Hi Ed, Once again, I'll crop fairly heavily to keep this exhange manageable:
At 10:21 10/10/01 -0400, you wrote: >> (EW) >> >If you go to http://members.eisa.com/~ec086636/coping.htm on my website, >> >you'll see that I do recognize the tremendous impact which indigenous >> >invention and industrialization had on Europe. Nevertheless, I would >> >maintain that the contribution of the colonies to European wealth was >also >> >huge, and the reverse impact, that of Europe on colonized people, was >often >> >devastating. >> >>(KH) >> as far as I could see you haven't answered my point that the vast >> proportion of trade (at the time of maximum European colonisation in >Africa >> and Asia) was not with undeveloped 'exploited' countries but was >> intra-European and between Europe and America. 'Non-exploitative' trade >> between 'equals', if you like. >> >> I've been trying to find figures to back this up, but the best I could >find >> was Claus Moser's "Vital World Statistics" of 1987-88. On the reasonable >> assumption that the pattern of trade quoted in the book is very similar to >> that of 100-150 years ago then, of its export volume, the UK exported 13% >> to America and 50% to the EEC. That comes to 63%. Those are the only >> figures I have but it would be reasonable to add a further 15-20% of >> exports to countries of equivalent standard of living in non-EEC Europe >and >> other non-European countries such as Japan. This means that only about 20% >> -- at the very most -- of UK exports go to poor 'exploited' countries >> (with, of course, roughly the same value of imports coming from them -- >> stuff such as cocoa, coffee, and some food). > >Keith, I can't accept that it is reasonable to assume that figures quoted >for 1987-88 are "very similar" to those of 100 to 150 years ago. There has >been far too much change in the global economy over that period. Colonial >empires and the gold standard have disappeared, technology has changed >enormously, new tastes and preferences have emerged, political revolutions >have occurred, the bloodiest wars in history have been fought, and new >alliances have been formed. All such things would have affected patterns of >trade. Yet I would grant that patterns of trade, as officially recorded, >may not have changed that greatly. Most trade, as registered on the books a >hundred years ago, would likely have occurred between equals. > >I suggest, however, that much would depend on how trade was recorded. For >example, would something traded that originates in a colony, say the >Belgian Congo, be recorded on Belgium's books or those of the Congo? >Perhaps on both within the internal Belgian record keeping system, but >perhaps only on those of Belgium in international statistics. But on the >whole you are probably right, most trade would probably have taken place >between countries that had the capacity to produce the trade goods in demand >at the time. > >I would suggest, however, that we are talking about two different things. >In international affairs, trade is only a very small part of the overall >impact that countries have on each other. It is one of the final outcomes >of a number of preceding events. The relations between European powers and >their colonies were defined earlier than 150 years ago, back in the >16th,17th and 18th centuries. As I argued in my previous posting, both the >impacts on Europe and on the colonies were enormous at the time, and were >major factors in bringing about the transformations that continue to define >the modern world. Try to picture where the modern world would be if the >vast resources of the colonies (gold, metals of various kinds, forests, >fish, spices, "corn", slaves, and of course "empty" lands for the settlement >of surplus European populations) had not been available. Try to picture >where Asia, Africa and the Americas would be if they had not been colonized. >It's nonsensical, of course, to try to do that, but I hope you can see what >I'm getting at. Yes, I'm persuaded. I've been tending to conflate different sorts of 'operations' and periods -- i.e. out-and-out colonisation episodes and trade. I haven't, by the way, at any time tried to ignore the historic (and shameful) significance of the former, but I've probably been under-estimating their economic consequences. My focus has been on the rapid phase of the industrial revolution. ---->cut >> (KH) Having both agreed on this, the question to ask is: What is the best >way to >> help? I don't think there's anything that can be done in the short term, >no >> matter how much debt-forgiveness is granted, or how much government aid is >> given. It's a matter of building up the sort of social capital and >> innovative culture which we, in the West, were fortunate in having enough >> of at around the turn of the 18th century -- itself a sort of byproduct of >> a very special era before it, the Enlightenment. This intangible type of >> thing can't be built up quickly. Two modern authors, David Landes (in "The >> Wealth and Poverty of Nations") and Francis Fukuyama (in "The Great >> Disruption" and "Trust") are closest to putting their fingers on it. In >> many of the poorest countries it is the men who are the reactionaries and, >> in practical terms, I think the approach of those charities which are >> concentrating on women's education is the best one. Even so, it's a long >> difficult job. > >Good points. I've just been thumbing through Landes, trying to find support >for my rather strange views. The only thing I've read by Fukuyama is "The >End of History". I didn't think much of it, so I gave it away. Perhaps I >should give him another try. But I think Sept 11th demonstrated that >history has not ended, and that we are into another round of it. I'm a little surprised that you didn't think much of Fukuyama's "The End of History". I thought that it was a pretty thorough piece of work, building up his case very carefully brick by brick. I think "The Great Disruption" is crisper and takes his case a little further. Mind you, there's a possible weakness in Fukuyama's case, and I'm minded to discuss this in a separate posting. Best wishes, Keith ___________________________________________________________________ Keith Hudson, General Editor, Calus <http://www.calus.org> 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ________________________________________________________________________
