Zone1 why oh why did the Europeans have to start so many colonies?

[frigidweirdo]

yeah, that sure was the motto of those dark age days, it seems.
my own country got filthy rich during the 1700s, off "maintaining colonies" of course.
we had slavery (of blacks) in this country.

but times have changed since the emergence of commercial, cheap airtravel, and especially since the invention of the Internet.

Sure, we don't need to spend all the money to take over a country now. The US and UK do it for the oil, but nothing else seems worth the money....

 

[Frankeneinstein]

MONEY... they got rich from these colonies. They wanted the exotic resources.

Today they're called climate change activists.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

i'm wondering at the moment; why did the Europeans have to start so many colonies around the world after 1200AD?
it seems our current international conflicts all stem from these efforts, which might be reversable in the not too distant future, if people were just willing to do so.

hmmm...are you as concerned about the colonization of space as well?

 

[peacefan]

hmmm...are you as concerned about the colonization of space as well?

well, yes. very much so in fact.
in my estimation, there will be a time of peaceful exploration of space, but as mining of the asteroid belt just beyond the orbit of Mars takes shape, greed might well once again drive humans into war against eachother...

 

[Frankeneinstein]

well, yes. very much so in fact.
in my estimation, there will be a time of peaceful exploration of space, but as mining of the asteroid belt just beyond the orbit of Mars takes shape, greed might well once again drive humans into war against eachother...

And now you have the answer to your OP, outside of europe the rest of the planet felt like you do.

 

[elektra]

i'm wondering at the moment; why did the Europeans have to start so many colonies around the world after 1200AD?
it seems our current international conflicts all stem from these efforts, which might be reversable in the not too distant future, if people were just willing to do so.

Your premise is wrong.

It was not Europeans that decided colonization.

A king decided, not the people.

It was not greed that drove people to America. It was the desire for freedom.

Your premise, your idea, Your understanding is all based on false ideas.

People escaped slavery,

 

[GLASNOST]

it seems our current international conflicts all stem from these efforts, which might be reversable in the not too distant future, if people were just willing to do so.

When was the last time you glanced through a geography book? 1950?

nah, i used google maps extensively during 2000s all the way to now..

I could have/should have been more specific. The "willingness to reverse conflicts" borne out of "colonialism" has been underway for a very, very long time. When I brought up geography it was a feeble attempt at pointing out that there are a great number of nations that are no longer colonized. You can, if you wish, make the argument that many of those independent nations are still economically dependent (and even being "raped", so to speak) and I would agree with you BUT outright colonialism is damned near eradicated.

 

[peacefan]

I could have/should have been more specific. The "willingness to reverse conflicts" borne out of "colonialism" has been underway for a very, very long time. When I brought up geography it was a feeble attempt at pointing out that there are a great number of nations that are no longer colonized. You can, if you wish, make the argument that many of those independent nations are still economically dependent (and even being "raped", so to speak) and I would agree with you BUT outright colonialism is damned near eradicated.

yes, except for places like Iraq, Israel and Ukraine.

 

[peacefan]

Your premise is wrong.

It was not Europeans that decided colonization.

A king decided, not the people.

It was not greed that drove people to America. It was the desire for freedom.

Your premise, your idea, Your understanding is all based on false ideas.

People escaped slavery,

but... surely a king can not decide on his own to start up colonization.
he needs the support of his bureaucracy and people for that.

 

[elektra]

a king can not decide on his own to start up colonization.
he needs the support of his bureaucracy and people for that.

You could not be more wrong.

England
First off, the word you should be using to show you have knowledge of history, would be parliament.
Second, if you stated King George III, you might have an argument. And that is, might.
Third, we are now speaking of a Queen, in regards to England, not a King

Now we have to talk about the Spanish and French. Then the Dutch. The Portuguese, Sweden, Norway, Courland. The Danes, Russia, and Scotland.

A Queen decided to colonize the New World, without consulting Parliament, which was mostly confined to raising money for wars.

Kings, most certainly did not have Parliments, or did not consult their respective Parliament.

Kings and Queens were dictators, and some much stronger than others. There was no need of support of the people, that was automatic, for everything belonged to the King. That included the people.

 

[M14 Shooter]

being better at slaughtering other humans does not give one group the right to imperialism over another, i believe.

6000 years of human history says otherwise.

 

[M14 Shooter]

i respectfully disagree. we can evolve into something more sophisticated.

We're mammalian predators living in a social construct completely foreign to nature.
The moment said construct collapses -- even to the point where it was 200 years go -- you will see a nearly complete reversion to that predatory mammalian nature.

 

[alang1216]

being better at slaughtering other humans does not give one group the right to imperialism over another, i believe.

That is exactly not how we evolved. Competition was the name of the game.

 

[martybegan]

Invention of the compass and the astrolab made navigation possible in the 1200's and firearms were invented in the early 1300's which made conquest a little less bloody on the european side.

Metalworking in general and the use of horses also played a big part.

Add in the idea of organized armies, gunpowder and cannons, and the need for resources, and it was inevitable.

 

[peacefan]

Metalworking in general and the use of horses also played a big part.

Add in the idea of organized armies, gunpowder and cannons, and the need for resources, and it was inevitable.

and now the world has become too small for such competition "games".

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

i'm wondering at the moment; why did the Europeans have to start so many colonies around the world after 1200AD?
it seems our current international conflicts all stem from these efforts, which might be reversable in the not too distant future, if people were just willing to do so.

Intellectual Property Doesn't Belong to the Ding-Dongs of the Bell Curve

Anti-colonialism revealed the decadence of the European ruling classes. Savages need to be put down and their resources developed for the good of the races that invented their development and use.

So overthrow the degenerate feralphile ruling class and bring back settler imperialism, such as what the White man did in America.

 

[martybegan]

and now the world has become too small for such competition "games".

No, the invaders have just changed their methods. Soft invasions of illegal immigrants and poisoning the minds of other people's kids.

 

[GLASNOST]

I could have/should have been more specific. The "willingness to reverse conflicts" borne out of "colonialism" has been underway for a very, very long time. When I brought up geography it was a feeble attempt at pointing out that there are a great number of nations that are no longer colonized. You can, if you wish, make the argument that many of those independent nations are still economically dependent (and even being "raped", so to speak) and I would agree with you BUT outright colonialism is damned near eradicated.

yes, except for places like Iraq, Israel and Ukraine.

Iraq is definitely occupied and controlled by the US. So is Ukraine. I'm not sure about Israel except that it (itself) is occupying Palestine.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

being better at slaughtering other humans does not give one group the right to imperialism over another, i believe.

Lecture the American Injuns about that. Then the Africans who slaughter their neighbors today and sell those they haven't murdered into slavery.

Then take a trip to Gaza and tell these animals to stop massacring Israeli villages

 

[Carl in Michigan]

We're mammalian predators living in a social construct completely foreign to nature.
The moment said construct collapses -- even to the point where it was 200 years go -- you will see a nearly complete reversion to that predatory mammalian nature.

No, you'll see a reversal of roles if it's in their power to do so. You saw it in the illegal immigrants who assaulted the cops and gave the finger to the American People. This is why it would be a fatal mistake to allow these people in this country