and white, while its usually a shade of gray.
There's a lot we (the so called western civilization) have to learn with indigenous people from all around the world. I read all the scientific books and phylosophical thinking that i could to find out that a indian that doesn't even know how to read knows better than I do of how to live in peace with nature. There's something really rotten with the way we were educated....
Religious institutions wouldn't have lasted long without the emphasis on being fruitful and multiplying, as well as the idea of accumulating wealth on earth in exchange for promises of real estate in the afterlife.
This is all very interesting. But--like all economics discussions--there is this foundational assumption that development equals good. That's a decision, not an observation.
I haven't finished yet, but I hope geography was considered closely, I know I'm not the first person to think. Surely, there's a correlation between the areas that were easier to colonize and the areas that are easier access modern trade routes
Social science is hard. Pairs of neighboring counties might fail to be indeoendent precisely in the cases that matter for development. The path of the conquistadors might fail to be random in ways that matter for development (e.g. navigable waterways). You can try to control for confounders all you want, sometimes it's just really hard. Doesn't mean I don't believe social institutions can be advantages post-independence even if originated for ill ends. Just means I'm reserving judgments on how proved that is.
Now that the "enlightened" nations who invaded (upsss, I mean "colonized") the world's vulnerable who had lived just fine with issues of course, but NOT needing whatever the "enlightened" had to offer, now that that physical aggressive period of richness has ended, let's return all the things and wealth we took from those places back to them, and not just the "cultural" articles, but all the bullion and other wealth we took... I mean we are now aware and enlightened, even if we made the argument that "that was the way it was back then, everyone did it" but now supposedly we know much better, if it was immoral than it is immoral now, and vice versa. NOTE: Colonialism in the physical sense, armies and systems of control by puppets and some "repersnttlive" people from the original nation, has NOT ended, it just take a new form, it is now an economic colonialism that bc it is so prevalent and has infiltrated so throughly all the places' institutions people cannot even imagine how it was or could be different. So all we have now is a new type of colonialism. that kind of power and control is never given up that easily, ""Oh Hong Kong we finally realized we were wrong, so please take back control of your land and government, ohh Africa please excuse our ignorance please take back your land, ohh latin America please forget the Monroe Doctrine and take back control of who you want to partner with... etc etc"". Al they did was change the ways they control, and once the whole world was monetized by the dollar, it wa easy to do, Read Economic Hitman or the documentary about England financial district, The Web (??) Good legacy things?? give me a break, they want no more future with different cultures, they want hegemony and uniformity in customs and thought, so they can control economically by remote control the whole world.
The Colombian state is a colonial legacy... wow, what a discovery. It still needs to expand into "un-conquered" territories like U.S. did to the West... ah, because it is held back by stilll inadequate limits, i.e. moral prohibutions, on genocide, inadequate as we see them overriden in the Levant [P.S.] And the development outcomes seen as good and lingering today are essentially integration to the capitalist world order 😀 Are these people getting funding from European neocolonial institutions?
Agreed, Sean Carroll jumping into the history rewriting boat is such a disappointment. I bet this podcast is the result of a requirement placed on him by his employer.
I love Sean Carroll, but his neutrality on such obvious issues like this one is appalling. Yet he is better than most. Still, I am glad he brings these guests on and discusses it; I am just disagreeing with him on this one. Why is it so hard to say invading and genocidally killing almost whole peoples unless they submit, REGARDLESS of how good the outcome is later or if there are "good" thing left after, why is it so hard to say that sh!t is bad, then and now!! The new "all is well that ends well" way of looking at history is bull... so it was awful HOW we got those institutions, that even now CONTINUE to serve the world powers by its monetization, imposed by the colonialists. They also made sure, in their search for fee things, to interconnect all places on earth to the point that (now that real cuties are non existent) it is impossible to disentangle any one place from the whole, as it was BEFORE the enlightened colonialists went to these places. It is but a point of view to say those places were retarded and ignorant and worse and primitive or savage, that POINT OF VIEW is wrong and for these enlightened europeans to invade on those premises is also wrong, bc it is a lie, the movies were never that high minded, it was bullion and profits and status.
Excellent in every way. Great questions, truly insightful responses. And, the issues couldn't be more timely. Thank you.
Very interesting topics lately!
There is a popular myth in the USA - repeated here - that the yoke of British colonialism was overthrown in 1776. But what you are overlooking is that it was the colonialists themselves who rebelled - NOT the indigenous peoples of the North American continent. Those indigenous peoples had already largely been subjugated by the very colonialists who later cocked a snook at their king and their empire.
The first Indian the Pilgrims met in the 1600's spoke English and was a former slave. It wasn't the colonists.
@@redavni1 Maybe you misunderstood me. My point was simply that in 1776 it was the BRITISH colonialists who rebelled against their own king and empire. It was NOT a scenario of an occupied, subjugated people shaking off the yoke of their oppressors (apologies for the CAPS. How do you select italic here?).
@@douglasporter9623 I would argue it is true or wrong depending of the viewpoints. I would argue that after multiple wars like Austrian succession, Anglo-Spanish and especially the 7 years war created an accelleration of the distance between the 'americans' and the brits and thus an new identity was there before the rebellion. Now that also the French left and many native americans came under British rule created many rebellions between natives and the Brittish rulers as the French were mainly traders and not as much 'out for land'. Another consequence of the French leaving NA is that according to the 'americans', the previous French controlled areas are now free to grab, which the Brits agreed with Natives to not go beyond the Appalacians for settling. This combined (with the tax story added) created a common goal and ambitions for the settlers, thus an identity needed to overtrow the oppressor.
@@PHIL_123 Everything you say is true. Nevertheless, the "oppressor" of the colonialists was still their own king and empire - a very different scenario from an invading force subjugating the existing population.
@@douglasporter9623 Completely agree, I was making the argument that calling it a myth is a bit of a hyperbole. But indeed, many people look at history in black and white, while its usually a shade of gray.
There's a lot we (the so called western civilization) have to learn with indigenous people from all around the world. I read all the scientific books and phylosophical thinking that i could to find out that a indian that doesn't even know how to read knows better than I do of how to live in peace with nature. There's something really rotten with the way we were educated....
Religious institutions wouldn't have lasted long without the emphasis on being fruitful and multiplying, as well as the idea of accumulating wealth on earth in exchange for promises of real estate in the afterlife.
Most religions don’t have the idea of accumulating wealth for promises in the afterlife… 😅
@@rickhunter1454 Wealth for the church, not for the individual.
@@rickhunter1454 I intentionally kept the second part of the statement vague.
Patronato real. Look it up. Very bull.
Peace through Ahev
There seems to be a lot of complex perspectives to sort out with this topic.
This is all very interesting. But--like all economics discussions--there is this foundational assumption that development equals good. That's a decision, not an observation.
I haven't finished yet, but I hope geography was considered closely, I know I'm not the first person to think. Surely, there's a correlation between the areas that were easier to colonize and the areas that are easier access modern trade routes
4:14....llm's can very well change that and make social sciences more experimental than it currently is.
I am of the many world's myself.
Social science is hard. Pairs of neighboring counties might fail to be indeoendent precisely in the cases that matter for development. The path of the conquistadors might fail to be random in ways that matter for development (e.g. navigable waterways). You can try to control for confounders all you want, sometimes it's just really hard.
Doesn't mean I don't believe social institutions can be advantages post-independence even if originated for ill ends. Just means I'm reserving judgments on how proved that is.
Now that the "enlightened" nations who invaded (upsss, I mean "colonized") the world's vulnerable who had lived just fine with issues of course, but NOT needing whatever the "enlightened" had to offer, now that that physical aggressive period of richness has ended, let's return all the things and wealth we took from those places back to them, and not just the "cultural" articles, but all the bullion and other wealth we took... I mean we are now aware and enlightened, even if we made the argument that "that was the way it was back then, everyone did it" but now supposedly we know much better, if it was immoral than it is immoral now, and vice versa.
NOTE: Colonialism in the physical sense, armies and systems of control by puppets and some "repersnttlive" people from the original nation, has NOT ended, it just take a new form, it is now an economic colonialism that bc it is so prevalent and has infiltrated so throughly all the places' institutions people cannot even imagine how it was or could be different. So all we have now is a new type of colonialism. that kind of power and control is never given up that easily, ""Oh Hong Kong we finally realized we were wrong, so please take back control of your land and government, ohh Africa please excuse our ignorance please take back your land, ohh latin America please forget the Monroe Doctrine and take back control of who you want to partner with... etc etc"". Al they did was change the ways they control, and once the whole world was monetized by the dollar, it wa easy to do, Read Economic Hitman or the documentary about England financial district, The Web (??)
Good legacy things?? give me a break, they want no more future with different cultures, they want hegemony and uniformity in customs and thought, so they can control economically by remote control the whole world.
I thought it fascinating when the topic was Columbia or Bolivia, and then it got scary when the focus shifted to US.
The Colombian state is a colonial legacy... wow, what a discovery. It still needs to expand into "un-conquered" territories like U.S. did to the West... ah, because it is held back by stilll inadequate limits, i.e. moral prohibutions, on genocide, inadequate as we see them overriden in the Levant
[P.S.]
And the development outcomes seen as good and lingering today are essentially integration to the capitalist world order 😀
Are these people getting funding from European neocolonial institutions?
I'm Ra D in Jesus Christs name
Colonialism? ffs...
Are you displeased that this is the subject of this episode for some reason?
@@user-yv6xw7ns3o It just seems to be a talking point everywhere I go...
@@michealcline2469 Algorithms do have a way of suggesting things based on how they are related to what you've already clicked on.
@@user-yv6xw7ns3o, no. That's not it... I'm a subscriber. I listen to Sean every Monday. This topic is throw around constantly here recently.
Agreed, Sean Carroll jumping into the history rewriting boat is such a disappointment. I bet this podcast is the result of a requirement placed on him by his employer.
I love Sean Carroll, but his neutrality on such obvious issues like this one is appalling. Yet he is better than most.
Still, I am glad he brings these guests on and discusses it; I am just disagreeing with him on this one. Why is it so hard to say invading and genocidally killing almost whole peoples unless they submit, REGARDLESS of how good the outcome is later or if there are "good" thing left after, why is it so hard to say that sh!t is bad, then and now!!
The new "all is well that ends well" way of looking at history is bull... so it was awful HOW we got those institutions, that even now CONTINUE to serve the world powers by its monetization, imposed by the colonialists. They also made sure, in their search for fee things, to interconnect all places on earth to the point that (now that real cuties are non existent) it is impossible to disentangle any one place from the whole, as it was BEFORE the enlightened colonialists went to these places. It is but a point of view to say those places were retarded and ignorant and worse and primitive or savage, that POINT OF VIEW is wrong and for these enlightened europeans to invade on those premises is also wrong, bc it is a lie, the movies were never that high minded, it was bullion and profits and status.