https://mobile.twitter.com/RafFaithfull/status/1641157288424611840?cxt=HHwWgIC90fn2x8YtAAAA
Fact: the West is NOT rich due to slavery and colonialism, it began long before
-
This is true but a major fact is missing: this wealth was entirely held by the nobles and a small class of rich merchants. A middle class started to appear only around the 1600-1700s with proto-industrialisation.
Who were these merchants?
Happy European Merchants: Franks, Britons, Spaniards...
-
More like Italian, Flemish and Hanseatic. Oh and Jewish bankers.
This is true but a major fact is missing: this wealth was entirely held by the nobles and a small class of rich merchants. A middle class started to appear only around the 1600-1700s with proto-industrialisation.
Who were these merchants?
Happy European Merchants: Franks, Britons, Spaniards...
-
This is true but a major fact is missing: this wealth was entirely held by the nobles and a small class of rich merchants. A middle class started to appear only around the 1600-1700s with proto-industrialisation.
Who were these merchants?
There was a merchant class esp in Italy, Netherlands, Germany (broadly) and England. Their wealth started piling up through Mediterranean and Baltic naval commerce. However the Twitter thread misses a big fact: the merchant class wealth truly exploded only when the Spanish started to conquer the Americas and finally when the English started building the empire outside of Europe.
In any case this benefited a small number of people. Everyone who was not a merchant, a noble, or a niche professional of which only handfuls existed, was piss poor. The tipping point waz industrialisation.
-
Does it have to be binary? I mean could we say "richer"
A common viewpoint nowadays among young progressives is that the West is only richer than other nations due to colonialism and that the Western world is more warlike than others (which shows a lack of understanding of history).
-
The Bardis of Florence were hugely well off between 1250 and 1345, and therre are many similar examples.
the merchant class wealth truly exploded only when the Spanish started to conquer the Americas
These were just small fries compared to the wealth that the Spanish high nobles hoarded with the conquest of the Americas. But mind I am talking about raw and precious materials, not some bs "stolen artifact" from the primitive Indios. The important detail is that the Spanish were a warrior people due to the Reconquista, very different from the chill Spanish of today. They were still a blend of cultural Goths and rough Roman Catholic provincials with a sword in one hand and a sword in the other. So their wealth was spent lavishly throughout Europe, enriching the merchant class to a whole new extent. This was a major turning event.
-
^ wasn't the wealthy of America mostly in the possession of the local elites rather than, for example, the Duke of Alba?
And weren't the taxes received by the Habsburg Kings mostly spent on wars with France and wars in Germany?I remember that the Spanish King always had problems with budget and had conflicts with the colonial elites due to this.
(And the Spanish colonies were far more profitable than others, I think many colonies were not profitable for the state, just for the men involved on it).
-
^ wasn't the wealthy of America mostly in the possession of the local elites rather than, for example, the Duke of Alba?
And weren't the taxes received by the Habsburg Kings mostly spent on wars with France and wars in Germany?
I remember that the Spanish King always had problems with budget and had conflicts with the colonial elites due to this.
(And the Spanish colonies were far more profitable than others, I think many colonies were not profitable for the state, just for the men involved on it).Yes, I'm no expert in the details but the point is that the Spanish (nobles! The commoners were in absolute poverty) were bad with money. The colonies provided wealth that was then spent and not invested, which is why Spain was a very backwards country economically.
-
First wave of colonization generally produced profitable colonies, but bar Spain most nations just established trading outposts. Not all were successful.
Second wave in the 19th century was a huge money pit for prestige. Only the UK really profited and most colonies (especially in Africa) just lost a lot of money.
And I think there is no consensus that colonies were profitable for the governments.
-
^ wasn't the wealthy of America mostly in the possession of the local elites rather than, for example, the Duke of Alba?
And weren't the taxes received by the Habsburg Kings mostly spent on wars with France and wars in Germany?
I remember that the Spanish King always had problems with budget and had conflicts with the colonial elites due to this.
(And the Spanish colonies were far more profitable than others, I think many colonies were not profitable for the state, just for the men involved on it).Yes, I'm no expert in the details but the point is that the Spanish (nobles! The commoners were in absolute poverty) were bad with money. The colonies provided wealth that was then spent and not invested, which is why Spain was a very backwards country economically.
Hi Xavier
-
So whites did atrocities that were unnecessary?
That's even more of a moral stain.^ atrocities were mostly done by your own countrymen who sold their own kind into slavery or paved the way for European dominance in exchange for money and lucrative positions under colonial government