Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

77

Europeans were introduced to at least one important disease from the Americas (syphilis), but far more Old World pathogens were introduced to the Americas than vice versa. There are several reasons for this imbalance. European agriculturalists lived in closer proximity to disease vectors than did most Native Americans. A number of important diseases ...


32

The Chinese situation was fundamentally different from the Western European colonial empires. In fact it's rather more like Russia, who also managed to keep her Eurasian empire, or the United States, who acquire vast territories West of the Mississippi. In the case of China, those lands you refer to are mostly Sinkiang and Tibet. Most notably there is the ...


27

Several good answers have already been suggested, but there are a few very important points that are worth mentioning: Native Americans were badly unprepared for the emergence of epidemic disease among their populations, both genetically and culturally. According to this article from 2002, there was a major genetic component to it: far less immune system ...


12

Kind of, but not as such. The closest to what you're probably thinking of is the nihonjin-machi that began to form in the Pacific around the same time as Europe's Renaissance. These were primarily mercantile communities, but later also housed significant numbers of samurais, Christians and other exiles from Japan. None of them survived after the early modern ...


9

Certainly some diseases are of New World origin. The Old World had more diseases and more deadly diseases simply because the population was much greater and in certain place more concentrated. It is likely that more New World natives were killed by disease than by violence. However, this is just as true in the Old World: many more have died of disease than ...


7

The book is well written and well explained; Jared Diamond actually takes real pain to explain that his theories are not implacable and must not be taken as a 100% reliable blueprint for predicting success or failure of any civilization (even if we could actually define what "failure" means for a civilization). The book, though, attracted criticism because ...


7

This is a huge question, one that cannot possibly be covered entirely in a single answer on a website. However, the three points you listed in your question can be addressed, and I've tried to do so below. Please keep in mind that even these could each have whole books written about them, so I'm aiming for the broad strokes here, just to give you an idea ...


7

As the other answer and comments pointed out, all three Baltic states fought to resist the Soviet re-occupation after 1944. The Lithuanian effort were relatively more determined, costing the Lithuania about as many lives as the rest of the Baltic resistances. More importantly, however, during this period Lithuania was slower in its economic development ...


5

I have found it now here: http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/fr/IMG/pdf/24_Lombart.pdf (footnote 40), where someone (not Chirac himself) says that Chirac is “de ceux pour qui ‘sans l’Afrique, la France deviendrait une puissance de troisième rang’” (one of those for whom “without Africa France would become a third-rate power”). NB. "third rate" not "third world".


5

Although the Convention of 1818 and the subsequent 1846 Oregon Treaty might be considered here, these both predate the establishment of a true Canadian Government. Hence I think the following Acts and acts of the post-1867 Government and people of Canada best answer the question: Purchase of Rupert's Land in 1869 from the Hudson's Bay Company and the ...


5

This poses an extraordinarily simplistic question. The histories of different 'colonies' are so utterly varied in their type and circumstances that it would be almost impossible to find useful examples for a contrasting case study. And what would be the point anyway? 'Colonies' which did particularly well, both before and after independence, are ones where ...


5

If you get sick and bring your disease to the place you are going (for instance, because you were on a long and exhausting journey), you are going to be ill at your destination. You may have carried the germ for a long time, since you are used to it, and it will only strike if/when you are weakened. If you get sick at your destination, it is not likely that ...


4

Neither of them were really part of India to begin with. Sri Lanka was formerly the British Crown Colony of Ceylon, which grew out of an earlier Dutch colony. In 1795, during the Napoleonic Wars, Britain took over control of Sri Lanka's coastlines from the Dutch Republic. The British East India Company was entrusted to administer the area, but it was ...


4

Semaphore's hypothesis was right. I found interesting resource which tells us that islands actually had been considered terra nullius till 1926. Until the year 1926 the islands had been considered "Terra Nullius", or other words, ''No Man's Land". However, following practices of Canada, the Soviet Union claimed that all land in the sector between ...


4

The English colonies you mentioned ended up better because they tended to be better to begin with. The successful ones had either a lot of structure or few natives. India and Singapore had established economies and political systems before the British got there. They didn't need to be built from the ground up. Cape Colony (south africa) was a dutch colony ...


4

I'd say the syphilis was was quite a deadly illness contacted from the Native Americans. They were immune to it (wonder if they still are…). Although it is not 100 % historically proved that the syphilis originated from the New World, it started spreading like crazy after its discovery.


4

I am sure there were a lot of small colonies, but historically speaking nobody was interested in recording groups of Italians from one city moving to another city. The Italians had numerous colonies in the Greek islands, Corsica, Sardinia, Sicily and in Dalmatia. As an example, Pula, which has a very nice harbor has always had a very strong Italian ...


3

I seriously doubt you can make any such generalisation. Case in point, Zimbadwe is one of the worst countries in the world, when under British rule it was affluent. It used to be the bread basket of Africa, now it's starving. And that has nothing to do with the fact that it was British before, and everything with the way it's being run now. And the same is ...


3

The population of India during the British Raj days was first counted during the census of 1871. Prior to this a full census and data on British subjects were not available. The 1891 census also did a linguistic division, but nothing such as "British Subjects". But people who spoke English as a mother tongue returned 238,409. The total Number of people with ...


3

Wiki: The 1861 Census had revealed that the English population in India was 125,945. Of these only about 41,862 were civilians as compared with about 84,083 European officers and men of the Army.[47] In 1880, the standing Indian Army consisted of 66,000 British soldiers, 130,000 Natives, and 350,000 soldiers in the princely armies. Indian economy ...


3

How about in 1948 when India invaded Hyderabad and conquered it? Any Indians who since moved to the area are also occupying settlers.


3

In the colonial era, sugar then was comparable to oil now - it was an extremely valuable commodity, and countries sought to produce as much of it as possible. The Guianas had a suitable climate for growing sugar and had been left unsettled by the Spanish/Portuguese, so it was not surprising that they would be eventually conquered by other European powers. ...


2

You are conflating immigrants from different time periods. The North American colonies were established over a period of 150 years from approximately 1620 to 1770. During that time many different kinds of immigration occurred. First of all, criminals were not allowed to immigrate normally. You had to be of good character to get sponsored to go to the ...


2

The book is very well regarded: it won a Pulitzer Price for non-fiction and figures in many lists of the more important books of the end of the 20th century. It's impossible to say how accurate it is regarding the truth of its main thesis: that the long-term and gross differences between societies in different continents and environments, come ultimately ...


2

Julian Jackson's account of France in the 1930s and 1940s France: The Dark Years shows how France's African empire was seen as compensation for the decline in French prestige and influence in Europe during this period. Algeria was the most important element in this project because of proximity to France, long historical association, and larger settler ...


2

Crimea (occupied by Russia from Crimean tatars, with tatars forcibly deported and Russians moved in). Later re-occupied in 2014, with both Ukrainians and Crimean tatars being discriminated against (the leader of Crimean tatars was exiled). Königsberg, which USSR occupied, de-germanized, and turned into Russian-majority Калинингра́д.


2

The main difference is that most of the British 13 colonies were "settlements," while the French and Spanish holdings were really "colonies." "New France" was based on the trade in furs, sugar, and other commodities, and had less than 100,000 people in total. The people that came over were "careerists" in the above trade, not people who planned to settle ...


2

I totally and completely disagree with this premise. 1) The Sahara desert was almost completely uninhabited a couple thousand years ago, as the land was dry and arid, making it a poor agricultural location. 2) The dense rainforests made habitation in western and central africa extremely difficult until the arrival of the Bantu peoples, and they were groups ...


2

I conducted a small survey of the (quite extensive) literature on this topic , and found that there are many different conclusions as to both whether and why the identity of a colonial power had an impact. Quite frankly, the number of contradictory papers I found indicates that there is no scholarly consensus on this issue, and that it remains an ongoing ...


2

The answer has to do with demographics based on agricultural productivity. The sedentary 'Han' Chinese could spread into the lands of their conquerors and out-breed and out-produce them. Thus, though the Mongols and Manchus and so on conquered 'Han' China, increasing proportions of their own homelands came to be ethnically Chinese. In the Manchu case, ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible