Sep 22, 2007
comments powered by Disqus
More Comments:
Mark Brady - 9/24/2007
My previous question referred to "the search for natural resources (like gold)" and I had in mind land (for settlement and cultivation) and minerals, including precious metals.
The Spanish and Portuguese conquest of the New World and the British settlement at Jamestown were primarily undertaken in hopes of finding gold and silver.
Sudha Shenoy - 9/24/2007
Which 'gold'? Where? What resources?
The West Indies were settled as sugar colonies. The American colonies were settled partly for religious reasons (the Puritans), partly to sell land to settlers who could not find any in England (Pennsylvania), partly to grow tobacco for export to England (Jamestown & the Chesapeake colonies), etc.
ANZ were settled essentially by farmers (the convicts were eventually given land) & to export wheat & wool (the gold rushes in Victoria came much later.)
The East India Company was a trading company for some 167 years before it took over the tax administration of Bengal & Bihar for the Mughal Emperor.
_Some_ areas in the Malay peninsula were taken over to grow rubber. Tin mining came only later when the surface seams (mined by the Chinese) ran out, & deeper mines became necessary.
The various South African colonies had various origins. Cape Colony was agricultural -- it exported wool & grapes to Britain. Natal grew sugar (hence the Indian indentured labour & hence Gandhi.) Only the Transvaal attracted British settlers to mine the diamonds & British investment to mine gold -- in the very late 19th/early 20th century. (The Boers weren't interested.)
Canada exported wheat, flour, & meat to Britain.
Mark Brady - 9/24/2007
Yes, but wasn't the search for natural resources (like gold) a principal motivation behind the original conquests that inaugurated the European empires, including the British?
Sudha Shenoy - 9/24/2007
The British Empire covered _people_. It ran from the mid-17th to the later 20th century, & involved a vast range of very diverse historical circumstances (things keep changing in the course of some 350 years or so, over several continents.)
What we have here (in the early 21st century) is govt control over natural resources, exactly like (eg) the Norwegian & Dutch govts' control over oil in their respective seabeds, or the Saudi & Nigerian govts' control of the oil under the land surface they control. Totally different circs. The real question is govts' control of natural resources.
Mark Brady - 9/23/2007
"The Guardian headline mentions only Britain, of course."
Hardly surprising. The Guardian is a British newspaper.
"In fact 45 govts are in a position to expand their territories; & 6 are actively doing so: South Africa, Russia, France, Brazil, Australia, Ireland."
Indeed, and the article mentions this and more.
"The lands they wish to annex are on the seabed; the govts' new subjects will all be fish. Typical Guardian historical illiteracy."
Huh?
Sudha Shenoy - 9/23/2007
The Guardian headline mentions only Britain, of course. In fact 45 govts are in a position to expand their territories; & 6 are actively doing so: South Africa, Russia, France, Brazil, Australia, Ireland. The lands they wish to annex are on the seabed; the govts' new subjects will all be fish. Typical Guardian historical illiteracy.