Colonialism Benefited the Colonized

Dennis Mangan, Mangan's, July 14, 2014

Did colonialism benefit the colonized? It did, so argues a paper by two economists, Feyrer and Sacerdote, Colonialism and Modern Income–Islands as Natural Experiments. (Full paper pdf.) They found that each additional century of colonial status resulted in a 40% greater GDP.

Colonialism used to be one of Cultural Marxism’s centerpieces–maybe it still is, for all I know. But it seems to have waned somewhat as a talking point, since it’s become abundantly clear that Third World nations are capable of massively screwing things up on their own. The former Rhodesia and Nyasaland, and later Rhodesia itself, was a model of integrity and peace compared to what Zimbabwe has descended to. Hard to see how that could be blamed on colonialism when it’s the very absence of colonialism that characterizes the difference between Rhodesia then and Zimbabwe now.

The paper’s authors also found that “there is a discernable pecking order amongst the colonizers. Years under US and Dutch colonial rule are significantly better than years under the Spanish and Portuguese.” Knock me over with a feather: being colonized by an economically more advanced European nation, or the U.S., gives better results than colonization by nations whose best days were hundreds of years ago. In a way, it seems not surprising that exposure to technology, education, and institutions from economically and technically more advanced nations from Europe would increase prosperity in countries less advanced. Colonialism may be looked on in this light as the international equivalent of education.

Topics:

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • MekongDelta69

    This is either AmRen‘s ‘feel-good’ article of the week (or fortnight) – or this article is meant to evoke one of those things 13 y/o girls say: “Duuuuuhhh”

    Or both!…

  • Einsatzgrenadier

    When white people invade and colonize third world countries, they raise the standard of living and the natives become more prosperous, healthier and live longer lives. When third world people invade and colonize first world countries, they lower the standard of living and indigenous whites become less prosperous, less healthier and live shorter lives.

    Wherever whites go, they create paradise on earth. Wherever third world colonizers go, they create hell on earth.

    • The Final Solution

      Whites = eternal progress. Non-whites = eternal entropy.

      “I have always observed that wherever you find the negro, everything is going down around him, and wherever you find a white man, you see everything around him improving.” General Robert E. Lee

    • Bossman

      This is a much too broad and simplistic view of reality. Europe before 1492 was a continent where war and the plague and religious superstitions were an everyday occurrence.

      • journey

        So you think the Renaissance/Enlightenment Period just suddenly appeared out of the blue?

      • TruthBeTold

        I agree with journey.

        While it’s true that was war and superstition as you say but there was also technological advances in warfare, architecture, and science (the superstition of alchemy).

        The Renaissance didn’t just happen instantaneously. It happened because after the wars and fighting diminished, there was a great deal of knowledge that was accumulated. Think of it as a battery slowly charging.

        When the time was right and everyone was free to share their knowledge, the Renaissance happened.

        This never happened in Africa.

        As I like to say, the White man and the Asians have done all the hard work, the manual of civilization has been written. It’s free for anyone to emulate IF you have the IQ to know how to apply things.

      • M.Magog

        “Everyday occurrence”. Nope. There were periods of peace and prosperity and periods of war.

      • Alexandra1973

        That’s also a period of time where the Roman Catholic “church” had a stranglehold on everyone. So religion plays a part.

    • propagandaoftruth

      Ha ha ha! Look at what happened to black Africa when evil Whitey bugged out.

      I wonder how much they will hate China one day?

      Help them poor darkies out, China.

    • Anna Tree

      I wonder if the issue discussed in the article may be a “Correlation doesn’t imply causation” fallacy:

      Maybe it is not the length of the colonialism that increase the GDP but miscegenation: longer the colonialism more miscegenation happens, increasing the IQ of the non-whites and so increasing the GDP of their country.

  • JackKrak

    Being colonized by Great Britain was the best thing that every happened to the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Nigeria, India, Pakistan (I know it came later) and too many other places to mention.

    Fact.

    • APaige

      Hong Kong. Which I believe was a ‘colony’ more recent than any African nation.

      • Bossman

        It was a trading post that became some sort of colony. Very few Englishmen bothered to settle there.

        • antiquesunlight

          Its institutions were largely developed by the British, which is the main point here.

    • adplatt126

      LOL. Definitely not fact for some of these countries. The founding fathers seemed to disagree with your assessment. As for a more recent impact, one could argue that our historical connections with Britain, along with the British government’s often criminally deceiving ploys to bring us into inane wars, dragged us into WW1 and WW2 on their side, thereby leading to the mass anti-German, anti-Nazi and its related anti-racist wartime propaganda campaign that has not seemed to end here in the Anglo-sphere, leading to the white West’s current demographic predicament.

  • dd121

    I’ve read some of Obama’s communist father’s anti-west writings. He seemed to especially hate the people who colonized Africa. The son has absorbed a lot of those prejudices. It can be argued that colonization in Africa and other places brought many benefits to the natives. Africans just don’t absorb civilization as easily as some.

    • journey

      little barry makes use of whatever benefits him.

    • guest

      Well, just to be precise: Barry Boy did not absorb anything from his putative biological father, who was not part of the upbringing scene. When 18 year old pot head Barry went on a curious, extensive and expensive world roam upon his high school graduation, he visited his breezy , psychopathic African father, who just ceremoniously spent enough time with him to “U turn” him back to Hawaii. He seems to have “absorbed” his “awareness” of race, colonialism, etc. from his schizoid mother who had no authentic experience with any of it. A matrix for Leadership?

  • JohnEngelman

    Europe benefits from the fact that two thousand years ago the Roman Army imposed civilization on barbarian tribes.

    • david dorian

      It is forgotten that the Romans colonized AFrica too— to no effect.

      • Bossman

        They colonized North Africa and then the Arabs under the banner of Islam conquered the region.

        • rightrightright

          North Africa under Roman rule was the breadbasket of Rome. The area was Europeanised, advanced and sophisticated with thriving towns. The Arabs who turned up in the train of the jihadis could not work the land they took and the Christian farmers were helpless in the face of this nomadic takeover. The Arabs were herders whose animals (goats) cropped so close that the topsoil blew away as too little green growth remained in the ground to hold it. North Africa has never recovered.

          Today, the Arab world has to import 80% of its food. If the will were only there, we have these fossilised people literally by the throat.

    • Bossman

      Civilization by brute force. The “civilized” nations themselves had to go through a learning curve. Civilization is still a work in progress.

    • M.Magog

      Many of the inventions and technologies that are thought to be “Roman” are actually Celtic. They were not that primitive, they just were not “Roman”.

      • Mike Lane

        Also, I would say this is a case where environment did have a greater degree of influence. The Germanic/Norse people occupied a region that is incredibly cold, icy, and mountainous. Such environment prevents people from easily farming and having leisure time. On top of that they were incredibly isolated from any trade routes.

    • Garrett Brown

      Celts were not “barbarian”.

      • JohnEngelman

        The Celts had no cities. They had no system of writing or mathematics. At the end of every spring planting they made a human sacrifice to assure a goof harvest.

        • Garrett Brown

          The Celts had cities. Brits had Morudonon, Cameldonon, Abrogies. Gauls had Alesia and Lugdunum. Their written language has been found in almost 800 inscriptions including paper, graffiti on stone/walls, coins, stone texts, and monuments of wood and stone.

          I’m not sure what a goof harvest is, but if you want to educate yourself on who the Celts really were you can Google “The Ancient Celts”.

          • JohnEngelman

            The Celts had towns with brick buildings. So did the Bantu before European colonization.

          • Garrett Brown

            No brick, chiseled stone. You have no idea what you’re typing about (as usual).

          • JohnEngelman

            If what you say is true, that is a small difference.

            The Celts, before the Romans conquered them, were at about the level of the Bantu before European colonialism.

            Whether their IQ’s were that low cannot be verified. I think their IQ’s were slightly higher because it takes more intelligence to survive in areas that are frigid in the winter. Nevertheless, the Celts had not yet benefited from the evolutionary pressure civilization exerts toward higher intelligence.

          • Garrett Brown

            No, stone is an extremely large difference from brick. Especially making the iron tools needed to carve it. You’re again giving your input on a subject you know nothing about. You’ve obviously done nothing close to masonry.

            “The Celts, before the Romans conquered them, were at about the level of the Bantu before European colonialism.”

            Everything I have typed with reference proves this 100% false. What also makes it incredibly wrong and massively foolish is lumping all celts together. Baltic celts were very different than celtribreans, Gauls very different from Britons and so on. Read on the subject, learn.

        • adplatt126

          A careful reading of Tacitus’s Germania will thoroughly disabuse you of the notion that the Germans for example, were unsophisticated, uncivil and incapable of civilization. Tacitus was very much of the contrary opinion, that despite their lack of resources and isolation, their behavior internally towards one another, was quite superior and indicated a very high level of moral conduct and an intricate and effective underlying moral framework. Christianity is crap. Crap, crap, crap. I’m not sure it’s ever done a solitary positive thing. If the practices of Northern Europe were permitted to continue and their moral development was allowed to progress naturally by internal debate and cultural borrowing, I think it possible, indeed probable, that the people of such regions would be better off now, without Christianity ever having been imposed upon them.

    • antiquesunlight

      You aren’t wrong, exactly, but, relative to the time period, I don’t think it’s quite right to call the Celts uncivilized. There’s an interesting Terry Jones documentary called “The Primitive Celts.” You can watch it on YouTube. According to it, the Celts were very wealthy; had a calendar, the Coligny calendar, that was vastly more complex and accurate than the Roman calendar; and had sophisticated systems of roads spanning Europe which were used for trade. This was all before they were conquered by Rome.

    • adplatt126

      Disagree.

  • The white man tried to bring civilization to Africa, but Africans don’t much like it. It requires too much discipline and sacrifice, such as getting up every morning, going to work, and working one’s butt off. Plus, years of schooling to be work ready.

    Nope, the African likes his freedom too much to fully embrace civilization. If Africa became a no-man’s land off limits to the rest of the world, Africa would go native in a generation, reverting back thousands of years. It’s the way their genes work.

  • Dave West

    But I though the West raped Africa of her natural resources and stole all its people wealth?

    As we all know sub-Saharan African used to live in castles and advanced cities; is there any archeological evidence: NO, but we must believe what their oral tradition says.

    Africa to this day still has the highest amount of natural resources of any continent, it is by far their most valuable export! Does anyone really think Africans would have figured out how to build a mine several hundred feet deep or forge steel pipes in order to drill for oil if left to their own devices?

    • journey

      It takes a certain level of IQ to make use of resources. So the doctrine of Manifest Destiny was correct.

    • bubo

      China is hip deep in Africa right now building infrastructure in exchange for those resources. Which is a pretty good deal for most of the common Africans. I’m sure some “big chiefs” are getting super rich to boot. Without outside help Africa will be in an eternal state of helplessness.

      • journey

        China is building those infrastructure for themselves. They built this huge superhighway going thru several countries so as to transport out their paid for resources.

      • Garrett Brown

        Pretty much what we used to do in the 20th century. The Chinese have always learned well (copied) from us whites.

  • journey

    So when is the end point for the delusional tenets of “diversity” fed to the masses? (Soon as these low IQers become the majority = crashing of an advanced society). Countries like China has moved somewhat beyond Communism but Western societies are still stuck in the morass of “diversity”. This is so because “diversity” is fueled by the greed and corruption of the elites. The cost of the massive importation of low IQers third worders are then dumped onto the tax payers.

    As for colonialism, the benefits were mutual because no massive importation of low IQers into the mother countries.

  • journey

    How is it now? All different except for the sun, I assumed.

  • dd121

    Did you know any of the farmers murdered by the “friendly” blacks?

    • antiquesunlight

      Maybe he meant that the other white people there were friendly? But the most important thing is that his name appears to be Tostig FitzHerbert. What a magnificent name.

      • dd121

        I don’t know who he is. He doesn’t seem to have posted here much. It just set off my troll meter.

  • Bossman

    The Spanish and the Portuguese treated their slaves better than the British and the Dutch. The Dutch were the most cruel to their slaves. Bringing civilization to savages was not the primary motivation for Europeans when they ventured forth to conquer new lands. It was to find valuable commodities and to become rich.

    • journey

      Have any objective proof regarding the differences in the treatment of slaves?

      But nevertheless, these colonies benefitted from imported innovation and inventions. Otherwise, the blacks would still be existing in the Stone Age and for eons more.

      • Bossman

        That is very easy to find if you do the research. The Spaniards and Portuguese had written laws on how to treat slaves and slaves could earn their freedom after a period of time. The Dutch and British had no such laws.

        • journey

          Specific links, please.

          • Bossman

            I can give you the name of an old book that I found in a used bookstore and I’m sure you could order it from Amazon. It is called: Slave and Citizen: The Negro in the Americas. By Dr. Frank Tannenbaum.

          • journey

            But you stated it was easy to fine!?

            As for the Portuguese, from Wikipedia: ” During transport to Portugal, slaves were fastened and chained with manacles, padlocks, and rings around their necks.[89] Portuguese owners could whip, chain, and pour burning hot wax and fat onto the skin of their slaves, and punish their slaves in any way that they wished, as long as the slaves remained alive.[90] The Portuguese also used branding irons to brand their slaves as property.[91]”

            Will keep you posted about the Spaniards.

          • Bossman

            The Dutch and British treated their slaves worse than that. This is what official history says. As I said if you care about that subject, you will need to do some reading and research.

          • journey

            As for the Dutch and British how worse? I would like to see your actual research since you brought up those points.

            In regard to the Spaniards, it appears they treated their slaves better than other Europeans due to religious reasons and the persistent inventions from their priesthood.

          • Bossman

            What goes for the Spaniards, applied to the Portuguese as well, they were of the same religion and their governments and priesthood intervened to pass laws that would be more humane and be in conformity with Christian teachings. With the Dutch and British, African slavery was a new thing to them and they had no laws on how to treat slaves.

          • journey

            Links, please. My research did not support your statements in regard to the Portuguese. And did you forget, the British and Dutch had the same religions?

            Any objective proof, “African slavery was a new thing to them”?
            And you do know, it was not just blacks who were enslaved during the same time period? And you do know the blacks also actively participated and profited from the slave trade?

      • Dave West

        http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelmedved/2007/09/26/six_inconvenient_truths_about_the_us_and_slavery/page/full

        It may not fully answer any questions, but here is an article about slavery in America. Lets just say you probably would’t find these facts in a modern day “diversity” high school text book.

        • journey

          The blacks were not the only ones enslaved during the same time period contrary to their loud and persistent insistence. It encompassed all racial groups, even whites. The blacks themselves actively participated in the slave trade acting as crew members on those slave ships. Those black crew members were even given slaves for themselves.

    • ftex

      The Portuguese may be insignificant now, but they pushed exploration on an industrial scale. The Portuguese escudo (derived from “shield” in latin) was first currency that could be characterized as “reserve”, and it was used for trading from Macau to Japan, Malaka, Timor, India, Africa, and the New World. Goa was an amazing success, not only for minerals and metals, but for trade in which the Portuguese imposed little or no duties on trade which attracted business from around the world. Goa was forcibly taken back by the Indians after over 400 years not by the Goans, but by the Indian government looking in and wanting what was built there. The Portuguese also traded slaves, over 5 million to Brazil by some estimates, facilitated by the sea-going prowess and access to most of the sub-saharan african coast. Macau was also very successful, until Hong Kong became the dominate foreign colony in China. Note that Macau was given to the Portuguese by the Chinese, after many years or paying “rent”… unlike Hong Kong which was taken.

      • journey

        The Portuguese were heavy into slave trading involving all racial groups.

    • M.

      You probably haven’t read much about the Arab slave trade. How’s automatic castration for cruelty on slaves?

  • Pro_Whitey

    I am reminded of Susan Sontag’s comment that white people are the cancer of the human race. The populations of the peoples colonized by whites are dramatically increasing, whereas white populations are stagnant. I’d say at worst we were the norovirus of the human race, potentially fatal, but only if the afflicted was already suffering from some serious dysfunction. Sontag’s own people are more like a cancer, as they take over the economic pathways of a nation and instill an economic cachexia on the host population.

    • M.

      “The populations of the peoples colonized by whites are dramatically increasing, whereas white populations are stagnant.”

      I wish. We’re actually reproducing below replacement level, meaning we’re (slightly) decreasing each year.

      • LHathaway

        What they don’t tell you is that the ‘white birthrate’ completely ignores white men. It’s the reproductive rate of all white women regardless of male contribution.

  • TruthBeTold

    Can speak to the issue of before and after this article addresses?

  • M.Magog

    IN other words, where white people go, things are good. When white people are kicked out, things become miserable. This is evidence of the superiority of white people and the world they create, and the inferiority and the inability of others to create similar worlds. Even in Asia, except for Japan, the average person lived in grinding poverty. The “great culture” of China was only enjoyed by a very small fraction of that population.

  • M.Magog

    Great Video!! Thanks for linking IT!

  • IKUredux

    Colonizing can only do so much. For example: The blacks in this country were actually WAY beyond being colonized. Most of them are even an European admixture. Has it helped the blacks in America to fit in? Has it helped them to be civilized? No and NO! Trust me, there is NO amount of colonization, integration, that can make a difference with Africans. Even miscegenation is a failure.

    • GeneticsareDestiny

      Colonization can’t change basic African behavior, you’re right. But black Americans are much more civilized than pure black Africans. The white admixture has helped, though of course it is no cure (and whites shouldn’t be miscegenating with blacks anyway).

      Also, simply being around lots of white people tends to remove blacks’ worst criminals from the gene pool earlier than in non-colonized areas, because whites’ criminal justice systems are much more functional than any created and run by blacks. Over a long enough time period, this should tend to improve the genetic composition of blacks in colonized areas (at least, until they make whites leave).

  • Alexandra1973

    Tell me about it. I’m 41 and I’m hard-pressed to find any woman under, say, 35 that doesn’t have a tattoo or something.

    I have three piercings in each ear, had since I was 18. That’s enough for me. I seldom if ever wear earrings anymore.

  • Garrett Brown

    Very friendly until they eat your heart.

  • dd121

    I’m talking about since Zimbabwe came to exist.

  • JohnEngelman

    The civil rights movement was supposed to encourage blacks to behave as well as whites. Instead, whites began to behave as poorly as blacks. Black behavior got even worse.

    • adplatt126

      That’s because whites are forced to live amongst blacks. They are socially ostracized by the media and media culture if they have a differing opinion on race. They are forced to go to school with blacks. They are forced to employ them. They are forced to accept the third-world invasion given Federal hegemony etc. In other words, much of what the Civil Rights Movement involved and led directly to, is simply legislated tyranny, erected with the facade of “justice”. But in the end, it’s tyranny, have no doubt about it. We act like blacks because we are neither allowed nor capable, given government power, of producing and preserving our own value system, apart from blacks.

  • antiquesunlight

    I agree that white civilizations have never sustained peak levels of prosperity forever, but I do think there has been a general movement forward. From what I understand, the period following the collapse of the Roman Empire was “dark” largely because of the collapse of the Roman Empire. After Europe recovered from the Fall, significant progress occurred. The Middle Ages were very civilized, relatively speaking. All you have to do is look at some of that beautiful architecture from, for example, the 13th century. The Romans were not doing this:

  • adplatt126

    True.

  • adplatt126

    Then again, with regard to promiscuity, if you don’t play the black game, you get outbred.

  • adplatt126

    That’s silly. I like a nipple piercing on a woman. Hehe. I support expression, so long as that expression doesn’t involve reducing the IQ of your offspring by ten points in one generation…