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

Feb 2017
526
Latin America
Indeed the “as such” is a relevant part. And no, if we look to the WWII, where the concept was born, we aren’t hard pressed to find explicit declarations.
You're dodging my argument.


Maybe it’s enough for you, but it doesn’t fit with the definition. Neither the “en masse” is necessary, as we already saw while reading it.
Again, you'll also be hard pressed to find examples of other genocides killing groups "as such". Even in such bloody genocides between two different groups like the Bangladesh genocide, you will be hard pressed to find evidence of the Pakistanis killing Bangladeshis "as such".



You will need to elaborate here. Because you seem to be changing your goals and walking away from the definition that you gave.
I'm not walking away from anything. It's simply a fact that you're very hard pressed to find evidence of killing a group "as such". Not all 20th century genocides are like the Holocaust or the Rwandan genocide where we have records and writings that say the targeted group is indeed being targeted for belonging to such group. It's even worse when you get to purely politically motivated auto-genocides, as in Indonesia, Cambodia and Guatemala. That's why fulfilling the subsections are more important as evidence and are pretty much what clarify what is meant by the article itself.


Don’t see the relevance. We have a working definition or the situation fits or it doesn’t fit. The bombs were dropped not to exterminate the Japanese, “as such”, but because the USA and Japan were at war and the bombs were seen as a necessity to end the war.
How is that not relevant? We have racist descriptions of the Japanese being inhuman for being Japanese, and the media were barking on about the necessity of killing Japanese to end the war. It's in fact even more clear than other genocides. That is indeed targeting Japanese for being Japanese. Ending the war and killing as many Japanese for being Japanese are not contradictory goals. By that same standard, the genocides I've been repeatedly mentioning are not genocides because there was a goal other than killing the targeted population.

The Pakistanis invaded Bangladesh because they wanted to annex it, defeat the Bangladeshi independence movement and oust the Indians and Soviets from there, with a strong stated anti-Communist motivation too. The Indonesians and Guatemalans were fighting Communists, the latter in a civil war. Pol Pot was also fighting a civil war with Lon Nol and his genocide was to defeat him and to secure Communist rule. I follow the Guatemalan case closely, and the genocide-committing side constantly repeat again and again to deny they perpetrated genocide that their goal was to defeat the Communist insurgency which they did achieve, not to kill people for belonging to a certain group. In fact, a similar argument is used by the deniers of the Armenian genocide, defended by none other than the influential Orientalist scholar Bernard Lewis, who said there was no genocide because the motivation of the Ottomans was to defeat the Allies, not kill Armenians for being Armenians.

People are engaging in special pleading for the Japanese case, and to make matters worse, it's even more crystal clear than other genocides because of the racist hatred of none other than Harry Truman and because the government and media were constantly saying the Japanese had a fanatical Shintoist warrior culture that wouldn't be defeated unless killing Japanese civilians en masse was done. Barking on "the intention was to end the war" is not only irrelevant in the end, it's not even the whole truth because it was by killing as many Japanese as necessary for being Japanese.
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
6,426
Portugal
You're dodging my argument.
I can’t dodge what I didn’t saw.

Again, you'll also be hard pressed to find examples of other genocides killing groups "as such". Even in such bloody genocides between two different groups like the Bangladesh genocide, you will be hard pressed to find evidence of the Pakistanis killing Bangladeshis "as such".
The Pakistanis in East Pakistan killed the Bangladeshis as what if not as such?

I'm not walking away from anything.
So why you are assuming and underlining that the UN is going more to the subsections, when we both agreed on the all definition?

It's simply a fact that you're very hard pressed to find evidence of killing a group "as such".
That is your opinion. Let us agree to disagree.

Not all 20th century genocides are like the Holocaust or the Rwandan genocide where we have records and writings that say the targeted group is indeed being targeted for belonging to such group. It's even worse when you get to purely politically motivated auto-genocides, as in Indonesia, Cambodia and Guatemala. That's why fulfilling the subsections are more important as evidence and are pretty much what clarify what is meant by the article itself.
We can consult the omnipresent Wikipedia to see the main targets of those genocides:

Cambodian genocide - Wikipedia

Guatemalan genocide - Wikipedia

How is that not relevant? We have racist descriptions of the Japanese being inhuman for being Japanese, and the media were barking on about the necessity of killing Japanese to end the war. It's in fact even more clear than other genocides. That is indeed targeting Japanese for being Japanese. Ending the war and killing as many Japanese for being Japanese are not contradictory goals. By that same standard, the genocides I've been repeatedly mentioning are not genocides because there was a goal other than killing the targeted population.
Because the bombs were dropped by the USA because the USA was at war with Japan. Were dropped to win the war at a lower cost (and eventually also to send a message to the Soviets). They weren’t dropped to kill the Japanese “as such”.

If we go by this line, we transform all or almost all the wars in the history of mankind in genocides, and the concept is emptied.

The Pakistanis invaded Bangladesh because they wanted to annex it, defeat the Bangladeshi independence movement and oust the Indians and Soviets from there, with a strong stated anti-Communist motivation too.
Sorry, a bit lost here, when did the Pakistanis invaded Bangladesh? I had the Idea that the territory that is today the Bangladesh was called East Pakistan until 1971.

The Indonesians and Guatemalans were fighting Communists, the latter in a civil war. Pol Pot was also fighting a civil war with Lon Nol and his genocide was to defeat him and to secure Communist rule. I follow the Guatemalan case closely, and the genocide-committing side constantly repeat again and again to deny they perpetrated genocide that their goal was to defeat the Communist insurgency which they did achieve, not to kill people for belonging to a certain group. In fact, a similar argument is used by the deniers of the Armenian genocide, defended by none other than the influential Orientalist scholar Bernard Lewis, who said there was no genocide because the motivation of the Ottomans was to defeat the Allies, not kill Armenians for being Armenians.
The case of Guatemala was alredy mentioned above in this post. About Indonesia the only Genocide that I am aware of was in Esat Timor. About the Armenians, they were targeted “as such”.

People are engaging in special pleading for the Japanese case, and to make matters worse, it's even more crystal clear than other genocides because of the racist hatred of none other than Harry Truman and because the government and media were constantly saying the Japanese had a fanatical Shintoist warrior culture that wouldn't be defeated unless killing Japanese civilians en masse was done. Barking on "the intention was to end the war" is not only irrelevant in the end, it's not even the whole truth because it was by killing as many Japanese as necessary for being Japanese.
Who is “people”?
 
Feb 2017
526
Latin America
I can’t dodge what I didn’t saw.
You're disregarding that other genocides are not as clear cut and that you can say they aren't with the same arguments you give to deny the case of Japan.



The Pakistanis in East Pakistan killed the Bangladeshis as what if not as such?
And again, I can easily argue this was not the case because neither is there an explicit declaration of this, nor was the goal to just kill Bangladeshis but to win a war that wasn't even solely against Bangladeshis. What's your evidence that Pakistanis killed Bangladeshis as such?



So why you are assuming and underlining that the UN is going more to the subsections, when we both agreed on the all definition?
Because the subsections elaborate on the initial article and because if we go by a very straightforward interpretation of the intent part, other genocides wouldn't be considered genocides.




That is your opinion. Let us agree to disagree.
It's not merely "my opinion". There's a lot of debate regarding the part about intent. If there wasn't, Bernard Lewis would have been immediately discredited for denying the Armenian genocide, except not only did he remain a respected scholar but George W. Bush even brought him out of retirement.

"It has been widely accepted that the meaning of ‘‘intent,’’ within the Genocide Convention, refers to specific or special intent, dolus specialis. However, as more trials have taken place, creating more understanding of the crime of genocide, the linking of dolus specialis with the intent definition, that was so easily accepted at the first genocide trial (Akayesu at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda [ICTR]), has been repeatedly put into question. The new approach being put forward as the most appropriate interpretation of ‘‘intent’’ is the knowledge-based approach. The Vienna Convention on Treaties states that interpretations of laws should follow the treaty’s original purpose and objective, and should do this by looking at the preparatory work and its circumstances."



We can consult the omnipresent Wikipedia to see the main targets of those genocides:

Cambodian genocide - Wikipedia

Guatemalan genocide - Wikipedia
Don't see why the subsection of Khmer Communist ideology somehow proves any Cambodian people was targeted as such. The Guatemalan genocide is indeed seen as mainly a genocide against Mayans, but Mayans were not the only people who were killed and massacres were in fact indiscriminate, not caring whether the people were Mayans or ladinos, and like I said, there's no explicit declaration of intent for killing Mayans, only to drive out Communism out of Guatemala. There was even Mayan symbolism used by the army.


Because the bombs were dropped by the USA because the USA was at war with Japan. Were dropped to win the war at a lower cost (and eventually also to send a message to the Soviets). They weren’t dropped to kill the Japanese “as such”.

If we go by this line, we transform all or almost all the wars in the history of mankind in genocides, and the concept is emptied.
No, because not all wars in human history involve massacres of unarmed civilians in massive numbers. This is the part people here still fail in understanding. No one in their right mind considers the deaths of millions of French and German soldiers in WWI a genocide for this reason, since these weren't unarmed civilians but armed soldiers. Even wars with massacres are not necessarily genocidal because the massacres aren't numerous nor particularly bloody. It's hard to argue the First Crusade is a genocide despite massacres of unarmed Jews and Muslims, because overall there weren't many and the massacres constitute comparatively few victims.



Sorry, a bit lost here, when did the Pakistanis invaded Bangladesh? I had the Idea that the territory that is today the Bangladesh was called East Pakistan until 1971.
Let's not start an argument about meaningless semantics. If anything, that only constitutes a further argument against genocide because Pakistanis didn't even recognise there was a separate ethnonational group, therefore they weren't killing anyone with the intention of belonging to a specific group.


The case of Guatemala was alredy mentioned above in this post. About Indonesia the only Genocide that I am aware of was in Esat Timor. About the Armenians, they were targeted “as such”.
I'm not talking about the genocide of Timorese, I'm talking about the anti-Communist genocide of the 1960s:

This is considered a genocide yet you're not going to find any declaration of eliminating any particular national, racial, ethnic or religious group. The Indonesians were saying they were only fighting Communists. The same with Guatemala where documents and statements of the era sometimes even talk about protecting the local civilian population from Communist guerrillas. The case of Cambodia is basically the same, only in the opposite since it's anti-Communists who were being killed here. And again, Bernard Lewis pointed out that the Ottomans were waging a war, not killing Armenians as such. In fact, Lewis basically uses your same argument to say Armenians weren't killed as such.


Who is “people”?
All, and I was referring mainly to users here, who deny the nuclear massacre of Japanese is a genocide.
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
6,426
Portugal
You're disregarding that other genocides are not as clear cut and that you can say they aren't with the same arguments you give to deny the case of Japan.
No, I just didn’t fully saw what you called your “argument” as an argument. I am not saying that you don’t have an argument, I am saying that in the communication the argument didn’t reached me.

And again, I can easily argue this was not the case because neither is there an explicit declaration of this, nor was the goal to just kill Bangladeshis but to win a war that wasn't even solely against Bangladeshis. What's your evidence that Pakistanis killed Bangladeshis as such?
You are answering my question with a question. Should I make a new one? Or could you answer my genuine initial one? If not we fall in an endless boring loop.

Because the subsections elaborate on the initial article and because if we go by a very straightforward interpretation of the intent part, other genocides wouldn't be considered genocides.
Yes they elaborate, or better specify, but even if I don’t agree with your interpretation of the subsections, and I didn’t even bother to debate them, and gave you them from granted in post #360, is because if the intent part isn’t clear the subsections are worthless.

It's not merely "my opinion". There's a lot of debate regarding the part about intent. If there wasn't, Bernard Lewis would have been immediately discredited for denying the Armenian genocide, except not only did he remain a respected scholar but George W. Bush even brought him out of retirement.

"It has been widely accepted that the meaning of ‘‘intent,’’ within the Genocide Convention, refers to specific or special intent, dolus specialis. However, as more trials have taken place, creating more understanding of the crime of genocide, the linking of dolus specialis with the intent definition, that was so easily accepted at the first genocide trial (Akayesu at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda [ICTR]), has been repeatedly put into question. The new approach being put forward as the most appropriate interpretation of ‘‘intent’’ is the knowledge-based approach. The Vienna Convention on Treaties states that interpretations of laws should follow the treaty’s original purpose and objective, and should do this by looking at the preparatory work and its circumstances."

A sustained opinion is still an opinion, but here I have to thank you for the link. I don’t know this document. It seems interesting, and I have to postpone this part for a later answer, feel free to bring back this issue later.

Don't see why the subsection of Khmer Communist ideology somehow proves any Cambodian people was targeted as such. The Guatemalan genocide is indeed seen as mainly a genocide against Mayans, but Mayans were not the only people who were killed and massacres were in fact indiscriminate, not caring whether the people were Mayans or ladinos, and like I said, there's no explicit declaration of intent for killing Mayans, only to drive out Communism out of Guatemala. There was even Mayan symbolism used by the army.
I am not an expert about the Cambodian situation. In this case, I followed Ben Kiernan’s words, hence the link. Cf. See the last paragraph of the linked part.

About the Guatemala situation I already pointed the “as such”. We can add that other communities were targeted, but were those other communities necessary for the definition? I must admit my ignorance on it.

No, because not all wars in human history involve massacres of unarmed civilians in massive numbers.
Hmmm… but the definition that we had agreed upon never mentioned “massacres”, “unarmed”, “civilians”, “massive” and “numbers”.

This is the part people here still fail in understanding. No one in their right mind considers the deaths of millions of French and German soldiers in WWI a genocide for this reason, since these weren't unarmed civilians but armed soldiers. Even wars with massacres are not necessarily genocidal because the massacres aren't numerous nor particularly bloody.
Here we mostly agree, maybe not in the reasoning, but in the end.

It's hard to argue the First Crusade is a genocide despite massacres of unarmed Jews and Muslims, because overall there weren't many and the massacres constitute comparatively few victims.
Here I don’t know if we agree. Numbers aren’t mentioned in our common definition, are they?

Let's not start an argument about meaningless semantics. If anything, that only constitutes a further argument against genocide because Pakistanis didn't even recognise there was a separate ethnonational group, therefore they weren't killing anyone with the intention of belonging to a specific group.
All our discussion is about “meaningless semantics”, your wording. So let’s not say not to start.

But my question was not about “meaningless semantics”. I want to know “when did the Pakistanis invaded Bangladesh?” that was the question that I made. That can put us on the same code.

I'm not talking about the genocide of Timorese, I'm talking about the anti-Communist genocide of the 1960s:


This is considered a genocide…
“This is considered a genocide” by whom?

The situation seems to be debated, and I don’t want to enter in that debate, since I don’t have enough knowledge of it: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14623528.2017.1393942

All, and I was referring mainly to users here, who deny the nuclear massacre of Japanese is a genocide.
“People are engaging in special pleading for the Japanese case…”

Sorry, all but me. If I am not included, it is not all...
 

Kevinmeath

Ad Honoris
May 2011
14,133
Navan, Ireland
You don't understand that being biased doesn't make one wrong. It doesn't make one right either, but repeatedly repeating how I'm biased is not going to refute anything.
But openly interpreting interest with a preconceived political bias is going to effect your thinking and you haven't refuted anything.



Spain was being attacked on virtuall all fronts and had repeated wars against the French, the Ottomans and Protestant enemies throughout the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries and also financed the wars of the Habsburgs against the Ottomans during the 17th century. France was constantly at war with Spain, England and even Holland and German states during this period. The Thirty Years' War and War of the Spanish Succession in particular was harmful to France and Spain. Holland also spent most of its finances fighting for independence against Spain, then afterwards fighting England, France and Portugal. The Portuguese spent much of the colonial period fighting the Spaniards and then fighting to the Dutch over Brazil and the Indian Ocean. Even Russia exhausted itself fighting off Sweden and Prussia in the 18th century. England, on the other hand, could escape this because of its insular geography. It didn't suffer the brunt of the wars of the continent even when it participated in them. Other than the War of the Three Kingdoms, it suffered little internal conflict.
Empire have always been at war , yes Britain was lucky to avoid being invaded and this has been put forward as one (and only one among many) that Britain industrialised before other European countries but it hardly illustrates your point that all other Empire 'squandered their resources'.




Because things like the tire (essential for transportation), the telephone, the telegram, and even just a general lack of resources to keep industrial production ongoing wouldn't be there. It's not until the early 20th century that we can say for sure that Britain managed to create a full-fledged self-sufficient industrial economy that no longer needed colonies as much, but only after it had sucked them dry.
Britain didn't have a 'full-fledged self-sufficient industrial economy' in the 20th century, it still doesn't infact nowhere does and all you have done here is illustre that you don't really understand the topic and you have shown how Britain and industrialisation would have stagnated in the 19th century or would have remained agrarian.





So the British did not have a massive empire before they started the Industrial Revolution? Are you going to say that in the 17th and early 18th century, when the British were still using sail ships and didn't have Gatling guns and Maxims, the British had not conquered any territory? What are the 13 colonies, much of India, significant portions of the Caribbean, outposts in Africa and much of Canada then?..........................
Industrialisation and Colonialism came hand in hand-- the reason they could get such a large Empire was because they and the rest of Europe were starting to industrialise. You making the very simplistic conclusion that because it called the Industrial Revolution that it happened overnight while in reality it happened gradually over a great deal of time and continues in my opinion.





..................I have already done so. Not only by pointing out that coal and iron had been used for centuries, but also because of the centrality of the spinning jenny and later on of how it was impossible for the British to have the telephone, the telegram and even basic electric cables without the resources I've mentioned. And again, the population needed was also kept because of New World crops..
You have done no such, thing Coal and Iron were central to the industrial Revolution pointing out that they had been in use for centuries is simply meaningless and you have not shown that Britain would have not been able to continue to develop without these resources at all. The Spinning Jenny was just one of many machines and you have failed to show that the Agricultural revolution was based on New World crops.




They did since Britain needed a huge population and population density to have the workforce necessary to industrialise, and keep said population in place and even increasing. Britain would not have industrialised with only 1 million people, for example..
No that was the Agricultural Revolution






I understand the topic just fine, thank you very much. Where does the growing wealth come from? Obviously from the colonies. And again, even if there was a demand, had there not been the resources to develop the technology, that demand would have been irrelevant..
Sorry you don't understand the topic at all , the wealth comes from the changing in society from Industrialisation and Globalisation of which colonialism is a part of course but they go hand in hand as it were.

And sorry demand is all if there is demand there is a incentive to meet it.





No, it doesn't, because we have cotton coming from one colony being replaced with cotton coming from another colony. If it had been Britain's own native cotton, then you would have an argument there, but Indian cotton was not replaced with British cotton, it was replaced with New World cotton..
Well no, that's not what you said British industry started with Indian Cotton you denied that and it illustrates that Britain could source resources from many places-- the whole point of Globalisation really.




They were small in population (2-3 million people) but they were nearly 1 million square kilometres. By any measure that isn't small. And again, Adam Smith commented on how rich they were, and the reason why he recommended giving them independence was because he saw equal trade with them as more benefiting than direct colonial rule which according to him was stunting their economic growth..
Rather hypocritical argument since you dismiss Russia as an Empire for being too large with too small a population.





I don't even know how to respond to this. This is like saying "James Watt didn't invent the steam engine" and then the other person responding "that's like, your opinion man". This is the low we've reached. This is not an "opinion". .
No your level of argument has been at a consistent level throughout.

And your analogy is nonsense-- James Watt invented a steam engine is a fact the impact of that engine is an opinion.
Hate to break it to you your opinions are not actually facts

I cited an academic source that related the truth that New World cotton has stronger fibbers and is therefore apt to mechanise, while Old World cotton is far weaker and can't be mechanised as easily as a result and that because of this advantage New World cotton was adopted by the British during the Industrial Revolution (and this is not an opinion, again, this is fact). Old World cotton wasn't used - it got replaced. Egypt had to adopt New World cotton for this reason..
You cited no sources you merely pasted pages from a book-- no reference at all where the author expressed his opinion.





But I wasn't talking about any agricultural revolution, I instead have been talking how New World crops led to the growth in population in Britain necessary to industrialise. You're the one who keeps bringing up this "agricultural revolution" when I never brought it up in the first place..
Sorry have been and are either just side stepping issues or really don't understand the topic.

Because population could grow because of the Agricultural Revolution, which wasn't based on New World crops.

The potato famine struck only Ireland in any serious way in the British Isles, never truly affecting Britain, and it was until the middle of the 19th century, by which time Britain's population had broken its historical Malthusian ceiling largely as a result of this crop. .
No it didn't hit Britain because unlike Ireland it was not reliant on the potato but had a much more diverse Agricultural sector.





The spinning jenny was the machine that started the Industrial Revolution. So no, it wasn't just "one machine".

"Technology, arguably the greatest aspect of the Industrial Revolution, can be simplified into a few different innovations and inventors, most inspired by one product. The first product to undergo the "revolution" from the cottage industry to the mechanized age was cotton. Britain, at the time, had a large wool trade. In 1760, the amount of wool exported was almost thirty times that of cotton. Demand for cotton grew with a change in the upper class fashion, and Britain started to allow more cotton production. Soon, not enough cotton could not be made to satisfy the demand (Haberman 48)."

Why did you say the Spinning Jenny was the machine that caused the iIndustrial Revolution then post a web page supporting my contention that it was just one machine in a time of many inventions?

Well done undermine your own argument.



For the last time, coal and iron had also been used for centuries. They were important, coal was the source of energy at least before oil and electricity came about (and electricity came about because of rubber insulation while oil was a US innovation coming from the oil deposits in Pennsylvania, yet another element of colonialism) in the second half of the 19th century (and even remained important for the remainder half) and iron was used as one of the main resources to build things. No one denies that. But humanity has been using them for centuries. The British only learnt to use them for new things until they had a surplus of wealth and had other resources like New World cotton, rubber and gutta percha to complement them. You are deluding yourself if you think that British industrialisation is an organic process and that the British would have understood by themselves how to suddenly use coal and iron in new ways from which they had been used even millennia before, if they hadn't an excess of resources and new other resources to use previously unavailable to them..
Sorry that coal and iron had been used for centuries is irrelevant and of course The Industrial Revolution is an 'organic process' to Britain since it started there it wasn't imposed from outside or spread from trading partners.

However I have never argued (in fact the opposite) that Globalisation (and its symptom Colonialism/Imperialism ) were not vital to Industrialisation, the two were completely interlinked. The reason Briatin could get such a large Empire was not in any innate superiority of British people or culture but rather because they were the first to industrialise and go 'Global'.






Yes, "just two" without which there wouldn't be the first fully industrial production system (the textile industry) and without which electricity could not be insulated, telecommunications couldn't have been made and transportation like cars, planes and even trains that needed rubber parts couldn't have been made. Yes, they were "just two resources". I can also mention other resources derived from colonies or through colonialism and imperialism:
-Oil, which while Britain itself also had, was first dug en masse for industrial use in the US and British-ruled Canada.
-American whale fat, one of the main sources of energy for the first half of the 19th century, derived mainly from New World whales, before electricity and oil replaced it.
-Guano, which was essential for Britain's high agricultural productivity throughout the 19th century. So it was to the US for that matter, to the point it created the Guano Act to legally invade whatever island was rich in guano.
-African palm oil, which was important in lubricating machines and keeping them ongoing..
Yes resources were used- Globally but that's not what you are arguing.


No, my source said eventually they learned to mechanise Old World cotton, that is, only after mechanising had improved did they decide to finally use Old World cotton again, and it also adds that it never replaced New World cotton. Even today, most cotton production is still from New World cotton. The last part might be true, but this is like saying that had Newton not been born, then someone like him would have been born regardless. Fact remains, as the Industrial Revolution developed in our timeline and in our world, it was from an industrialisation of textile production, made possible by New World cotton..
There was a demand it would have been satisfied and that it was eventually mechanised shows that it could be done-- so not vital at all.





If you're complaining that I should elaborate, I already did above. To summarise what I said some paragraphs above, Britain was not affected by war nearly as much as the other colonial empires of the 18th century because it is an insular country..
Not really.




So what. That doesn't make me wrong. You have to refute what I say, rather than keep bringing this irrelevant point.



I'm not cherry picking anything. You're the one minimising the importance of colonial surplus and of resources that would have otherwise been unavailable without the British invading and colonising others..
Well you are refuting nothing and I am merely pointing out that the reason Britain could get such a large Empire was because they were industrialised



Saying "I'm wrong" is not merely disagreeing with me..
What people say you are 'wrong' is some how is some how terrible!

This is a history discussion site if you wanted to express your own opinion and idea start a blog.


I'm not putting forth any opinions, unless you're seriously going to say that it is an opinion that, for instance, the British were utilising rubber to insulate electricity, rubber derived from plantations in colonies such as Singapore and Malaysia as if that wasn't enough. This is like saying it is an opinion that Alaric sacked Rome..
Sorry you are simply expressing opinions and assuming because you state it a fact it becomes.

Wikipedia is an unreliable source, though even then, you cited it for something that was irrelevant. You keep talking about the agricultural revolution, but that was never my point about New World crops. My point was that New World crops allowed Britain to sustain population growth required for its Industrial Revolution.
No the Agricultural Revolution did that which was based on many things especially structural, social and technological changes and not started by the introduction of new crops.
 

robto

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,261
Lisbon, Portugal
You're disregarding that other genocides are not as clear cut and that you can say they aren't with the same arguments you give to deny the case of Japan....
Overall you made some original and insightful points that are making me question the entire validity of the term "genocide", but I still consider the massive bombing campaign of Japan during WW2 - that also extend to the indiscriminate bombing campaign that took place in Korea (1950-53) and Indochina (1964-1973) - as remarkably different in its nature than the Bangladeshi, indonesian, Cambodian and Guatemalan genocides of the last centuries.

The US bombing campaign against Japan, on a pure military nature, and considering the laws of war existing at the time, were totally part of the conduct of a conventional war.
What happened in the three countries that you mentioned was a policy of rounding up millions or hundreds of thousands of civilians by the respective military, state-sanctioned militias, or other authorities, to subsequently summarily shoot them or deliberately making them to work to death or from starvation.
That changes everything: In here we see states not officially at war with any country and using all the instruments of the State to deliberately round up and then execute a large number of civilians to destroy a perceived and abstract enemy that exists in the minds of their victims. What happened in Japan was a formal war between two warring states, and one side deliberately engaged in acts of mass killing of civilians in order for the other state to accept unconditional surrender. in the last case there was no perceived threat coming from a vaguely ideology. the Empire of Japan was a real threat to the USA and was actively engaged in war.

By the way, you can also classify the First World War as a kind of genocide, since the French population at the time lost half of their men between the ages of 22-30...a huge demographic loss...
 
Dec 2014
479
Wales
With regard to Britain not spending so much on war as other nations, here is an interesting point regarding British war expenditure in the 18th century. Britain fought 5 major wars in the 18th century:

The Nine Years War 1689 - 1697 (not strictly 18 century but important as you'll see);
The War of The Spanish Succession 1702 - 1713;
The War Of The Austrian Succession 1740 - 1748;
The Seven Years War 1756 - 1763;
American War of Independence 1775 - 1783.

British War Expenditure during this time was as follows:

1689 - 1697
Average Annual Expenditure: £5,456,555
Average Annual Tax Receipts: £3,640,000
National Debt at Beginning of War: £0
National Debt at End of War: £16,700,000

1702 - 1713
Average Annual Expenditure: £7,063,923
Average Annual Tax Receipts: £5,355,583
National Debt at Beginning of War: £14,100,000
National Debt at End of War: £36,200,000

1739 - 1748
Average Annual Expenditure: £8,778,900
Average Annual Tax Receipts: £6,422,800
National Debt at Beginning of War: £46,900,000
National Debt at End of War: £76,100,000

1756 - 1763
Average Annual Expenditure: £18,036,142
Average Annual Tax Receipts: £8,641,125
National Debt at Beginning of War: £74,600,000
National Debt at End of War: £132,600,000

1775 - 1783
Average Annual Expenditure: £20,272,700
Average Annual Tax Receipts: £12,154,200
National Debt at Beginning of War: £127,300,000
National Debt at End of War: £242,900,000

Brewer J. (1989) The Sinews of Power: War, Money and the English State 1688 - 1783 London, Unwin Hymam.

Or to put it another way it would have taken 20 years worth of the entire national tax receipt to pay off the national debt by the end of the century. However the debt at this point would pale before the massive amounts of debt created during the Napoleonic wars (when it would pass the £1 Billion mark) but that's outside our time frame.

It's also worth mentioning that most of that tax burden was paid by the British rather than their colonial subjects - Lord North calculated that servicing the debt created during the Seven Years War cost Englishman £18 per head, while the American colonists were paying 18 shillings per head against it. It was attempts to increase the amount of tax paid by Americans to help off-set this debt that resulted in the American War of Independence.

It's true the other colonial powers spent huge sums on war during this time, but Britain was no different, and in fact in some respects was worse. The British focused their expenditure mainly into their fleet, and ship-building was far more expensive than army-building, with a single 74 gun battleship costing, by the middle of the 18 century, more than £60,000 - and in 1739 Britain had more warship than all the rest of the European navies combined. In fact it was only the stronger fiscal system of the British Government that stopped the nation going bankrupt in the 18 century in the same way that the French government did.

Yes, the colonies brought lots of wealth into the nation, but the cost of protecting that wealth was cripplingly expensive.
 
Feb 2017
526
Latin America
But openly interpreting interest with a preconceived political bias is going to effect your thinking and you haven't refuted anything.
-Points out how without New World rubber we wouldn't have cars, planes, telegrams, telephones and even basic electric cables
-Points out how the Industrial Revolution emerged from the mechanisation of the textile industry only made possible by the superior quality of New World cotton
-Points out how it was New World sources of origin like petroleum and whale oil which were the main sources of energy
-Points out how New World guano kept agricultural productivity high
-Points out the use of Asian gutta percha which improved electrical insulation and made global telecommunications possible
-Points out the use of African palm oil, without which machinery couldn't be lubricated and thus keep on going
-Says I haven't refuted anything

No.

Empire have always been at war , yes Britain was lucky to avoid being invaded and this has been put forward as one (and only one among many) that Britain industrialised before other European countries but it hardly illustrates your point that all other Empire 'squandered their resources'.
How doesn't it illustrate it. Are you going to be so dense that devastating wars like the Thirty Years' War, in which Britain barely participated, didn't squander the funds of even states like the Swedish? The same with the War of the Spanish Succession, which basically destroyed Spain's economy and also left France exhausted. Britain certainly was at war, but not to the same extent. It only suffered one successful invasion, and even then because it was basically an invited invasion and which was barely anything comparable in destructiveness to, for instance, the Swedish invasion of Russia which devastated Russia's economy and ironically ended up demolishing Sweden's economic activity as well. If anything, the invited Dutch invasion of England to oust Charles and the subsequent war against Louis XIV left Holland's economy depleted. Britain simply didn't bear the brunt of continental wars thanks to its insularity. That helped it avoid continental wars and, when it participated in them, it avoided having to spend nearly as much in them. In the Seven Years' War, the British were not bogged down by having to defend their borders like the French had to against the Prussians, while also fighting the British in Canada and India. They only had to focus spending on their navy and could disregard spending on their army.


Britain didn't have a 'full-fledged self-sufficient industrial economy' in the 20th century, it still doesn't infact nowhere does and all you have done here is illustre that you don't really understand the topic and you have shown how Britain and industrialisation would have stagnated in the 19th century or would have remained agrarian.
If it doesn't, then that only ends up proving my point, because it needs resources from elsewhere. And where were the British deriving their resources during the 19th century? Obviously their colonies. And yes it does. You don't even try to refute the fact that rubber and gutta percha were needed for further technological improvement. The idea that the British could have just developed that technology is a complete supposition, that even if true doesn't change the fact that Britain only managed to further improve technologically and keep its industrialisation ongoing because of rubber and gutta percha.

Industrialisation and Colonialism came hand in hand-- the reason they could get such a large Empire was because they and the rest of Europe were starting to industrialise. You making the very simplistic conclusion that because it called the Industrial Revolution that it happened overnight while in reality it happened gradually over a great deal of time and continues in my opinion.
Mother of Christ you're like a telephone machine repeating the same things. Read my posts again: I already stated that precisely because industrialisation didn't happen overnight that industrialisation was caused by colonialism. I'm again of the opinion that, if we go by a more ample definition of industrialisation, Western Europe at least started industrialising well in the 16th century with Spain. Fact is, however, that most scholars don't consider Britain an industrial economy in the 17th and early 18th centuries. Wooden galleons are not industrial. Neither are muskets and cannons, the latter being a medieval weapon. I'm also sure you've changed goalpost because have seemingly been saying that it was the Industrial Revolution specifically, not "industrialisation" or "the first stages of industrialisation", that allowed the British to colonise others.

You have done no such, thing Coal and Iron were central to the industrial Revolution pointing out that they had been in use for centuries is simply meaningless and you have not shown that Britain would have not been able to continue to develop without these resources at all. The Spinning Jenny was just one of many machines and you have failed to show that the Agricultural revolution was based on New World crops.
This is what I'm talking about you repeating the same things. I've already said that I've never argued about the Agricultural Revolution being based on New World crops. Not only do you keep repeating this strawman, but you keep doing so after this has been done. What I've been saying is that New World crops allowed Britain's population to break its historical Malthusian ceiling, allowing it to have the population quantity necessary for industrialisation. They didn't even need any revolution in agricultural production for that to happen and I never said they brought any such thing. In South and East Asia, the mere introduction of New World crops made the population skyrocket to the point they're the most populated regions on Earth, without any technological improvement in agricultural production. And yes, coal and iron being used for centuries before is relevant because one has to ask why others didn't come and use them to industrialise if they're central. No one is denying that coal and iron were central resources. The point, however, is that they never on their own would have allowed the breakthrough to industrialise. Britain needed colonial plunder, including new resources unavailable before without colonialism, for that to happen.

No that was the Agricultural Revolution
Again:
1576456659372.png

No it didn't hit Britain because unlike Ireland it was not reliant on the potato but had a much more diverse Agricultural sector.
No one is saying potato was even the main crop. The point is that potato allowed the increase in Britain's population, much like how it and other New World crops combined with Old World crops allowed the massive population jump in South and East Asia. This is stated above by a scholarly source.

Why did you say the Spinning Jenny was the machine that caused the iIndustrial Revolution then post a web page supporting my contention that it was just one machine in a time of many inventions?

Well done undermine your own argument.
Only you can come with such a botched interpretation. It clearly says: "Technology, arguably the greatest aspect of the Industrial Revolution, can be simplified into a few different innovations and inventors, most inspired by one product. The first product to undergo the "revolution" from the cottage industry to the mechanized age was cotton."

So no, it wasn't just "one machine among many", it was the product that "most inspired" the Industrial Revolution. I even highlighted it for you.

Sorry that coal and iron had been used for centuries is irrelevant and of course The Industrial Revolution is an 'organic process' to Britain since it started there it wasn't imposed from outside or spread from trading partners.
Again, coal and iron never on their own would have allowed the breakthrough to industrialise. You are not addressing this fact. And it's not an organic process in the sense that Britain on its own would have never industrialised. It needed to conquer colonies and exploit its resources to do so. Had Britain not obtained a colonial empire, it would be have stayed more or less on the level of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.


However I have never argued (in fact the opposite) that Globalisation (and its symptom Colonialism/Imperialism ) were not vital to Industrialisation, the two were completely interlinked. The reason Briatin could get such a large Empire was not in any innate superiority of British people or culture but rather because they were the first to industrialise and go 'Global'.
I'm confused. Was Britain already industrialised before the Industrial Revolution? Or are you saying "Britain was the first to start the process of industrialisation, even if it didn't kick in until the second half of the 18th century"? Were the British in any of these two stages when they invaded Native Americans and Caribbeans in the 1600s in the last years of Elizabeth and first years of James? Or when they first invaded India? This is the time to ask, was Spain industrialised or undergoing the first stages of industrialisation, or Holland, when they were invading and conquering and colonising non-Europeans? Were the French too when they invaded Canada, the Caribbean and India also in the first half of the 17th century? Are wooden galleons industrialised technology?

Yes resources were used- Globally but that's not what you are arguing.
No, they were also brought to Britain itself for British factories, machines and products. The British energy industry was pretty much based almost entirely on North American resources. They kept industrialisation and technological improvement ongoing (we can add kerosene, first invented in and then extracted from en masse in Canada).

There was a demand it would have been satisfied and that it was eventually mechanised shows that it could be done-- so not vital at all.
No because the technological improvement necessary to mechanise the inferior cotton of the Old World wouldn't have occurred.

Well you are refuting nothing and I am merely pointing out that the reason Britain could get such a large Empire was because they were industrialised
I'm going to repeat my questions above: Was Britain already industrialised before the Industrial Revolution? Or are you saying "Britain was the first to start the process of industrialisation, even if it didn't kick in until the second half of the 18th century"? Were the British in any of these two stages when they invaded Native Americans and Caribbeans in the 1600s in the last years of Elizabeth and first years of James? Or when they first invaded India? This is the time to ask, was Spain industrialised or undergoing the first stages of industrialisation, or Holland, when they were invading and conquering and colonising non-Europeans? Were the French too when they invaded Canada, the Caribbean and India also in the first half of the 17th century? Are wooden galleons industrialised technology?

What people say you are 'wrong' is some how is some how terrible!

This is a history discussion site if you wanted to express your own opinion and idea start a blog.
I'm not saying it's terrible. I'm saying you yourself are not expressing mere opinions and instead are trying to state things as fact.

Sorry you are simply expressing opinions and assuming because you state it a fact it becomes.
I don't think you know what an "opinion" is. If an "opinion" is based on facts, it ceases to be a mere "opinion". If it's a fact, it's not even an opinion. I'm well aware that my thesis is very controversial because capitalists want to protect capitalism as much as possible and do so by differentiating it from colonialism (of course, we have people like Niall Ferguson outright defending and justifying colonialism rather than merely trying to distance it from capitalism), and that as any other thesis it can be wrong, yet you bring very few actual arguments against it. You even strawman what I say. You ignore outright facts said by academics and state that they're "opinions" as if that wasn't enough.

No the Agricultural Revolution did that which was based on many things especially structural, social and technological changes and not started by the introduction of new crops.
So the academic source I cited above which says the opposite is wrong?
 

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
6,090
-Points out how without New World rubber we wouldn't have cars, planes, telegrams, telephones and even basic electric cables
-Points out how the Industrial Revolution emerged from the mechanisation of the textile industry only made possible by the superior quality of New World cotton
-Points out how it was New World sources of origin like petroleum and whale oil which were the main sources of energy
-Points out how New World guano kept agricultural productivity high
-Points out the use of Asian gutta percha which improved electrical insulation and made global telecommunications possible
-Points out the use of African palm oil, without which machinery couldn't be lubricated and thus keep on going
-Says I haven't refuted anything
Rubber – of VERY late relevance to European economic development and industrialization, and short duration since once it was relevant production shifted away from the Americas, of no relevance for getting industrialization started.

Cotton – Old World, India and Egypt, very late arrival in the New World as a cash crop, well after industrialization. Nothing to do with industrialization starting. (India otoh...)

Petroleum – nothing particularly New World about it, not crucial for industrialization in the first place, Indonesia was the major early source, it's just that the US industrialized relatively early and exploited what it had so it looks important – for the US, not for industrialization in general.

Whales have nothing to do with the New World, predated its discovery, largely an Arctic phenomenon (Right Whales, right because they conveniently float when dead) – and whale baleen was the precursor of plastic products so predates petroleum and rubber products anyway.

Industrialization early in ran on whale oil for high grade lubrication, so again nothing to do with the New World – palm oil came later, never mind not being a New World product anyway.

Guano was useful and convenient but again nothing necessary for the Europeans. It's a very 19th c. phenomenon, so again very late development when industrialization was already established fact.

On balance that list is mostly just anachronistic, when it's not mistaken. The listed stuff was all convenient and useful and exploited, but none of it was necessary to begin with. The Europeans were already set up to exploit things globally without them, or already had access (cotton, petroleum, whales, palm oil).
 
Last edited:
Feb 2017
526
Latin America
Rubber – of VERY late relevance to European economic development and industrialization, and short duration since once it was relevant production shifted away from the Americas, of no relevance for getting industrialization started.
1839 when vulcanisation was developed by Charles Goodyear is hardly "very late", especially since by then most of Western Europe was hardly as industrialised as the US and Britain, and no, it wasn't of short duration. Electric cables, flat tires for cars and then planes, continued to be made of natural rubber well into the 1930s, when synthetic rubber finally replaced natural rubber, and that was only developed by studying natural rubber in the first place. Even rail trains were using rubber rolling rings, valves and springs by the second half of the 19th century. Also rechecked my sources. Even the steam engine started relying on rubber for pumps, gaskets and hoses according to Stephen L. Harp. Japan invaded Indonesia in large part because of its massive rubber plantations. Are you seriously going to deny the economic importance of electric technology and transportation now?

Cotton – Old World, India and Egypt, very late arrival in the New World as a cash crop, well after industrialization. Nothing to do with industrialization starting. (India otoh...)
I think you don't understand the topic. The cotton gin, spinning mule, etc., which were the type of machine that drove Britain's first period of the Industrial Revolution started in the 1760s relied on New World cotton because of its fine yet stronger fibbers and threads, being thus mechanisable unlike Old World cotton which broke easily. Without New World cotton, mechanisation and industrial production wouldn't have progressed nearly as much and without the rapidity that it did too.

Petroleum – nothing particularly New World about it, not crucial for industrialization in the first place, Indonesia was the major early source, it's just that the US industrialized relatively early and exploited what it had so it looks important – for the US, not for industrialization in general
Are you seriously going to deny that oil isn't important? I already stated that oil wasn't found solely in the New World, but that the New World oil in Canada and the US was the first to be exploited is a fact. Britain and the US were certainly industrialised by the time they started extracting oil but changing to oil was still a massive advancement forward. Industrialisation wouldn't have progressed nearly as much without oil, much less massive reserves of it. And no, the earliest major sources were the US and Canada, not Indonesia, which wasn't until decades later, and in any case, that only further proves my thesis that colonial plunder is what allowed Britain to industrialise and keep it its industrialisation ongoing.

Whales have nothing to do with the New World, predated its discovery, largely an Arctic phenomenon (Right Whales, right because they conveniently float when dead) – and whale baleen was the precursor of plastic products so predates petroleum and rubber products anyway.
I never said that whales are only from the New World. Obviously Europeans knew whales before Columbus. I'm saying that whale oil, which alongside coal was the earliest source of energy and competed with it since it was used to power a variety of things like lamps, was derived mainly from New World whales. And it was an Arctic phenomenon from the New World, not Europe, unless you're going to tell me the British and the US got their whales fat from Norway and Russia. And yes it predates rubber and petroleum. How is that relevant to my argument when I'm pointing out that it is what allowed the industrialisation of Britain? Indeed, being earlier further helps my point because it's further proof that even the earliest stage of the Industrial Revolution depended on colonial plunder. You're not understanding what is being discussed.

Industrialization early in ran on whale oil for high grade lubrication, so again nothing to do with the New World – palm oil came later, never mind not being a New World product anyway.
And I say so there that palm oil is African, don't I? The point is that colonialism as a whole is what allowed Britain's and even the West's industrialisation. I'm not only saying it's resources from the New World, but from all around British colonies. Gutta percha isn't American, for example, it's Asian, and I keep mentioning it.

Guano was useful and convenient but again nothing necessary for the Europeans. It's a very 19th c. phenomenon, so again very late development when industrialization was already established fact.
And the Industrial Revolution is also "a very 19th century" phenomenon. Only about four decades of its earliest stage happened in the 18th. The steamboat and locomotive, two of the most emblematic symbols of the Industrial Revolution, weren't developed until the 19th century. And how wasn't it necessary when it kept Britain's (and the US's) population growing and ongoing?


On balance that list is mostly just anachronistic, when it's not mistaken. The listed stuff was all convenient and useful and exploited, but none of it was necessary to begin with. The Europeans were already set up to exploit things globally without them, or already had access (cotton, petroleum, whales, palm oil).
Again, New World cotton is the not the same as Old World cotton. It is a finer and stronger material more apt for mechanisation than the far softer and weaker material of the Old World. When was African palm oil used in Europe before the colonial era starting in the late 15th century? And no, there's nothing anachronistic. Never mind that the Industrial Revolution wasn't even complete even in Britain until about the turn of the 20th century, that it is largely a 19th century phenomenon, and that some of the resources I mentioned were still used rather early in the industrialisation process. You don't back up your assertion that none of it was necessary either. Are you seriously going to say that oil didn't end up necessary when even today there's a massive dependence on oil and there's vicious opposition to replace it as a source of energy? New World cotton was essential in the very first stage of the Industrial Revolution. It's the cotton gin and spinning jenny that kickstarted it to begin with. The more impressive and most important inventions of the Industrial Revolution mostly come about until the second half of the 19th century thanks to the development of vulcanised rubber. Even earlier inventions, especially the steam engine, ended up relying on rubber components.
 
Last edited: