# As a US citizen I would vote "anti-colonial" over a colonialist any day **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 9, 2012, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/as-a-us-citizen-i-would-vote-anti-colonial-over-a-colonialist-any-day/634155 "2012-09-09T02:03:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2012, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/as-a-us-citizen-i-would-vote-anti-colonial-over-a-colonialist-any-day/634155/21 "2012-09-09T14:15:53Z")
> [@moonshot925](#): > > The western nations got rich because of the industrial revolution. Not because of imperialism or colonialism. > > It was not colonialism and conquest that made possible the rise of the West, but the reverse, it was the rise of the West (in terms of technology) that made possible the full extension of European power across the globe. > > From 1750 to 1860 a huge industrial leap was made in the Britain, and by 1860 Britain produced over half of the world’s pig-iron, coal, copper, tin and lead. Most of Britain’s output was consumed domestically but in terms of foreign trade, 70-75% of it was done with independent countries. Trade with the empire only represented a very small percentage of the British economy. Not likely, there was a lot of British economical development generated by the empire. > **[BBC - History - British History in depth: Symbiosis: Trade and the...](https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/trade_empire_01.shtml)** > > Professor Kenneth Morgan investigates the motivations that lay behind British Imperialism. > [@](#): > > The impact of imperial trade > > Although there is no space in this article to cite detailed data, a more positive assessment of the impact of trade and colonies on British development can, however, be made. > > Revenue from slavery and the slave trade filtered back into the British economy in indirect ways, with bankers, insurance specialists and country gentlemen all participating as active investors. Some historians think that the profits of slavery and the slave trade, as a proportion of national income, were impressive. > > British manufacturing production, it has been argued, received the additional stimulus of a large overseas trading bowl, that induced producers to increase productivity and introduce new technologies to meet this additional demand. > > Modern studies have shown that the net drain to the British economy from protecting the British Caribbean colonies, or from participating in the East India trade, have been exaggerated. There can be little doubt that trade and empire gave a significant boost to the proliferation and sophistication of financial services, and that this was of considerable benefit to the long-term development of the British economy. > > **No historian would argue that trade and empire had a minimal impact on emerging British industrialisation; the question is, rather, exactly how important was that impact?** > > The current consensus is that trade and empire were significant for British economic growth in the Hanoverian period, even if they were not decisively important. British hegemony in empire and trade by 1815 was such that Britannia did rule the waves; but this would not have been achieved without the strong support provided by the ‘military-fiscal’ state and the Royal Navy. > > The expansion of British imperial endeavours was accompanied by many years of warfare: over half of the 18th century saw the British at war, principally against France. > > The ability of the British government to raise taxes and loans to support aggressive military policies by Hanoverian governments, and the superiority of the Royal Navy over other European navies, both played a large part in creating the conditions through which trade and empire could flourish. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2012, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/as-a-us-citizen-i-would-vote-anti-colonial-over-a-colonialist-any-day/634155/22 "2012-09-09T14:36:10Z")
I went to college with Dinesh and he was a egotistical windbag back then as well. He takes policy positions based on how much it will ingratiate himself to the hard right, regardless of the logic or implications. He’s reasonably intelligent, so it’s more the shame that he has no interest in making a coherent, supported case. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2012, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/as-a-us-citizen-i-would-vote-anti-colonial-over-a-colonialist-any-day/634155/23 "2012-09-09T14:44:55Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > I don’t particularly care to read it, but this actually makes absolutely good sense, because wealth is not something which can be taken. It can be destroyed, shared, or even voluntarily moved - but it cannot be stolen. Wealth is not “stuff”. Stuff is in fact a trivial portion of wealth, and to the expect “stuff” left colonial countries, it tended to benefit them economically becaus they were paid pretty well for it - much better than they would have gotten otherwise. As I said, I don’t think the anti-colonialists have made their case. But D’Souza’s objection is inexplicable. He’s questioning their theory by throwing evidence that supports it in their face. It would be like somebody claiming that Tom Brady is the greatest quarterback in the NFL. And D’Souza said, _“Oh yeah? Well, if Brady is so great, explain why he won his division nine times.”_ ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2012, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/as-a-us-citizen-i-would-vote-anti-colonial-over-a-colonialist-any-day/634155/24 "2012-09-09T14:48:17Z")
> [@moonshot925](#): > > The western nations got rich because of the industrial revolution. Not because of imperialism or colonialism. The West was already the wealthiest part of the world by the time the industrial revolution got started. Granted, the industrial revolution kicked their wealth advantage to an even higher level. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2012, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/as-a-us-citizen-i-would-vote-anti-colonial-over-a-colonialist-any-day/634155/25 "2012-09-09T15:14:51Z")
> [@Linden\_Arden](#): > > This total douchebag Dinesh D’Souza argues that US attempts to colonize others is somehow beneficial to us? That Obama is somehow less American for opposing colonialism? (If it is even true) > > How was Iraq beneficial to the US? > > This is an argument I want to have if any conservative wants to defend D’Souza. Why should anyone try and defend your strawman argument? ---
**Author:** ![moonshot925](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f0a364/32.png) [@moonshot925](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/moonshot925)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2012, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/as-a-us-citizen-i-would-vote-anti-colonial-over-a-colonialist-any-day/634155/26 "2012-09-09T15:24:13Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > The West was already the wealthiest part of the world by the time the industrial revolution got started. Granted, the industrial revolution kicked their wealth advantage to an even higher level. Correct. The gap between the West and the rest widened greatly after the industrial revolution. For example, in 1700 the average Briton was about twice as rich as the average Chinese. By 1913 the average Briton was 9 times as rich as the average Chinese. > **[List of regions by past GDP (PPP) per capita](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita)** > > These are lists of regions and countries by their estimated real gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in terms of purchasing power parity (PPP), the value of all final goods and services produced within a country/region in a given year divided by population size. GDP per capita dollar (international dollar) estimates here are derived from PPP estimates. > In the absence of sufficient data for nearly all economies until well into the 19th century, past GDP per capita often cannot be calculated... ---
**Author:** ![moonshot925](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f0a364/32.png) [@moonshot925](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/moonshot925)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2012, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/as-a-us-citizen-i-would-vote-anti-colonial-over-a-colonialist-any-day/634155/27 "2012-09-09T17:08:48Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Not likely, there was a lot of British economical development generated by the empire. By the 1840s and 1850s a formal empire was unnecessary. The costs of maintaining and defending the empire exceeded any economic benefits. Most British trade and investment was done with independent countries. Given stable political conditions in particular overseas markets, Britain could prosper through free trade alone without having to resort to formal rule. [https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/ipe/gallagher.htm](https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/ipe/gallagher.htm) ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2012, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/as-a-us-citizen-i-would-vote-anti-colonial-over-a-colonialist-any-day/634155/28 "2012-09-09T17:13:21Z")
> [@moonshot925](#): > > By the 1840s and 1850s a formal empire was unnecessary. The costs of maintaining and defending the empire exceeded any economic benefits. Most British trade and investment was done with independent countries. Given stable political conditions in particular overseas markets, Britain could prosper through free trade alone without having to resort to formal rule. > > [https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/ipe/gallagher.htm](https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/ipe/gallagher.htm) Timelines can get you anything as long as you ignore the big picture. A lot of what you report was made possible thanks to the development of the empire before that. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2012, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/as-a-us-citizen-i-would-vote-anti-colonial-over-a-colonialist-any-day/634155/29 "2012-09-09T21:48:41Z")
> [@moonshot925](#): > > For example, in 1700 the average Briton was about twice as rich as the average Chinese. By 1913 the average Briton was 9 times as rich as the average Chinese. 1700 was actually pretty late in the colonial period. The East India Company, for example, celebrated its 100th anniversary in that year. And England was a late-comer in European colonialism. Spain, Portugal, and France all had overseas colonies before England. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2012, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/as-a-us-citizen-i-would-vote-anti-colonial-over-a-colonialist-any-day/634155/30 "2012-09-09T23:57:24Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > **smiling bandit** : (Fun name for a participant in a thread about the seizure of wealth!) The way I’d heard it – and this may be junk history – is that the flow of Aztec and Incan gold to Spain was responsible for Spain’s very sudden rise to European prominence and wealth. When the flow was reduced, Spain fell back into mediocrity. it’s a popular notion, but not one supported by facts,. Spain was arguably already the world’s greatest military power in 1492 . It had a powerful navy, but an even more powerful army. Aragon alone had defeated France and taken over half of Italy, and united with Leon-Castille into Spain, was effectively the greatest power in Europe. However, Spain had a significant problem in the economic realm. Spain never had a huge agricultural base - a lot of what are traditional Spanish foods are so bcaue they would grow in the touch, rocky soils of Spain. This hidnered economic growth and it was never exactly an industrial powerhouse. It had some major trade ports, but its position looks more useful than it actually is. It doesn’t have a superabundance of navigable rivers, either. End story is that Spain was riding high and managed to build that position into considerable power. > [@](#): > > Gold may not be “wealth” per se, but since it was the major measure of wealth, a nation that stole a large amount of it could fund a wealthy life-style. Yes and no. Spain bought a lot… and then what? Gold \*destroyed \*their economy. There was no such floating around that many professions became unprofitable. Inflation ravaged the country, hindering its devlopment until it was probably the most backward European country. And at the end of the day, them people who benefited weren’t “The Spanish”, but a small section of spanish elite. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2012, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/as-a-us-citizen-i-would-vote-anti-colonial-over-a-colonialist-any-day/634155/31 "2012-09-10T02:45:18Z")
> [@Dinesh D'Souza](#): > > So how did the West gain so rapidly in economic, political, and military power that, by the 19th century, it was able to conquer virtually all of the other civilizations? That question demands to be answered, and the oppression theorists have never provided an adequate explanation. No, it doesn’t. The answer to that question is very well-known, and not in the least controversial. The answer is science and technology. [Which D’Souza just doesn’t seem to get.](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dinesh_D%27Souza) > [@](#): > > **Notable quote** > “Science hasn’t given us anything and it shows no promise of giving us anything in the future,” he said while speaking into a microphone, wearing glasses and standing in front of a large LED screen.[20] ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2012, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/as-a-us-citizen-i-would-vote-anti-colonial-over-a-colonialist-any-day/634155/32 "2012-09-10T04:42:52Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > Yes and no. Spain bought a lot… and then what? Gold \*destroyed \*their economy. There was no such floating around that many professions became unprofitable. Inflation ravaged the country, hindering its devlopment until it was probably the most backward European country. > > And at the end of the day, them people who benefited weren’t “The Spanish”, but a small section of spanish elite. Yes, surprisingly, it was the rest of Europe that really benefited from the flow of American gold and silver into Spain. (Although the transportation of gold and silver across the oceans to Spain makes D’Souza look kind of clueless for denouncing the idea that there was an element of “conquering other countries and taking their stuff” - that’s literally what Spain did.) But Spain got the gold and silver cheaply - all they had to do was make the Indians hand it over. The rest of Europe had to earn that gold and silver. They had to sell things to Spain like crops and livestock and manufactured goods and luxury items. Which meant they had to develop their economies to produce this stuff while all Spain had to do was spend money. The long term result was that the other countries ended up with the gold and silver which Spain used to buy things from them - and they ended up with stronger economies than Spain had. So those other countries in Europe ended up becoming richer than Spain. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2012, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/as-a-us-citizen-i-would-vote-anti-colonial-over-a-colonialist-any-day/634155/33 "2012-09-10T05:50:22Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Yes, surprisingly, it was the rest of Europe that really benefited from the flow of American gold and silver into Spain. (Although the transportation of gold and silver across the oceans to Spain makes D’Souza look kind of clueless for denouncing the idea that there was an element of “conquering other countries and taking their stuff” - that’s literally what Spain did.) But Spain got the gold and silver cheaply - all they had to do was make the Indians hand it over. The rest of Europe had to earn that gold and silver. They had to sell things to Spain like crops and livestock and manufactured goods and luxury items. Which meant they had to develop their economies to produce this stuff while all Spain had to do was spend money. > > The long term result was that the other countries ended up with the gold and silver which Spain used to buy things from them - and they ended up with stronger economies than Spain had. So those other countries in Europe ended up becoming richer than Spain. Also, because they got something far more precious than gold: Potatoes. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2012, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/as-a-us-citizen-i-would-vote-anti-colonial-over-a-colonialist-any-day/634155/34 "2012-09-10T14:22:56Z")
[quote=“smiling\_bandit, post:15, topic:634155”] > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > The anti-colonialists claim that the West conquered other countries and imported their wealth back to Europe. I’m not saying they’ve proven their case but they do present a case. > > [snip] > > > [@](#): > > > > But D’Souza apparently doesn’t understand the argument. _“If the West took all the wealth from the rest of the world, then how did the West get richer while the rest of the world got poorer? Huh? Explain that.”_ > > > > I don’t particularly care to read it, but this actually makes absolutely good sense, because wealth is not something which can be taken. It can be destroyed, shared, or even voluntarily moved - but it cannot be stolen. Wealth is not “stuff”. Stuff is in fact a trivial portion of wealth, and to the expect “stuff” left colonial countries, it tended to benefit them economically becaus they were paid pretty well for it - much better than they would have gotten otherwise. That’s how the colonialists got the locals to > > > > The original mercantilists who advocated colonialism, as well as the anti-colonialists who about three centuries late argued against them (when colonialism was essentially going away anyway :rolleyes: ), both thought of wealth as something tangible. Wealth was the gold and spices. They didn’t get that wealth was the productive value of the whole country. They kept believeing they were putting one over on the natives and colonists everywhere… when generally that’s what kept . Likewise, the idiots were cutting their own throats by not encouraging local industries, but that’s whole 'nother issue. > > > > In short, if wealth were something which was taken and removed as the anti-colonialists thought, then when the colonies were abandoned, two thigns would have happened: the locals would suddenly find themselves far richer, andf the Europeans much poorer. Neither happened. I guess I don’t understand [**smiling bandit’s**] assertion at all. What is “wealth” if it is not a) stuff that can be taken, and b) the organized structure of society that produces that stuff (education, industry, live workers, etc.), _which is always damaged and often entirely destroyed by the process of “taking.”_ Particularly your assertion that “when the colonies were abandoned, the locals would find themselves far richer,” makes no sense: after their wealth-producing society had been destroyed, most of their labor force killed, their capital expropriated and their non-renewable natural resources stripped, they’d find themselves far richer? In what sense, moral capital? ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2012, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/as-a-us-citizen-i-would-vote-anti-colonial-over-a-colonialist-any-day/634155/35 "2012-09-10T15:52:34Z")
> [@moonshot925](#): > > For example, in 1700 the average Briton was about twice as rich as the average Chinese. . The above is a slightly misleading statistic however. Even going by Maddison’s numbers ( and there other studies that put China roughly even with France and Britain in terms of per capita wealth throughout the 18th century, which a rather a tough figure to calculate ) China’s per capita GDP was still the same as Russia’s in 1700 and the total Chinese GDP exceeded that of all of Europe combined as late as 1820 ( when the balance of trade began to reverse sharply due to the mass importation of opium among other factors ). Which of course just throws the disparity in later decades into even sharper relief. Until the early 19th century China was in some respects a more powerful economic engine than all of Europe. It’s decline thereafter is dizzying. As Angus Maddison and other like-minded scholars have noted, China’s current climb back into economic relevance is just returning it to the stage it dominated for most of world history anyway. * * * Just by the by and as a extra-bonus tidbit of annoying pedantry, it was _silver_ that was the primary source of Spanish mineral wealth in the New World. Both in the first boom ( Taxco in Zacatecas and Potosi in Peru in the 16th century ) and the second ( Zacatecas again in the 18th century ). Gold was far more important for Portugal that went through a Brazilian gold boom that made John V of Portugal ( r. 1706-1750 ) Europe’s wealthiest monarch in terms of liquid cash. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2012, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/as-a-us-citizen-i-would-vote-anti-colonial-over-a-colonialist-any-day/634155/36 "2012-09-10T19:13:59Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > D’Souza makes an amazingly poor argument in his essay:Does D’Souza not understand the position he’s arguing against? The anti-colonialists claim that the West conquered other countries and imported their wealth back to Europe. I’m not saying they’ve proven their case but they do present a case. > > But D’Souza apparently doesn’t understand the argument. _“If the West took all the wealth from the rest of the world, then how did the West get richer while the rest of the world got poorer? Huh? Explain that.”_ > > The anti-colonialists are scratching their heads and saying, _“What you just said did explain it.”_ You miss his point completely. If in 100 years Mexico has conquered the US and taken all our oil and someone asks how Mexico got stronger than the US the answer will not be by conquering us and taking our oil. In the middle ages Europe was almost conquered by Muslims. European attempts to invade lands Muslims had conquered all ultimately failed. China was the most advanced, richest country in the world for most of the last thousand years. Then suddenly something happened that made Europe the most advanced civilization on Earth and they were able to conquer or colonize most of the rest of the world. What D’Souza is calling anti-colonialism is not the idea that it is bad to have colonies, which is universally acknowledged and is why no one has colonies anymore, but a variation of Marxist thought popular in poor countries. This held that poor countries were the proletariat of the world and the only reason they were poor was because they were being rich countries were exploiting them. Apparently, D’Souza makes much of the communist beliefs of Barak Obama Sr., who was one of a generation of educated third worlders who believed that once poor nations got rid of their colonizers they would become rich. However, this was totally wrong and once nations got rid of their colonizers they mostly became poorer. This was because the actual way to become rich in a modern society is not to monopolize resources the way it had been in the 16th century but to build wealth producing institutions and knowledge. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2012, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/as-a-us-citizen-i-would-vote-anti-colonial-over-a-colonialist-any-day/634155/37 "2012-09-10T19:19:33Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > I went to college with Dinesh and he was a egotistical windbag back then as well. He takes policy positions based on how much it will ingratiate himself to the hard right, regardless of the logic or implications. He’s reasonably intelligent, so it’s more the shame that he has no interest in making a coherent, supported case. I’m interested to hear about this, because whenever I hear D’Souza speaking, I get the impression that I’m getting a Grima Wormtongue treatment, because he keeps linking one assertion to another to lead you to a conclusion, but if you examine each individual link in the chain, it all turns out to be ephemeral. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2012, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/as-a-us-citizen-i-would-vote-anti-colonial-over-a-colonialist-any-day/634155/38 "2012-09-10T19:31:41Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > You miss his point completely. If in 100 years Mexico has conquered the US and taken all our oil and someone asks how Mexico got stronger than the US the answer will not be by conquering us and taking our oil. > In the middle ages Europe was almost conquered by Muslims. European attempts to invade lands Muslims had conquered all ultimately failed. China was the most advanced, richest country in the world for most of the last thousand years. Then suddenly something happened that made Europe the most advanced civilization on Earth and they were able to conquer or colonize most of the rest of the world. > What D’Souza is calling anti-colonialism is not the idea that it is bad to have colonies, which is universally acknowledged and is why no one has colonies anymore, but a variation of Marxist thought popular in poor countries. This held that poor countries were the proletariat of the world and the only reason they were poor was because they were being rich countries were exploiting them. Apparently, D’Souza makes much of the communist beliefs of Barak Obama Sr., who was one of a generation of educated third worlders who believed that once poor nations got rid of their colonizers they would become rich. However, this was totally wrong and once nations got rid of their colonizers they mostly became poorer. This was because the actual way to become rich in a modern society is not to monopolize resources the way it had been in the 16th century but to build wealth producing institutions and knowledge. My point is that it’s not sufficient for D’Souza to just declare an idea is wrong. He’s got to provide some evidence to support his declaration. The anti-colonialist argument is that European powers grew rich by transporting wealth from their colonies back to their homeland. Two historical patterns have been presented: That European countries grew richer in comparison to non-European powers during the same period when those European had colonies. And former colonies were generally poor after Europe withdrew its control over them. Looking at these two patterns, there’s nothing in them to contradict the anti-colonialist argument. In fact, they seem to support it. If the anti-colonialist argument was correct, these would be the patterns you’d expect to see. This evidence doesn’t prove the anti-colonialist argument - it could just be an unrelated coincidence - but it certainly doesn’t disprove the argument. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2012, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/as-a-us-citizen-i-would-vote-anti-colonial-over-a-colonialist-any-day/634155/39 "2012-09-10T20:25:21Z")
However, they must have been richer than the colonies to begin with or how would they have been able to colonize a richer country? Furthermore, since decolonization the colonies have not gotten richer and Europe has not gotten poorer. Also the European countries with the biggest colonial holdings are not richer than the ones with smaller colonial holdings. The anti-colonialist argument only make sense if you do not think about it too long. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2012, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/as-a-us-citizen-i-would-vote-anti-colonial-over-a-colonialist-any-day/634155/40 "2012-09-10T20:32:33Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > However, they must have been richer than the colonies to begin with or how would they have been able to colonize a richer country? Furthermore, since decolonization the colonies have not gotten richer and Europe has not gotten poorer. Also the European countries with the biggest colonial holdings are not richer than the ones with smaller colonial holdings. Why should any of these statements be true? What does “rich” mean? What does “bigger” mean? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/as-a-us-citizen-i-would-vote-anti-colonial-over-a-colonialist-any-day/634155.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/as-a-us-citizen-i-would-vote-anti-colonial-over-a-colonialist-any-day/634155.md?page=3)