Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watcgl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watnot!watcgl!jchapman
From: jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Better DEAD than RED
Message-ID: <2101@watcgl.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 25-Jun-85 09:57:08 EDT
Article-I.D.: watcgl.2101
Posted: Tue Jun 25 09:57:08 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 26-Jun-85 05:30:59 EDT
References: <893@mnetor.UUCP> <5642@utzoo.UUCP> <896@mnetor.UUCP> <5718@utzoo.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 59

.
.
.
> > I think the question we started with
> > (if *that* event is well-defined) is something like, "Did western
> > industrialization receive significant benefit by mistreatment of colonies?"
> 
> Funny, I thought the question we started with was the all-too-common
> assertion that the wealth of the Western world is fundamentally and
> primarily the result of oppression of the colonies.  And I don't recall
> "industrialization" (as opposed to the more general issue of "wealth")
> being part of the original question at all.

One thing never agreed on in this discussion is: when do you start
measuring from?  Henry you seem to want to begin measuring before
full scale colonization; but how far back?

> 
> As I've said, I am willing to concede modest-but-significant benefits
> to the later phases of Western growth from colonial oppression.  What I
> dispute is the silly notion that the West would have gotten nowhere without
> other people to exploit.  Proponents of that view seemingly have never

 How can you say where it would have gotten *without* colonial
 oppression?  The chinese had technology, knowledge etc. but obviously
 didn't travel the same path as the "west".  Would the west have done
 anything of major importance if they had limited themselves to, say,
 europe?  The major force/power/whatever of the west today is the
 US, a direct result of colonial oppression.  Without the relatively
 free and easy access to raw materials and resources, the slave 
 labour for all sorts of work, the (at first) cheap furs etc. from
 indians and (later) the free land (once it was taken away from
 the indians) how far would things have gone?  Perhaps the extra
 hour or more a day that someone had to cogitate because they had
 a slave resulted in all sorts of new knowledge, techniques etc.
 Would a similar european power have evolved with their limited
 (and somewhat exhausted) resources if north america had never
 been colonized?  Would the european economies have survived without
 the influx given by colonization?  All that technology etc. may
 have been completely useless *unless* it was used to dominate
 others.  I don't know the answer to these; although I have some
 opinions I don't think anyone can say what would have happened or
 how important a single facet was.

> grasped the concept of a non-zero-sum game.
 Sure it's a non-zero sum game thats not the point though.  The
 point (for me anyway) is: given the wealth that exists at any
 given point in time - how is it distributed?, and  - how does
 this distribution change with time? Do the rich always get
 richer (relative to the poor)? etc. etc. Where rich can mean
 education, health, access to information, ability to travel....
 as well as material things.

> -- 
> 				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
> 				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

 John Chapman
 ...!watmath!watcgl!jchapman