zompist bboard

It has just come to my attention that Almea actually does have an Industrial Revolution going on. Why didn't anyone tell me!?

Anyway it looks like they are close to developing steamships and railroads and you know what that means. When are the countries of the South going to make ships that can cross the Zone of Fire and bring civilization to the savages up there? I'm excited to see what ideologies they're going to come up with to justify their domination of the benighted masses!

Brel wrote:It has just come to my attention that Almea actually does have an Industrial Revolution going on. Why didn't anyone tell me!?

Because, as far as I know, it has been common knowledge about Almea since day 1? But since it has just come to your attention, I cannot blame you.

Brel wrote:Anyway it looks like they are close to developing steamships and railroads and you know what that means. When are the countries of the South going to make ships that can cross the Zone of Fire and bring civilization to the savages up there? I'm excited to see what ideologies they're going to come up with to justify their domination of the benighted masses!

Almea is blessed; while Earth was dominated by Christianity, Erelae society is basically founded on 4 distinct religions that exclude pretty much each other : Endajué, Paganism, Eled'at and Jippirasti. Because of that, there is no unity in the Erelaean sphere; Christian factions could hate each other, they ganged together against the non-Christians rather easily.

As far as one can see, Verdurians and Kebreni are rather pragmatic in their colonies (outposts for commerce). There is also no idea yet of a colonization process in Verduria or Kebreni; indeed, the whole thing rather looks like Africa more than the Americas. The north might bring more colonization efforts, but I doubt it will be as big as the Americas; remember that colonization in the Americas basically ended by the 1800s, turning into immigration. Australia and New Zeland were the last places where immigration happened, and most of the land is still rather empty. Also, Uytai and Belesao will both prevent any US like State; and Tellinor is rather empty in terms of Vedurians immigrating : cities in Verduria seem like better places to immigrate.

I believe the only true colonization in Almea will say the founding of Gurdago and of Fananak and that the North will be colonized, at best, like Australia and New Zeland are today; nothing as grandiose as the United States, and the mix will be kept to mostly Fananak...

Yiuel Raumbesrairc wrote:remember that colonization in the Americas basically ended by the 1800s, turning into immigration.

Really tho, what's the difference between those two? And the move west in both the US and Canada (though admittedly I know less about the Canuckistani side) looks suspiciously like colonization to me. I guess you can force a difference if you require colonization to be far away from the starting area and be formalized, but even then the Oregon Territory really should qualify.

Drydic Guy wrote:

Yiuel Raumbesrairc wrote:remember that colonization in the Americas basically ended by the 1800s, turning into immigration.

Really tho, what's the difference between those two? And the move west in both the US and Canada (though admittedly I know less about the Canuckistani side) looks suspiciously like colonization to me. I guess you can force a difference if you require colonization to be far away from the starting area and be formalized, but even then the Oregon Territory really should qualify.

What I meant is that, after 1800, you don't see much British people come to North America, even on the Canadian side. You do have a couple of waves, but they are rare. The colonization of the West was mostly done by local-borns or immigrants from other countries through a process that looks more like a progressive expansion of a new country in lightly populated areas. On Almea, only Fananak has ever done something like that, and there isn't much of cities created by the Verdurians or Kebreni yet as colonies beyond outposts.

That's an even stupider idea than the far away and formalized requirements for colonization.

Yiuel Raumbesrairc wrote:Almea is blessed; while Earth was dominated by Christianity, Erelae society is basically founded on 4 distinct religions that exclude pretty much each other : Endajué, Paganism, Eled'at and Jippirasti. Because of that, there is no unity in the Erelaean sphere; Christian factions could hate each other, they ganged together against the non-Christians rather easily.

Do you... do you honestly think that the only reason Europeans went all imperial on the rest of the world's ass is because Europe was dominated by a single religion?

Whole lot of stupid in this post. Not sure where to even begin. Guess I'll take things one at a time.

fucking liberals

Yiuel Raumbesrairc wrote:Almea is blessed; while Earth was dominated by Christianity, Erelae society is basically founded on 4 distinct religions that exclude pretty much each other : Endajué, Paganism, Eled'at and Jippirasti. Because of that, there is no unity in the Erelaean sphere; Christian factions could hate each other, they ganged together against the non-Christians rather easily.

1) Earth was not and is not dominated by Christianity. You mean Europe?

2) I have no fucking clue how you can say that Europe was unified by Christianity during much of the colonial period. Do the Reformation and the religious wars ring any bells? Also Protestant and Catholic colonies either avoided or outright massacred each other, which hurt the supposed European cause and actually would have helped the Natives.

3) I have a hard time parsing a lot of your sentences, e.g. "Christian factions could hate each other, they ganged together against the non-Christians rather easily." These ideas do not make sense when put together.

Yiuel Raumbesrairc wrote:As far as one can see, Verdurians and Kebreni are rather pragmatic in their colonies (outposts for commerce). There is also no idea yet of a colonization process in Verduria or Kebreni; indeed, the whole thing rather looks like Africa more than the Americas.

4) Most Europeans were "pretty pragmatic" in their colonial ventures as well, especially in the beginning. Consider the East India Companies. It was only rather late, when they had the technology to easily do it, that world-domination schemes came in.

5) I have no idea what you consider to be colonization vs. not-colonization. There are different forms of colonization. The main differences were between imperial subjection and settler colonialism. The latter is the more permanent and enduring form, since it changes the land into an extension of the metropole. You might feel guilty about this or reluctant to admit it or something, or weren't taught about what actually happened, but Canada is a settler colony, like the US, Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, etc. It isn't going to revert to Indian tribal lands any time soon.

6) How was what happened in Africa not a colonization process?

Yiuel Raumbesrairc wrote:The north might bring more colonization efforts, but I doubt it will be as big as the Americas; remember that colonization in the Americas basically ended by the 1800s, turning into immigration. Australia and New Zeland were the last places where immigration happened, and most of the land is still rather empty. Also, Uytai and Belesao will both prevent any US like State; and Tellinor is rather empty in terms of Vedurians immigrating : cities in Verduria seem like better places to immigrate.

7) Again you are making distinctions that make no sense. Immigration is a part of colonization, the part that made the settler colonies powerful and wealthy, and able to support the metropole with both food and soldiers.

8 ) Australia and NZ are "empty" because most of the land is farmland, or in the case of Australia, highly marginal.

9) Saying "Uytai and Belesao will both prevent any US like State" is a lot like someone in 1500 saying, "China, India, and the Islamic world are powerful enough to keep little backward Europe from taking the whole New World, sending immigrants there, and profiting from its wealth!" Anything could happen, which is why this time period is interesting and zompist needs to do more with it!

10) I don't think zompist has addressed this yet, but it looks like Tellinor isn't settler colony material. The Natives haven't died en masse of disease yet. Also, it might be like the tropical parts of the New World, where Europeans could rule over the masses but not reproduce themselves because they died due to introduced diseases. Even so, Verduria et al are still ruling it for fun and profit and I doubt it's going to stop any time soon. If anything it will get more intense, like India.

11) Why go into disease-infested cities if you could get a plot of land for yourself in the colonies?

Yiuel Raumbesrairc wrote:I believe the only true colonization in Almea will say the founding of Gurdago and of Fananak and that the North will be colonized, at best, like Australia and New Zeland are today; nothing as grandiose as the United States, and the mix will be kept to mostly Fananak...

12) I still don't know what true colonization is to you. Have you not noticed that Aus and NZ are full of white people and supported the British Empire in two world wars? That Americans love British people and accents? That the Queen is still on Canadian money? The Anglo-Saxon nations are the most colonized, to this very day!

tl;dr

Everyone please, please read Replenishing the Earth so we can have an intelligent discussion about this.

EDIT: fixed link.

Yiuel Raumbesrairc wrote:What I meant is that, after 1800, you don't see much British people come to North America, even on the Canadian side. You do have a couple of waves, but they are rare. The colonization of the West was mostly done by local-borns or immigrants from other countries through a process that looks more like a progressive expansion of a new country in lightly populated areas. On Almea, only Fananak has ever done something like that, and there isn't much of cities created by the Verdurians or Kebreni yet as colonies beyond outposts.

THIS MAN IS YOUR FRIEND HE SPEAKS THE TRUTH

Brel wrote:It has just come to my attention that Almea actually does have an Industrial Revolution going on. Why didn't anyone tell me!?

Anyway it looks like they are close to developing steamships and railroads and you know what that means. When are the countries of the South going to make ships that can cross the Zone of Fire and bring civilization to the savages up there? I'm excited to see what ideologies they're going to come up with to justify their domination of the benighted masses!

And where are the Commies? An industrial revolution without Commies is no industrial revolution.

Pole wrote:

Brel wrote:It has just come to my attention that Almea actually does have an Industrial Revolution going on. Why didn't anyone tell me!?

Anyway it looks like they are close to developing steamships and railroads and you know what that means. When are the countries of the South going to make ships that can cross the Zone of Fire and bring civilization to the savages up there? I'm excited to see what ideologies they're going to come up with to justify their domination of the benighted masses!

And where are the Commies? An industrial revolution without Commies is no industrial revolution.

Start of the Industrial Revolution: by 1800 or so.
First publication date of Das Kapital: 1867.

Give'em a few decades.

Brel wrote:10) I don't think zompist has addressed this yet, but it looks like Tellinor isn't settler colony material. The Natives haven't died en masse of disease yet. Also, it might be like the tropical parts of the New World, where Europeans could rule over the masses but not reproduce themselves because they died due to introduced diseases. Even so, Verduria et al are still ruling it for fun and profit and I doubt it's going to stop any time soon. If anything it will get more intense, like India.

Had to check on this, but I have referred to diseases of the interior of Téllinor. So that's a major factor.

(FWIW by the equivalent time period, ~1800, Europe's settler colonies were still pretty small— e.g. 5000 in Australia, 20,000 in South Africa. There were 5 million in the US— I assume the difference is mostly logistics. It was easier to get to, and settlement was a self-reinforcing process: it's easier to go where a bunch of people have already gone.)

zompist wrote:Had to check on this, but I have referred to diseases of the interior of Téllinor. So that's a major factor.

Interesting. Could Tellinor become a place where diseases to which Taëse people aren't immune become common though, like Central America did?

zompist wrote:(FWIW by the equivalent time period, ~1800, Europe's settler colonies were still pretty small— e.g. 5000 in Australia, 20,000 in South Africa. There were 5 million in the US— I assume the difference is mostly logistics. It was easier to get to, and settlement was a self-reinforcing process: it's easier to go where a bunch of people have already gone.)

I'm aware of this. The US was larger because it was older than the others and the Europeans had had more time to grow exponentially (also, there were more women in the English-speaking colonies). Most of its growth came about through natural increase, which stunned Benjamin Franklin and Malthus. Anyway it wasn't long after that--about 1815, in Belich's account--that those populations started exploding. I'm curious about an equivalent process on Almea, as well as the more conventional imperialism.

I'm being rather facetious above, but I really cannot recommend Replenishing the Earth enough. If you haven't read it, you definitely should, particularly if you plan on working more on this period of Almean history, or writing more about space colonies.

Brel wrote:Anyway it wasn't long after that--about 1815, in Belich's account--that those populations started exploding.

*eyes Waterloo and Vienna*

Yes, he says that was a factor. Britain got a large peace dividend, plus undisputed control of the seas. He also says that the whole concept of settling in the colonies became much more fashionable in this period, whereas before it was seen as exile and imprisonment, something for bad or pathetic people. Also roads and shipping improved even before the Industrial Revolution took off, and preindustrial technology flourished along with early industrial technology.

I was just thinking large numbers of soldiers fighting for 15 years suddenly jobless.

Belich does not talk about that specific factor, which is an interesting possibility.

However, one must remember (and this is well highlighted in his book) that mass overseas settlement in the 19th century was mainly a British thing, and more specifically an English-speaking thing--Wales was chiefly left out, partially because, Belich says, English, and things written in it, such as newspaper articles and booster literature, had achieved less penetration there than in Scotland.

Continentals were the ones chiefly upset by the war, and they didn't come in nearly as large of numbers--save for Germans, who were specifically targeted by immigration recruiters, due to racialist ideas of the period. There is an interesting section in the book on "crew cultures"--ship's crews, loggers, miners, etc.--and their preferred ethnic make-up was very similar to those ethnic groups being targeted by the more upper-class booster literature: English, Scots, Germans, and more hesitantly Irish.* To this very day, these are the groups most easily accepted in English-speaking countries.

*Irish received racial promotions the further from metropolitan areas they settled. In England and the eastern US, they tended to be despised, but in the frontiers, they were much more accepted.

I can't really think of when christian factions "ganged together against the non-Christians" ... if anything the competition between Christian countries and between catholic and protestant colonists drove them to snatch up land faster?

I actually remember in history class they taught us how the French and English colonists in Canada teamed up with the Hurons and Iroquois respectively in order to fight each other.

And think of occasions when religious division pushes people to go make a place where their sect can run shit their own way ... the puritans, later on the mormons ... jonestown?

I'm not sure I can agree that migration to the colonies was mainly a British thing in the 19th century. Just look at South America, particularly Argentina. Not only were the Spaniards still going there, but there was also mass migration from Italy, and to a lesser extent France and Germany.


Anyway, back when I studied Latin American politics, we learnt about an interesting distinction between three different types of colonisation (to which we could probably add a fourth less common in south america):

1. colonisation by trading post - common in Africa and early on in India. Migrant population remains very small, and quite self-contained, and often very culturally and economically dependent on the metropolis. Development of the native culture is limited to whatever's needed to allow trade and keep them from attacking the traders. There's not a lot of interbreeding. Local politics are often a result of local (mainly commercial) interests, so it tends to be haphazard. Native languages survive, though pidgins and creoles spring up around the trading posts, and colonial languages may be learnt by local elites.

2. colonisation by a ruling elite - as in Mexico and the Andean countries, and later in India. Migrant population still quite small, though larger than in trading posts. Rather than restricting themselves to self-contained towns, they distribute themselves over the conquered country. Massive interbreeding, both physically and culturally - native culture is developed substantially to bring it into line with the colonial culture (both through force from above and through emulation from below) - but at the same time natives and half-breeds are able to rise into positions of authority, and aspects of native culture may be adopted by the rulers, either entire or in synthesis with parallel elements in their own cultures. Colonial languages are imposed, but native languages often survive as well, in remote areas or in diglossic situations. Less likely to have creoles/pidgins/mixed languages, but likely to be borowing between the languages.

3. colonisation by an imported population - as in Brazil, the Caribbean, some Pacific countries, in a sort of way in early Australia. Two different migrant populations - a small ruling elite and a larger dominated population. Slaves, indentured servants, prisoners, etc. Population is often dense but limited to the most profitable areas, and can proceed in a structured and planned way (although there's often a fore-running wave of escapees and other emigrants from the formal colonies - particularly important in Brazil). Resulting culture can be peculiar and varied, but tends not to involve the natives very much - either they're exterminated or they're exiled to the less profitable areas and ignored. Where the imported population is easily distinguished from the importers, the result can be a highly divided society with an authoritarian legacy. Native languages exterminated, subject-population languages may or may not survive (they didn't survive with african slave transport, but they did often survive with indian indentured servant transport).

4. colonisation by mass immigration - as in Argentina, the USA, Australia. Large numbers voluntarily migrate from the colonial country (or its neighbours). They tend to spread out and exterminate the natives - they tend to have ideologies of expansion and of personal improvement. They're less likely to be authoritarian and racially divided and financially unequal, since migration is less controlled. 'Melting pot' cultures, where the dominant colonial culture is imported, but with novel features and features from other immigrant cultures - in the short term, immigrants with differing cultures may try to remain distinct, but in the long run they're usually assimilated.

Salmoneus wrote:I'm not sure I can agree that migration to the colonies was mainly a British thing in the 19th century. Just look at South America, particularly Argentina. Not only were the Spaniards still going there, but there was also mass migration from Italy, and to a lesser extent France and Germany.

I said "chiefly" and I chose that word carefully. Belich talks extensively about Latin America. Its settler booms didn't start until the late 19th century, whereas Anglo mass settlement began about 1815.

In striking contrast to British relations with the United States, connections between Latin America and Iberia diminished after independence, and in any case Iberia lacked capital and, until the 1880s, willing migrants to send. Between the 1810s and the 1870s, Latin America’s access to oldland migrants and money, of whatever nationality, was inferior to that of the Anglo newlands, and this goes a long way towards explaining its much slower growth. The ‘problem’ was less in the Iberian newlands than in the impoverished Iberian oldlands and in the links between them.

Spanish-speakers were for a long time reluctant to migrate, and the Spanish government was opposed to emigration. Italians mostly came, but only starting in the 1870's or so. By that time Chicago had reached a population of almost a million people, up from about 100 in 1830, and Victoria was undergoing a massive boom.

Belich points out that in 1790, Latin America was far more populous than Anglo-America: 15 million vs. 3 million (the metropoles had about the same population). But by the 1920's, there were 150 million English-speakers to 65 million Spanish-speakers. Meanwhile the British had created fresh colonies in Australasia, whereas Spanish and Italian immigration merely "filled in" Spain's old holdings. The American "melting pot" did not really start until the 1890's. The Dutch, with their small base population and late industrialization, didn't bolster the population of their old colonies, nor did the French, who entered a demographic decline in the 19th century. Britain and Germany had the most fiery loins in Europe, and German settlers went to other peoples' colonies (chiefly the English-speaking ones) instead of their own. The other major European settling power was Russia, which had a couple booms in the late 19th century like Latin America. So yes, 19th century settler colonialism was chiefly British (and German), and its effects are a big part of the reason English is the world vernacular today.

Once more, I recommend the book.

1. colonisation by trading post - common in Africa and early on in India. Migrant population remains very small, and quite self-contained, and often very culturally and economically dependent on the metropolis. Development of the native culture is limited to whatever's needed to allow trade and keep them from attacking the traders. There's not a lot of interbreeding. Local politics are often a result of local (mainly commercial) interests, so it tends to be haphazard. Native languages survive, though pidgins and creoles spring up around the trading posts, and colonial languages may be learnt by local elites.

Is this really colonization? We have to be careful of calling everything Europeans did in foreign countries colonization--and not applying the same standard to other peoples. Does setting up Chinatowns constitute colonization, for example? If a group of people is a minority in an area and is "dependent on the metropolis", I don't see how it's a colony. Understanding the trading post phenomenon is essential to understanding how European colonies developed, but these were more enclaves in the beginning.

Excellent post, Sal.

There is one huge difference between Almea and Earth that would have a big impact on colonization. On Earth, India and China were very economically and technologically advanced relative to Europe in the early modern period. When the Portuguese first came to India, they were stepping into a far wealthier sphere of trade. They had to use force to convince people to trade with them because they had nothing of value in Indian markets. The backwardness of the Europeans shouldn't be overstated; they had undergone a lot of commercialization, and technical breakthroughs in various fields. But at best they were on par with the economies they were trading with, in sophistication if not in scale. Getting in on the massive spice and textile trades of the Indian Ocean was a big motivator for early modern Europeans. The deindustrialization of India took a hundred years, and China enjoyed a good trade balance with the West until the late 19th century (yes, even during the Opium Wars China was a net importer of silver). The "stomp on the primitives and take their breadfruit" stage of colonialism came later, when European cores had developed, and a periphery to provide raw materials and captive markets became more important. Earlier it was a struggle just to sit at the grown up table.

This does not seem to be the case with Almea. No region on the planet is nearly as advanced as Erelae. So there's no need to break into foreign markets. And I doubt Verdurian industrialists are producing enough surplus to rely on forceful manipulation of foreign markets. I guess it's reasonable to expect Verduria to want trade posts to protect the flow of tea from the Kebreni. But aside from that, the motivations for Earth colonialism are mostly lacking.

Brel wrote:Is this really colonization? We have to be careful of calling everything Europeans did in foreign countries colonization--and not applying the same standard to other peoples. Does setting up Chinatowns constitute colonization, for example?

If you had extraterritoriality in Chinatown, then yes. Of course it would. Most Portuguese and Dutch trading posts were heavily defended from land and sea, and many were established by force. None obeyed local laws where they contradicted European ones, and in many cases their express goal was to open local markets to trade with European merchants by any means necessary. If Chinatown San Francisco was holed up on Alcatraz Island and only existed to make us buy lead-based baby formula, then it would be colonialism par excellence!