Aren't some countries unfairly vilified for their slavery/colonial past?

mark87

Ad Honorem
Jan 2014
2,092
Santiago de Chile
My question, or its point, was if you consider that the results would show that slavery was too much or too less spoken in the textbooks?
I would say that in some countries it's probably too little, but for that I would need access to those textbooks to see. It's not just slavery though, there are other things as bad or just as bad.
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,972
Portugal
I would say that in some countries it's probably too little, but for that I would need access to those textbooks to see. It's not just slavery though, there are other things as bad or just as bad.
Got it. I really don't know.

In Portugal I think that slavery has the right place in the textbooks. I also know some textbooks from some regions in Spain. Don’t recall them well enough to comment, besides that in Catalonia clearly slavery is not a pertinent theme in the textbooks that I saw.
 

Cepheus

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
2,332
One historical development that generally coincided with colonial expansion was the enlightenment.

In general terms, how could these two historical developments be connected in regard to the development of slavery and/or views on race?

IOW, did the enlightenment have an impact on cultural / institutional racism and how could this have affected the development of slavery during this period ?

Keep in mind the concept of "natural slavery" along the lines of say, Aristotle.

Also, keep in mind some of the chief enlightenment thinkers. I'm thinking of Voltaire, Locke, Kant and etc. What were their views on race or slavery ?

Now, in regard to the OP, is there some aspect of slavery / racism new to the colonial era that might make some countries more susceptible to criticism than others ?
 
Last edited:

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
5,807
One historical development that generally coincided with colonial expansion was the enlightenment.

In general terms, how could these two historical developments be connected in regard to the development of slavery and/or views on race?

IOW, did the enlightenment have an impact on cultural / institutional racism ?

Keep in mind the concept of "natural slavery" along the lines of say, Aristotle.

Also, keep in mind some of the chief enlightenment thinkers. I'm thinking of Voltaire, Locke, Kant and etc. What were their views on race or slavery ?

Now, in regard to the OP, is there some aspect of slavery / racism new to the colonial era that might make some countries more susceptible to criticism than others ?
From Voltaire's "Candide":
As they drew near to the city, they came across a negro stretched out on the ground, with no more than half of his clothes left, which is to say a pair of blue canvas drawers; the poor man had no left leg and no right hand.

‘Good God!’ said Candide to him in Dutch. ‘What are you doing there, my friend, in such a deplorable state?’

‘I am waiting for my master, Monsieur Vanderdendur, the well-known merchant,’ answered the negro.

‘And was it Monsieur Vanderdendur,’ said Candide, ‘who treated you like this?’

‘Yes, Monsieur,’ said the negro, ‘it is the custom. Twice a year we are given a pair of blue canvas drawers, and this is our only clothing. When we work in the sugar-mills and get a finger caught in the machinery, they cut off the hand; but if we try to run away, they cut off a leg: I have found myself in both situations. It is the price we pay for the sugar you eat in Europe. Yet when my mother sold me for ten Patagonian écus [Spanish American coins] on the coast of Guinea, she told me: “My child, give thanks to our fetiches, and worship them always, for they will make your life happy; you have the honour to be a slave to our white masters, and therefore you are making the fortune of your father and mother.” Alas! I don’t know if I made their fortune, but they certainly didn’t make mine. Dogs, monkeys and parrots are a thousand times less miserable than we are; the Dutch fetiches who converted me to their religion tell me every Sunday that we are all children of Adam, whites and blacks alike. I am no genealogist; but if these preachers are telling the truth, then we are all second cousins. In which case you must admit that no one could treat his relatives more horribly than this.’

‘Oh Pangloss!’ cried Candide. ‘This is one abomination you could not have anticipated, and I fear it has finally done for me: I am giving up on your Optimism after all.’

‘What is Optimism?” asked Cacambo

‘Alas!’ said Candide, ‘it is the mania for insisting that all is well when all is by no means well.’ And he wept as he looked down at his negro, and was still weeping as he entered Surinam.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cepheus

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,694
San Antonio, Tx
Yes, generally ,, white countries '' get unfairly villified by Liberals. Also by minorities who live in those countries and benefit from the success that these nations achieved throughout history.

They are also generally pretty ignorant about history of Middle-East, Asia or even Europe itself. Many of them are hypocrites as well, especially Liberals in USA.
Thanks for that. Maybe you should just try not spouting off for a while.
 
Last edited:

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,694
San Antonio, Tx
Agreed. What I do pick a bone with is interpretation that things which allowed Europe to achieve current standard were a consequence of, or enabled by, slavery and/or colonialism.



I am aware of what classical liberalism is, but in Croatia, and apparently US as well (from what I've seen) people following Marxist ideas often label themselves as liberals. And in Croatia, our political landscape is populated by actual Marxists/Communists. But I think @Tulius explained it well.
As an American, I have to say that in my more than 70 years on this planet, I have never yet encountered anyone here who self-describes as a “Marxist”. I’m pretty much a liberal in most things and utterly reject Marxism in all its Neo-dictatorial pretensions.
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,694
San Antonio, Tx
That's complete nonsense. Higher wealth and living standards are a product of industrialisation, which increased productivity exponentially.
I doubt that the slave-trade made large populations in, say, the US wealthy. It did make some or most of the planters in the American South rather wealthy and influential (to its own later detriment) but this was a rather small slice of the population. It was, ironically, the invention of the “cotton-gin” by a Yankee that “saved” the slave-based Southern economy for a time.

In the meantime, the US North underwent the industrial revolution which was the death-knell of the agrarian-based Southern economy. Long term, thre South didn’t stand a chance.
 
Oct 2019
72
Budapest
And point still remains that neither Spain nor Portugal had any long-term benefit from their colonialism. They failed to industrialize, and in fact colonization of Americas may have prevented or at least helped prevent their industrialization, as they relied too much on the wealth siphoned off from the colonies. In other words, both countries are poor because of their colonial success.

With Britain, again, you are confusing cause and consequence. Britain had to become rich before creating "greatest colonial empire". In fact, their creation of that empire was based largely on British naval power - which is extremely expensive - and trading power - which a) requires expensive navy and b) will create wealth even without colonies.



All territory of US is conquered from Native Americans, so this makes no sense.

Also, prior to US conquest, population of California was 7 000. In other words, if California became economic powerhouse, it was only after US conquered it. In fact, Mexico lost 1% of its population despite losing half the territory. So much for that territory being immediately economically beneficial.



Nope. Croatia in particular, and same I believe happened to Hungary and Poland, failed to industrialize - or make any significant advancement - in large part precisely because we were too busy fighting Ottomans. While Western Europe was investing its wealth into ways to generate more wealth - that is, capitalist system and industrialization - Eastern Europe was investing wealth in combating Ottomans. And this differentiation, for multiple reasons, lasted down the road:

Above is map of railway networks, I believe. Below is the dominant type of job:

And this I think is literacy map:


You really believe centuries of warfare can be made up in few decades? Not a chance, at least not unless you have a) culture for it, and b) foreign help. And keep in mind, when Croatia entered Kingdom of Yugoslavia in 1918., Croatia and Slovenia were most developed parts of the new kingdom, and largely responsible for financing basically everything, as neither Bosnia, Serbia nor Montenegro could generate enough capital even for their own needs. That is how much better off even undeveloped parts of Austria-Hungary were compared to Balkans states. Yet the only difference is that the latter were a) Orthodox and b) remained for muchlonger under Ottoman rule.

And that colonization by Western Europe you mentioned? Specifically, division of Poland? Again, that is merely a result of the fact that Eastern Europe spent itself fighting the Ottomans, while Western Europe used that time to advance itself.

In fact, Western colonization, if you can call it such, was actually quite beneficial.

As for US, it was rich before it colonized Mexico, it was rich after it colonized Mexico. Nothing changed in that regard.

Overall, barring influence such as warfare, plague, culture etc., development really comes down to climate:

You forget: Unlik the Hungarian half of the Empire, the Austrians had terrible second industrial revolution, modern sectors of economy: Like engine building and electronics were far more developeed in Hungary than in the Austrian parts (Austrian part was strong in the sectors of the first industrial revolution)
 
May 2019
215
Earth
I wouldn't say "unfairly" vilified, but from my experience it seems that some Americans think that the Confederate States were the only ones still involved in slavery during that period, and that the Union states were all a bunch of non-slave owning abolitionists. Some people seem to forget that slavery was still legal in Delaware and Maryland at the outbreak of the Civil War. Delaware even voted to reject the 13th Amendment in 1865. This doesn't downplay the fact that slavery was a massive institution in the Confederate states and a principle issue for them leading to war, I just think that the idea of anti-slavery Union vs. pro-slavery Confederacy was not as clear-cut as some might believe. Not all Unionists went to war to end slavery...