The sweeping success was the cruelty though; whilst warfare was common in Europe despite relatively stable boundaries and low-level massacres of individual garrisons that refused to surrender were not uncommon (but also generally regarded as cruel), the murder of millions of people and deaths of tens of millions of people as a direct result of the targeting of their food supplies within a generation was unprecedented.
It's not like we generally have positive views of comparable scale "sweeping successes" exported from Europe like the Conquistadors or transatlantic slave trade
You put those two together as if they were both acts by Europeans, in which case: no, I don't have a positive view on them. I have a positive view on (re-)connecting the civilizations of America and Europe, and I have a positive view on the civilizations of the New World themselves. I don't have a positive view on Europeans "civilizing" the New World.
You could make the argument that the Enlightenment age spawned in Europe because of the vast amount of wealth generated by colonialism. And then you could make the argument that without colonialism as it happened, both the US Declaration of Independence and the French Revolution might not have happened, or maybe not in the same timeframe or with the same outcomes.
And then you could make the argument that all industrialization and social innovation that followed (such as modern democracy, medicine, space techology, computing) may not have happened either, or not in the same timeframe, or not in the same manner.
So when you start arguing about things "coming from colonialism", be aware that without history as it happened, we might not even be able to have this discussion here between people from all over the world. And that in general it's very hard to ascribe exactly which parts of today "come from" which parts of history.
No, that's not how this works. I've already given more to support my position than you have to support yours. If you only want to throw around baseless claims, go back to twitter. If you want to have a real discussion, support your own position before asking me to defend mine.
It allowed European to transfer/steal massive amounts of wealth from the rest of the world which in turn funded unparalleled investments into R&D. Eventually technological improvements (which according to some wouldn't have been possible without the transfers of wealth and labour into Europe) resulted in widespread (if uneven) net benefits to the entire global population.
Comments
The sweeping success was the cruelty though; whilst warfare was common in Europe despite relatively stable boundaries and low-level massacres of individual garrisons that refused to surrender were not uncommon (but also generally regarded as cruel), the murder of millions of people and deaths of tens of millions of people as a direct result of the targeting of their food supplies within a generation was unprecedented.
It's not like we generally have positive views of comparable scale "sweeping successes" exported from Europe like the Conquistadors or transatlantic slave trade
We don't have a positive view of the discovery and civilization of the New World?
You put those two together as if they were both acts by Europeans, in which case: no, I don't have a positive view on them. I have a positive view on (re-)connecting the civilizations of America and Europe, and I have a positive view on the civilizations of the New World themselves. I don't have a positive view on Europeans "civilizing" the New World.
We certainly don't have a view that the Conquistadors weren't barbaric and cruel
The people behind the recent revisionism movements don't, at least.
There are not a lot of net positives for mankind coming from colonialism.
You could make the argument that the Enlightenment age spawned in Europe because of the vast amount of wealth generated by colonialism. And then you could make the argument that without colonialism as it happened, both the US Declaration of Independence and the French Revolution might not have happened, or maybe not in the same timeframe or with the same outcomes.
And then you could make the argument that all industrialization and social innovation that followed (such as modern democracy, medicine, space techology, computing) may not have happened either, or not in the same timeframe, or not in the same manner.
So when you start arguing about things "coming from colonialism", be aware that without history as it happened, we might not even be able to have this discussion here between people from all over the world. And that in general it's very hard to ascribe exactly which parts of today "come from" which parts of history.
People can make whatever arguments they want, if doesn't make them valid. Do you have some good analysis/sources to support this point of view?
No, that's not how this works. I've already given more to support my position than you have to support yours. If you only want to throw around baseless claims, go back to twitter. If you want to have a real discussion, support your own position before asking me to defend mine.
It allowed European to transfer/steal massive amounts of wealth from the rest of the world which in turn funded unparalleled investments into R&D. Eventually technological improvements (which according to some wouldn't have been possible without the transfers of wealth and labour into Europe) resulted in widespread (if uneven) net benefits to the entire global population.