Did Empire and Slavery make Britain Rich? | IEA Explainer
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 апр 2024
- Join Kristian Niemietz, IEA Editorial Director, as he challenges the popular narrative that Britain was built on the back of atrocities with his new publication, 'Imperial Measurement: A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Western Imperialism'. In this explainer, Niemietz delves into the origins of wealth, exploring why some countries are rich while others remain poor.
He dissects the theory that slavery, imperialism, and colonial wealth extraction drove Western prosperity, offering a nuanced perspective backed by historical evidence. Niemietz presents a comprehensive analysis of the economic implications of colonial empires, shedding light on the complexities of their impact on industrial development. He uncovers imperialism's true costs and benefits, challenging prevailing narratives with compelling insights.
Discover imperialism's true impact on Britain and the Western world. Watch now and download a copy of Niemietz's book from the IEA website for further insights: iea.org.uk/publications/imper....
FOLLOW US:
TWITTER - / iealondon
INSTAGRAM - /
FACEBOOK - / ieauk
WEBSITE - iea.org.uk/
Britain's economic rise was mainly due to the legacy of the Dutch invasion of 1688.
The National Debt. Constitutional Monarchy. A large Navy. Agricultural improvements.
Then later canals, turnpike roads ,steam power ,masses of coal, iron and child labour from the rapid population growth.
Slavery was only marginal in this
No it was not Sugar up to this day is a multi million dollar industry
Yes, and the culture of innovation and science which drove the Industrial Revolution.
@@theultimateartist4153 Sugar more important than Banking ,canals or steam engines.
Don't be ridiculous
@@stephfoxwell4620 You clearly have no idea how lucrative sugar was and it shows also stop straw manning me
@@theultimateartist4153 You've clearly listened to grifters like Olosuga
if the British empire made Britain that rich then we'd have the highest GDP per capita in the world. We do not by a long shot
Britain did have
Well it sure didn't make me rich, I was born in a field. There are numerous documents that show clearly that the destitute conditions of the urban and rural British working classes was considerably WORSE than for serfs and slaves in the West Indies and Americas. For peasants it was often worse - which explains why the great bulk of the population migrated from the countryside to the cities during the 19th century or left for the colonies entirely. The "empire" was actually a political creation designed to prevent super-rich international companies running riot and posing a threat to both Britain itself and oversea allies alike. Unfortunately today's global companies have no such restraint and the world is a more dangerous place because of it.
There were fewer than 3 million Brits abroad at peak of Empire.
And there were only a few thousand slave owning British families.
It simply isn't the case that slavery made us rich, especially when we then paid to release all the slaves and only just finished paying the debt off a decade ago.
It is also worth noting that more slaves went to South America than North, the Portug took them there to Brazil, if slavery made so much money then Portugal would be even richer than we are wouldn't they?
These blacks think that only hu-Whites has slaves, yet we bought them from other blacks and it was WE who ended slavery at great cost, the blacks and Muslims never ended slavery, they still do it!
I doubt there were ever "a few thousand slave owning families" at all - since slavery was ILLEGAL in Britain since William the Conqueror and most slave ships captured by the Navy were landed as free men.
The man at the peak of the Empire, Rudyard Kipling wrote the White Man's Burden as a warning to the US not to follow the UK's imperial footsteps (or more accurately - its naval wake). It would have been worth it had the Dominions been federated with the UK to share the industrial and naval burdens and this was discussed in Ottawa before WW2 but the USA blocked this seeing a federal white British Commonwealth as a trade bloc and a threat.
No only the anglo americans who are now the richest after europe gold mid east oil chinese labour etc etc. i wont mention all the wars.
Was it worth it? Are you speaking English right now?
Absolutely brilliant video. Definitely thought-provoking and something that Milton Friedman himself had stated also. However, I would like to make a contrary statement for the sake of discussion.
There were industries that Britain could never have manifested without colonialism. The one that comes to mind is the cotton and textiles industry. Where Britain was NEVER competitive. As bold as an assertion that may seem as at face value. It is pretty well-supported, as cotton was imported from India, processed in hubs such as Manchester, and re-exported BACK to India, and at higher prices than had Indian textile-workers simply manufactured these garments themselves, which had prior been the case.
The British-produced textiles were of poorer quality and at higher cost. This industry only existed out of colonial coercion, as opposed to Great Britain actually being competitive.
I know there were industries, such as coal, where Britain just so happened to have world-class coal in Wales, that was of higher-quality than could be found anywhere else in the world. In spite of India's massive coal reserves, they were of subpar quality for empire. I believe Australia had the 2nd best quality.
Conclusion:
So even if it didn't bolster Britain's economy, it definitely and undoubtedly destroyed their colonies' economies. And that's without any consideration to the economic catastrophes that wars, famines, and occupation present.
You seem to conflate the argument that slavery/imperialism aided the rise of British capitalism to the only reason British industrialized is because of slavery. Not true, obviously Britian benefited from the gold and resources looted for other countries, they became the world's richest nation after all.. American Industry also wouldn't have taken off if not for slave labor providing cheap cotton
During those times INDIA was the world's richest country accountable for 27% of global gdp, when British left it was just 3%.
Economist estimates they stole $45 trillion from INDIA only.
@@martin96991That is bollocks. Your figure of 27% was plucked out of thin air. For one thing, India wasn't a country until Britain United it. The Indian states were all feudal, with economic progress severely hindering development. Second, Britain did not steal resources: Britain *bought" resources, with, among other things, iron and steel goods that Indians were not capable of making. Britain created the Indian tea industry. Britain built the Indian railways. Britain built Bombay. Britain financed the industrialisation of Indian cotton production, much to the cost of English mills. Britain gave Indian goods access to the entire empire. Britain gave India modern medicine, schools and Chritianity, though the majority still cling to their ludicrous pagan beliefs.
Britain steal many things , just look at the British museum , many nation want there artifacts back , britain do not want to return , if that is not theft what is .if I was to steal artefacts and retire it to its rightful owner I would be charged with stealing
@@robertseavor4304 when the east India company destroyed the cotton industry in India by chopping off the hands of weavers, cutting out their tongues so that they may not tell anyone how to rebuild their smashed two hundred year old looms, was this "buying" or "stealing" their industry?
Why did Gandhi then make such a big deal about only buying Indian cotton?
The idea that shipping the raw material to Britain so that it may be processed in Britain for selling back to Indians at a huge mark up isn't an elaborate wealth redistribution from India to Britain is nonsense. You are picking and choosing what you notice and it is a-historical, propagnadised and stupid.
Britain stole resources under threat of death. If people rose up they were slaughtered.
You are really not being honest.
Martin you are talking a load of bollock . I suppose you can not help it ,brainwashed education . If I ask you who discover America ,I suppose you would say Chirstopher Columbus , wrong , when Columbus arrive people was already there.with the western world education in order to pass a exam you have to give them the answer they want to hear
Now if the said who was the first european to discovered America then Columbus would possibly be the write answer