Under the legal theory of “terra nullius” - i.e. “We took this land because there were no people here - those natives don’t count as people.”
Was the empire they took it from any better? The Aztecs, for example, weren’t squeamish about conquering, enslaving, and murdering members of other tribes and city-states, many of which had themselves grown rich by conquering, enslaving, and murdering members of other tribes and city-states … it may be turtles all the way down. Who really owned the silver and gold? (The Spanish exported the minerals across the ocean, but the Aztecs didn’t necessarily “use them locally” either; the Aztecs’ reach was less, but they were still exporting the gold from places such as Oaxaca to the Valley of Mexico.)
Well, not on purpose.
Pretty much every square inch of populated land has been stolen over & over and over.
Note that the Aztecs were a slaver empire, based about stealing land, people and gold from their neighbors. So were the Incans. Both also committing massive acts of human sacrifice, often with children .
slash2k,
Cortes describes Tenochititlan as a beautiful orderly city, full of art and commerce. They did engage in the same militarism as Europeans and they liked their human sacrifice by cutting out hearts, while the Spanish preferred burning at the stake. I don’t see Spain as politically superior. Spain walked away with all the gold, silver and squandered it in less than a hundred years.
Were the Aztecs politically (or morally) superior to the Spaniards, however, or otherwise “deserved” to have gold and silver and gems taken from other groups?
As to “squandering” gold, what did it do to/for the Aztec economy when they sacrificed a wolf cub, adorned the body with pendants and pectoral armor, and then buried it all?
This, all of this.
The Spanish didn’t just conquer the Aztecs. They conquered all those other peoples too. So that doesn’t make them any better.
As others have pointed out - only the governing body because they say so…
Read about the metropole vs hinterland, and then come back if you still have this question as to why it’s worse.
Personally, I’ve never come across any justification for imperialism that wasn’t grounded in some racist theory like environmental determinism, Orientalism, Manifest Destiny, mission civilisatrice, The White Man’s Burden, etc. Even Rome used this line of thinking. Maybe some of the Classical empires didn’t - Persia, Egypt - but if they did, it wouldn’t surprise me.
Well, I think the answer is “depends” on a number of factors:
What is the geographic nature of the region? A contiguous province of the main empire? Some far-flung distant colony?
For the specific region in question, how much say did they have in being annexed into the Empire? Ranging from a political union entered into willingly to a conquered and occupied state.
What is the relationship with the indigenous inhabitants? Were they displaced or wiped out? Are they considered second class citizens? Full citizens of the Empire with all the rights and privileges that entails?
How much representation does that region have in overall governance? Are they autonomous? A vassal state, dictated to by some central authority?
How much financial benefit do they receive from the Empire, relative to their economic contribution?
To a great extent, the empires of Alexander the Great, Rome, Britain, China and others did provide benefits such as roads and other infrastructure, trade, and political stability. Although it was usually under the terms of the empire.
and that was the attitude of the old world to the new in a nutshell espically the British towards africa and india
…and serves primarily to better remove goods from the periphery to the core. So not just the terms, but to the benefit of…
If aliens came along yesterday and cured all disease and world hunger, but their only reason for doing so was that they didn’t want to eat diseased or underweight meat, would you say “well, at least they cured disease and hunger” as the alien chefs seasoned and basted you? No, you would not.
The “benefits” of Empire serve the core. Always.
Well, someone had to mine the gold and get paid for it. Someone got paid to either capture the wolf or raise it.
I’m confused; Ryan_Liam, are you arguing that if a conquering group improves the lives of the conquered, then the seizure of power and property is not theft?
What the actual fuck?
You’re asking how it’s theft for a country to conquer an area and then take all their natural resources for the benefit of the home populace? You’re arguing it isn’t theft because the invading country has the right to the resources because they’re the government in the area (because they killed those that resisted)?
No, actually, a lot of that kind of work in the Aztec empire was done by slaves, same as in the empire that followed. I guess their “payment” was being allowed to live another day.
But that’s a different question than the OP. If I hold up a mob boss’s poker game at gunpoint, I may be taking ill gotten gains, but I’m still stealing.
It isn’t as if after the Spaniards overthrew they Aztecs, they liberated the people the Aztecs had conquered.
Not any* better*, no. But no worse, either.
If you steal from a thief are you a thief?
Yes. The big clue there is the word “steal”.
Here are some numbers to put the theft in context :
- “ In 1600, when the East India Company was established, Britain was producing just 1.8% of the world’s GDP, while India was generating some 23% (27% by 1700). By 1940, after nearly two centuries of the Raj, Britain accounted for nearly 10% of world GDP, while India had been reduced to a poor “third-world” country, destitute and starving, a global poster child of poverty and famine.”
- “ How much money did Britain take away from India? About $45 trillion in 173 years, says top economist”
And that’s just the British. Let’s not forget the French, the Dutch, the Portuguese, the Spanish … pillaging
That’s more to do with the Industrial revolution than anything else.
No, I’m saying how if the empire, which is the government and has responsibility of the territory, stealing resources when a hypothetical ruling class native to that area would have done exactly the same thing, or the hypothetical ruling class would not have discovered the resources or lacked the capital or know how to exploit them themselves in the first place.