Were colonies ultimately good for the colonizer?

[Canadian_95_RTS]

I've heard mixed things on this. Now, as far as I know, pretty much all historians agree that being colonized was bad for the colony. However, I've heard more mixed things on whether it was good for the colonizer. I mean, colonies were expensive to make and maintain, and they generally didn't want to stay colonies either. While at the time I'm sure colonizers thought they were good, given what we know now, did that end up being true?

 

[EU3NOOB]

It depends on the region.

In the New World, if the colonizer can maintain smart colonial policies and don't stroke out like Spain did, then settler colonies could do quite well for the colonizer. The loss of the Thirteen Colonies was very much reliant on a particular situation with particularly inflexible men in charge in order to happen.

If say the British localized the levying of taxes and the defenses of the American Colonies then they could have cut down on defense spending while also gaining a new revenue source. The colonies there were quite useful for maritime trade in the British Empire.

Now in Africa, before the scramble, the Europeans had a very minimalist presence there while also gain quite a lot from there. After the scramble, the Europeans then had to pay for the defense of territory that offered little more than what they got before hand.

As for India, I've heard the theory that had India had remained divided between different Europeans it would have been much easier to maintain a European presence due to the lack of a unite Pan-Indian Movement. Otherwise India is simply too large and too populous for any one European country to rule effectively indefinitely.

 

[DoomBunny]

Yes. The common thing that gets put around is that they weren't profitable because of all the troops one had to garrison them with, etc...

I think this comes about mainly because people look at it from a government perspective, rather than a general economic one. From a government perspective what shows up is that colonies tended to be very small government affairs, with very low taxation on an already somewhat low tax base. Take India for example, taxation around 1% GDP was considered the maximum, and the British actively dropped a lot of their potential income to keep the Indians happy. In the end about the only things the Indian government ended up doing were guaranteeing profits on some railways built privately, building a few of their own, providing famine relief, a basic civil service (as in, 1,000 guys plus a few ten-thousand lower officials in a land of 300 million), and paying for the British Indian Army (about 240,000 men). It was actually to the point that Indian development was probably under-realised because the British were too hands-off (though that in itself was a necessary fact of colonial rule).

The thing about this is though, it's a very 'gamey' perspective. By that I mean it's like looking at a province in EU and realising it doesn't provide the tax income to cover its stability cost, etc... The thing that really needs to be looked at with colonies is the wider economic effect, which certainly made them desirable. Some turned into massive agricultural regions, other valuable minerals, and still others cash crops or oil. Certainly some weren't really worth their maintenance (i.e., Bechuanaland is mostly desert, Somaliland also of dubious value, Libya too lacking in resources before the post-war), yet even here they offered prestige value, naval basing, and protection for other colonies.

There's also the French perspective, which was that colonies were valuable because they ultimately contributed to the homeland by becoming part of it (as opposed to the British long-term model of colonies gaining self-governance).

As for India, I've heard the theory that had India had remained divided between different Europeans it would have been much easier to maintain a European presence due to the lack of a unite Pan-Indian Movement. Otherwise India is simply too large and too populous for any one European country to rule effectively indefinitely.

Honestly, in this case you simply wouldn't be likely to have a modern conception of India. The nation as it is now defined is an arbitrary creation of British rule subsequently divided on independence as best as possible. If three different powers (for example) had ruled India then you'd probably have three different Indian entities.

 

[EU3NOOB]

Honestly, in this case you simply wouldn't be likely to have a modern conception of India. The nation as it is now defined is an arbitrary creation of British rule subsequently divided on independence as best as possible. If three different powers (for example) had ruled India then you'd probably have three different Indian entities.

Actually it'd be more likely that the European states would directly control relatively little of India and hold dominance over their particular Princely State(s), so it'd probably look more like India pre-European contact.

Of course you'd have to go back to before the Seven Years War and change its OTL outcome to make this happen.

 

[olm]

I think Britain is a clear example of benefiting from colonies, but they also got the best ones having essentially won the colonial game. Cost-benefit analysis gets a lot murkier for countries like Germany, Italy, or Spain.

 

[Geriander]

In terms of geopolitical power the colonies were probably a net positive. Its hard to imagine Spain remaining a great power for centuries without their empire. The same goes for Britain who would be unlikely to have been able to keep France in check on the continent without their empire.

In terms of the long term economic development of the homeland there is no clear evidence for colonies being a positive thing. Spain and Portugal ended up as the poorest part of Western Europe while Germany and Scandinavia, both of whom had very limited colonies, are among the richest. There are some theories that Britain's empire was required to spark the industrial revolution and if true that would obviously be a major benefit of colonialism not just for Britain but for everyone the industrial revolution spread to.

 

[chepaeff]

Its hard to say for certain, considering that colonization is a long process. At first the primary concern is profit, what came after depended on many factors: rivals in the area, colonies position, etc.

 

[Sonmi]

Depends on the country, really.

France, England, the Netherlands: Sure.

Spain, Portugal, Germany: Not so sure.

Scotland, Italy: Absolutely not.

 

[Conanteacher]

By "colonizers" you mean persons or states?
Some individuals benefitted great from the colonies.
And some still have a privileged status on the exploitation of regions considered to be free and independent.

I always keep in mind that an individual person's interest is not always the same as a state's. Policies tend to benefit certain groups of people at others' expense.

Who pays for the occupation? National army, public servants, infrastructure etc. And who gets most of the resources?
Of course there are different types of colonies.
Spain's 17th century are not the same as British 1900's.

 

[Dracolithfiend]

Depends where/when/who.... Generally speaking though it was directly responsible for the world's wealth concentrating in western Europe for several centuries. They exported culture and influenced almost every important person or movement. To this day you can see colonizer influence in the far flung edges of the world. Not sure why people think it negatively affected them. Even Germany gained prestige well worth the cost.

 

[krieger11b]

Long term I think no, as many of the colonization after effects are destabilizing to the entire world. Short term, depends like others say. For Germany I would put a profound no. I highly doubt they got back from their colonies what they put into their blue water navy to protect it and the effects it had at making the UK nervous and a bit angry. Though it's likely without the Naval buildup that Germany did that the UK still goes to war over Belgium in WW1, but that Navy was not helping their case in avoiding war with the UK.

Not having a colony helped Germany after the war. Not only did they not have to maintain and garrison them, but also places like China preferred doing business with the only major industrialized nation that did not have colonies other than the USSR, and Chiang hated communists.

 

[RichStrat]

I've heard mixed things on this. Now, as far as I know, pretty much all historians agree that being colonized was bad for the colony.

Mostly it seems to have been brilliant for the colonised. At least that's true for European and to some extent Japanese Colonies. Obviously being colonised by Islamic powers was a terrible thing. Take sub Saharan Africa, at the end of Colonisation there were far more people living longer lives with a higher standard of living. Europeans ended slavery in large parts of the world and introduced the ideas of democracy, women's liberation and basic human rights.

 

[Conanteacher]

Not sure why people think it negatively affected them

Yeah, everyone would like to give king Leopold of Belgium a hand to export some culture in Kongo...

 

[Dracolithfiend]

Yeah, everyone would like to give king Leopold of Belgium a hand to export some culture in Kongo...

Depends where/when/who....

Can't help but reiterate my point. Anyways the "cost" of say..... Spanish conquest of the new world was more then off set by the gold and silver brought in. While we can attribute the decline of Spain to things such as the inflation and the burdening cost of her possessions it was only a part of it. Spain fell into many other problems that lead to that and let's face it, without the massive colonial conquests they would never have become a world empire which was/is a point of pride that spread their language and religion across the entire world.

For Germany I would put a profound no. I highly doubt they got back from their colonies what they put into their blue water navy to protect it and the effects it had at making the UK nervous and a bit angry.

Germany gained general Lettow-Vorbeck who tied down forces many times greater then his own at a cost vastly larger then the ships. The ships themselves gave them Admiral Spee who defeated the British navy for the first time in a century. Prestige is something that is not easily ascribed to associated cost but let's face it we cannot cite costs because it matters so little in the grand scheme of things. A century from now do you truly think people will care how much the US spent to land on the moon? They will almost certainly not care but the fact the US landed on the moon first will stick in their minds. That or they will claim it was a hoax and put on their tin foil hats *shrugs*

At any rate opportunity costs are purely speculative thus this topic is.

 

[krieger11b]

Germany gained general Lettow-Vorbeck who tied down forces many times greater then his own at a cost vastly larger then the ships. The ships themselves gave them Admiral Spee who defeated the British navy for the first time in a century. Prestige is something that is not easily ascribed to associated cost but let's face it we cannot cite costs because it matters so little in the grand scheme of things. A century from now do you truly think people will care how much the US spent to land on the moon? They will almost certainly not care but the fact the US landed on the moon first will stick in their minds. That or they will claim it was a hoax and put on their tin foil hats *shrugs*

At any rate opportunity costs are purely speculative thus this topic is.

You can equate though that last 20 years or so before WW1 that the German Navy was getting a lot of funding that would either have gone to the Army or the economy. Though the UK did a huge build up with the two navy policy of being bigger than the next two navies combined. That I am not sure how much sucked out Army money as in that time the Army was never that big and mostly went up against people with sharp pointed fruit (points to whoever gets that reference). However it could have gone into the economy instead, or building up colonies etc.

 

[Pyoro]

But Germany couldn't have not build a navy. It's essentially the same as an absolute king needed a fancy palace from some point on, or your average dictator needs a private plane. An important nation, to demonstrate it's importance, needed a fleet and a colony of some type.

it's hard to quantify that type of thing, as it's hard to imagine how it could have not happened given the global circumstances.

But in the economical-sort of view I'm sure it's right to say that it wasn't a profitable venture.

 

[keynes2.0]

In the New World, if the colonizer can maintain smart colonial policies and don't stroke out like Spain did, then settler colonies could do quite well for the colonizer. The loss of the Thirteen Colonies was very much reliant on a particular situation with particularly inflexible men in charge in order to happen.

While the intrangience of particular men brought the matter to a head, it was only a zealous application of a long lasting British aim of trying to encourage the home country at expense of the colony. For instance. And then having lost the American colonies, they tried to do the exact same thing in India.

Germany gained general Lettow-Vorbeck who tied down forces many times greater then his own

Yeah, if you just ignore the 90% of his forces that were native then he succeeded at tying down a force many times larger. Yay for uncritical repetition of narratives originating in racism!

While at the time I'm sure colonizers thought they were good, given what we know now, did that end up being true?

Well Belgium profited handsomely from the Congo. The US profited handsomely from it's various western territories. During the World Wars, Britain's existence as a free country was preserved by it's colonial resources. It seems to me that you need either a completely evil exploitive approach or recognizing that citizenship and trade are more valuable then revenues.

 

[Dracolithfiend]

Yeah, if you just ignore the 90% of his forces that were native then he succeeded at tying down a force many times larger. Yay for uncritical repetition of narratives originating in racism!

"For four years, with a force that never exceeded about 14,000 (3,000 Germans and 11,000 Africans), he held in check a much larger force of 300,000 British, Belgian, and Portuguese troops."
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_von_Lettow-Vorbeck

These numbers include the African contingent. Not sure why you think this was founded in racism the man was genuinely a skillful general and his soldiers fought as bravely as the men arrayed against them. Actually not sure what race has to do with it at all.

300,000 / 14,000 = 21.4285714286

21.4285714286 = how "many times greater" their force was.

 

[SeekTruthFromFx]

Yes. The common thing that gets put around is that they weren't profitable because of all the troops one had to garrison them with, etc...

I think this comes about mainly because people look at it from a government perspective,

Yes, and this perspective was as popular in the past as it is now, hence:

While at the time I'm sure colonizers thought they were good

I'm not sure this is true in the British case. Obviously there was an intensely imperialistic period between the Congress of Berlin and the World Wars. However, much of the 19th century political class saw colonies as a waste of public money and a drain on resources. That's why the East India Company, rather than the British state, ruled most of south Asia until 1857: Westminster did not want more colonial responsibilities. About ten years ago I spent a considerable amount of time reading through contemporary debates in Hansard and there were countless complaints about the cost of the colonies, including many from Tories. As late as 1880, Gladstone won an election campaigning on a 'no new colonies' platform, largely because of the cost, but also due to his long-standing views on the freedom of small nations.

Obviously the imperialists won the day, but there was vigorous opposition even from the right.

Honestly, in this case you simply wouldn't be likely to have a modern conception of India. The nation as it is now defined is an arbitrary creation of British rule subsequently divided on independence as best as possible. If three different powers (for example) had ruled India then you'd probably have three different Indian entities.

You might not have India as a nation-state, but I find it hard to imagine that India would disappear from the maps. The Indian Ocean, the Baluchistan desert, the Himalayas and the Kachin hills make for pretty formidable natural boundaries; the Hindustani dialects create cultural commonalities across much of the north of the Subcontinent. I can see how two centuries of (for example) French rule over a large area would have been enough to ensure a separate state, just as the two Congos or North America (north of the Rio Grande) are 'unnaturally' divided by colonial legacies. But I think we'd still look at the region as a whole as a cultural unit. We would think of it as a unity in the same way we think of pre-1870 Germany or Scandinavia or Korea.

 

[keynes2.0]

"For four years, with a force that never exceeded about 14,000 (3,000 Germans and 11,000 Africans), he held in check a much larger force of 300,000 British, Belgian, and Portuguese troops."

You are ignoring 300,000 native carriers by Germany. In a campaign that was overwhelmingly about logistics you are ignoring the entire logistical force.

Yay stupid and misleading up numbers!