Colonization goes hand in hand with colonialism/colony. The two can go without one another though.
Domestic colonization: the creation of rural colonies for specific group, outsiders of society, ‘backward’ people, poor people, disabled people, vagabonds. ← Barbara Arneil
Through this, they re-integrate/re-educate them through isolation and segregation, forcing them to do agrarian labor in these rural colonies. This way, wastelands (infertile land, land that was not cultivated prior) can be developed.
The Belgian state founded two colonies in the north, near Kempen.
Internal colonization: resembles border colonization;
Brazil’s borders were established in the 18th century. The borders were already there, and Brazil then had to colonize its interior (the Amazon, for instance).
“Won’t give any details, just need to mention it” ← dawg why are we spending so much time on it then this is useless.
Sub-colonial relations. → A colony colonizes another colony.
For instance, South Africa became the colonizer of modern-day Namibia.
Formal empires → several peripheries, colonies in several places (or continents).
Germany / Belgium / Italy are only kinda empires because of a difference in scale. ← ‘semi-empires’
Informal empires are empires without real political control. The periphery is not a colony, but is clearly included and economically influenced by the metropole.
Different types of colonies, different types of empires. Imperialism and colonialism are closely connected, there is no absolute difference.
Imperialism is bigger than colonialism. Colonialism is a special manifestation of imperialism.
The roman empire. Is an empire.
The Tatar empire. It is an empire.
The Austrian Habsburg empire. Also an empire.
The Ottoman empire. Is also an empire.
These are different from the colonial empires we will be talking about.
The empires above are border colonization. The European overseas [i guess that kinda gives it away] colonial empires are not (exclusively).
The other difference (key difference) is the relationship between the metropole and the colony.
The empires above attempted to ‘merge’ in some way with the colonized territory; the Romans, for instance, were more willing to include people from the colonies in governance. In the 2nd century CE, Roman emperors were already coming from the periphery.
You will never find Indians ruling Britain (Rishi Sunak was the PM). [Contrary to alt-right claims].
The Inca empire, the Caliphate, world history has seen so many empires that there are too many differences to discuss.
[I miss philosophy of mind where he’d just utter the magic words ‘prototype resemblance analysis’ and this whole tangent would be over.]
[Why are we dwelling on this so much. Why. There is no fucking point to this entire tangent because you can just start talking about the actual colonization that is of interest to us.]
The 16th century saw the capitalist world markets, thus, some consider it the start of European Colonization (America and Columbus).
Some critique this, arguing that there was not one single core region in the 16-18th centuries. Northwestern Europe, and China/Japan (East Asia) both served as cores.
Life expectancy was longer there. Consumption there (had better food), welfare, markets, etc.
Britain wanted to compete with India, so this also triggered the industrial revolution and the great diversion.
The great divergence [presumably the metropole getting much richer than the colony] comes in the 18th, 19th century according to some historians.
Abernethy → ‘you can’t ignore the early modern age [???? fuck i guess that’s new]’
Five phases (fol. Abernethy):
Expansion (1415-1773)
First decolonization (1775-1824)
Second colonization (1824-1912)
Consolidation (1914-1939)
Second decolonization (1940-1980)
Abernethy isn’t entirely correct, for instance, the First decolonization stage, was actually the time when Britain colonized most of India.
[Me when the historical events don’t fit a neat categorization ?????]
“All established historians have different opinions.”
Early starters: Landes and Wallerstein
Critics: Pomeranz, Parthasarathi, and Darwin
Compromises: Abernethy and Hopkins
Why did Europe do colonization?
[Evil? Resource extraction? Money?]
Geography, apparently. Having access to the open seas made it possible to colonize and apparently was the reason why they did it. Also technological advantage (except gunpowder).
Because the colonies were in different locations they could grow different food. This is good.
“Malaria is a disease…”
“you fell into my trap” my brother in christ I was not listening