European colonialism failed because it refused to see their subjects as worthy of investment. - Discuss European colonialism and why it failed my thesis above.

[Nigger Cattle]

I think most colonies in the Americas were, more or less, at a equal footing during the 1700's and 1800's, there really wasn't a lot to do besides planting shit and shipping it back to Europe. The colonizations efforts were not a failure, it enriched countries like Portugal, the UK, Spain etc, that was the main goal. Regardless, everything went to shit in the 1900's for most of the colonized countries. Combine marxism with educated people moving back to Europe with slavery being outlawed but niggers staying in those countries, then it's just chaos.
It's my opinion, however, i haven't looked too deep into this.

 

[grump]

Humans are tribal. With the exception of maybe modern white Euro leftists who have pathologized their political identity into their tribe. They don't like a different tribe, particularly one that clearly looks different ruling over them. The more different the ruling tribe looks the less they like it. You have to crowd them out or melt into them.

Ruling as a distinct other minority is doomed to failure. Different tribes tried to do it to the chinese and failed. The euros didn't have the will to expand their numbers in their colonies enough to establish a real foothold and expected their subject colonies to remain loyal because...well I'm not sure why. And it turns out the subject nations preferred commie psychopaths that would genocide a huge chunk of the population over the Euros simply because the commie psychopath had a more similar skin color.

 

[ScarletDevil]

On this topic I defer to famed anticolonial scholar Oswald Mosley

Europe should have never left the continent at the cost of home. Britain got lucky with Natives and Abbos dying out from war and disease, but later sunk so much into India, Africa and China that Adam Smith would turn in his grave

The first is his emphasis on the costs of colonial ventures. Smith recognised the costs to the colonised from European expansion (slavery, famines, and various injustices), but it was the costs to the European powers that really engaged him. There were the military costs of defending the colonies from colonial rivals. There were the economic costs associated with mercantile control of colonial trade (it raised prices). And there were the political costs as commercial and colonial policy was conducted for the benefit of ‘rich and powerful’ interests at the expense of the interests of the country as a whole. Smith concluded in The Wealth of Nations that “Great Britain should voluntarily give up all authority over her colonies, and leave them to elect their own magistrates, to enact their laws, and to make peace and war as they might think proper” (WoN: 616).

I have never heard any argument for European settlement colonialism (yes even by Rhodieboos) which admits the actual costs of these ventures. Even Fanon and Kalergi had a better take on this than most "nationalists" claiming to Save Evropa by defending born-to-fail projects (no Zoomer Historian, there was never going to be a fully Dutch-English run African nation)

 

[Kosher Dill]

I read an interesting book once about British colonial administration in 1950s Uganda - that is, not long before independence. The British were able to set up the form of institutions, but there just were never that many natives who genuinely wanted to drop the tribal mindset and build a state. Most often, the local big man would nominally become a British functionary, but in practice remained a tribal big man who added "Working the British bureaucracy" to his portfolio of favors to dole out. I doubt colonialism ever would have worked there unless the British stayed much, much longer - and why would they have?

 

[DJ Grelle]

As the title says I believe that European colonialism at least in it's second phase (Asian and African colonialism) failed in the sense of creating long-standing societies built on their image like settler societies like those in the Americas or Oceania because they failed to properly invest in their subjects or at the very least bother to properly implant a sufficient European population in those places. I understand that the situation was different considering the Americas were less harsh of a terrain and the natives had been mostly decimated but I don't think that it would have been impossible to encourage enough settlers to have lived in places like South Africa or Angola if they had banned migration except to their colonies.

This is just wrong.
For Asia:
1) Singapore is the most succesful, richest south east asian state and it is explicitly carrying on the torch of British colonialism.
2) Both India and Indonesia would not exist in their current form if it were not for British/Dutch colonialism. They gave those regions frameworks on which their modern states are built. Otherwise, the Nizam of Hyderabad would be independent of Dehli, or the Balinese would refuse to coexist with the hardline muslims of Athjeh.
3) Other states like former indochina, Korea, the Philippines are part of the modern world just because they were once colonies, which leveraged their existence in the cold war and allowed them to exist as relatively modern states. Compare to Papua New Guinea, and you will see that the longer a nation has been colonized, the more the west invested in it and the better the living standard is today.

For Africa:
The least colonized state (Liberia) is one of the worst places to live, compared to South Africa or Togoland.
The failures of the DRC are the failures of the congolese. Almost all existent infrastructure there is former belgian or new-built by the chinese. The leopold-era atrocities are again, the failures of the congolese where local recruits of the force publique used traditional punishments on their local rivals. Belgium invested enormous amounts and halfway throughout the projected evolue traject the arrogant, narcissitic retard lumumba wanted independence, which is the direct cause of the congo wars.


The fact is and remains that most colonies were drains on western public finances. The colonisation effort was done out of a feeling of christian charity and it actually lifted the socities it touched from abject barbarity.

The world owes the west a debt that is too large to ever be repaid.

 

[Green Redditor]

On this topic I defer to famed anticolonial scholar Oswald Mosley
https://youtube.com/watch?v=XO4vcUk4cJkEurope should have never left the continent at the cost of home. Britain got lucky with Natives and Abbos dying out from war and disease, but later sunk so much into India, Africa and China that Adam Smith would turn in his grave

Britain got far more from India and China that it ever gave in return, the Raj was the jewel of the crown for a reason it provided raw materials, a closed market for british goods, a heavy taxation base, provided rare commodities that costed the state millions in the past such as tea, if India was a drain in the budget then the British wouldn't have spent so much defending it through fighting and bleeding it on the Suez or simply would have left earlier, other Europeans wouldn't have fought tooth and nail if it wasn't for the same reason.

This isn't even mentioned the millions of indians that died during WWI and WWII, India was a lifeline during those years shoring up the British economy with goods. It's loss made Britain less competitive and less of a world power, in the case of China, Britain didn't even have to spend practically anything in the administration or policing considering they only held Hong Kong and a couple other outposts while exploiting the Chinese market for everything it was worth.

I would only agree in the case of Africa considering most colonies weren't profitable but given enough time and effort they could have turned the region into a proper market for commodities, Africa is rich in everything.

I have never heard any argument for European settlement colonialism (yes even by Rhodieboos) which admits the actual costs of these ventures. Even Fanon and Kalergi had a better take on this than most "nationalists" claiming to Save Evropa by defending born-to-fail projects (no Zoomer Historian, there was never going to be a fully Dutch-English run African nation)

The problem was lack of interest as my thesis states, they were there just to economically extract and not to build proper civilizations, Belgium banned the influx of poor whites into the Congo for some reason, if they had wanted to they could have replaced the population especially in sparsely populated regions such as Namibia.

 

[DJ Grelle]

Britain got far more from India and China that it ever gave in return

Wrong

the Raj was the jewel of the crown for a reason it provided raw materials,

The main export from the Raj were cash crops, being opiates, tea and indigo.
The reason the Raj could export these crops is that the EIC spent decades building up the infrastructure to support it.
When the EIC was awarded the Diwan of Bengal, they were glad because the on-paper revenues were enough to fiscally support their activities in India (and not have them be funded from the china trade). But the de facto revenues were at most a third of that because the indian taxation and land system was just bad. There was no serious attempt at creating a surplus. The British immediately went to work, creating the permanent settlement to ensure a stable source of cash crops that they could use to trade with China with.

a closed market for british goods,

This implies that the manufacturing base of the British isles was too efficient and overproduced for what it consumed.
There is this vague idea that Britain intentionally destroyed Indian manufacturing. In truth, it just withered away when they had to compete with British manufacturing that could make everything a lot cheaper. Only some sorts of patterned textiles survived for a bit but in the end they were outcompeted by British industry as well.

provided rare commodities that costed the state millions in the past such as tea, if India was a drain in the budget then the British wouldn't have spent so much defending it through fighting and bleeding it on the Suez or simply would have left earlier, other Europeans wouldn't have fought tooth and nail if it wasn't for the same reason.

You are contradicting yourself.
It was a drain on the budget but it was considered acceptable because
a) a few rare commodities such as tea
b) the sense of duty of the white man's burden.
The British ended Sati, they brought the concept of land ownership, codified law and independent courts. They laid rail and telegraphs, and they built a civil service that was strong enough to keep India together as a state, despite its numerous internal contradictions and divisions. India today exists solely because the British Raj did. Otherwise it would never have unified.

This isn't even mentioned the millions of indians that died during WWI and WWII

All volunteers.
The British Indian army did not conscript.

India was a lifeline during those years shoring up the British economy with goods

What goods? Tea?
Either India was a massive plantation exploited for cash crops or it was an integral part of the empire that rose with the same tide of industrialization that the other dominions did.

exploiting the Chinese market for everything it was worth.

Although the opiates were a black mark and morally unacceptable, what did the British do that " exploited the Chinese market for everything it was worth"?

The problem was lack of interest as my thesis states,

Your thesis can simply be refuted by the fact that decolonization was done on the demand of the locals, while the colonial powers argued their civilisationary mission was not yet completed. As is the case for e.g. the Congo.
This can easily be seen with the decolonization debate in the Congo, where the Belgians argued they needed decades before Congo could stand on its own. Lumumba protested, started a few riots and the Belgians changed track to try to prepare Congo for its independence in five years. This was still not fast enough for Lumumba and his cronies. They exercised pressure, pleading with the US and the USSR and ultimately Belgium gave in, providing almost immediate independence to the Congo. The Congo has been a failed society ever since.

This goes for all of Africa and most of south east Asia.