Colonialism Wasn't Profitable - How History Works

I think Columbus was Italian ...

So basically, colonial powers used their treasuries to subsidize corporate extraction of resources for the exclusive benefit of those same corporations. Much like what we have going on today.

je SUS lol narrator really annunciates that end

This is a truly terrible bit of historical analysis. Factually wrong, or, at best, highly selective bits of history. To say Spain didn't 'profit' from the conquest of the Americas is flat out ridiculous. Spain imported so much gold and silver they distorted the European economy for a generation or more. Not a mention of Dutch colonialism and the VOC, reaping billions in wealth for its investors.

But this is Youtube: any one can slap something together to promote some cockamamie idea and get some folks to buy it. Or not, judging by the comments.

4:13 Holy carp! Those Catholics were wild!

- Unbearable voice intonation
- Waste of time on unrelated history facts
- Chaotic anecdotal evidence to justify the claim

Maybe time to re-do this video? I think you could do a better one.

The Spanish Empire was not a Colonial Empire, it was an Empire in the Traditional sense! The oversea territories were seen as an extension of the Spain. The Viceroyalties were subdivided into kingdoms, diocese, and general captaincies. All following the same laws as Castile (plus a few Extras that were put in place to protect the indigenous population) Isabela la catolica herself proclaimed that the indigenous population were here subjects and thus deserved to be treated as such with all that in tails. Her last wish as per her will and testament was that all her subjects (Spanish and indigenous) would marry and procreate with one another so that they could become one people, one nation to defend themselves against those who wish them wrong

This is awful history. You say Columbus discovered the New World, then note it was already inhabited, as if he didn't know that. Well, duh! This is just lousy narration.

This is such a poor attempt at explaining a historical process, liberal framework utterly failed you, what a muddled mess. Colonialism was indeed extremely profitable for all colonising parties involved, any reframing to claim otherwise is historical revisionism

money u can print, oil u cant.

5:41 really important detail for slavery history

It was beneficial for certain tribe who pursue a long-term strategy for world dominance through wealth and influence.

In WWII without India Brtina wuld have lost hte war - they took goods from Indian factories, gave them an IOU note and never paid after the war - it was the eqivalent of trillions of dollars

Colonisation didn't start 600 years ago. The Greeks colonised Sicily 2200 years ago, the Phoneacians colonised Tunisia 2500 years ago, the Romans colonised Gaul and Britannia 1900 years go, the Yamata colonised Japan 3000 years ago.

Buddy thinks roads are not profitable because it costs money to build them

Completely ignoring the fact the extremely Profitable Trade between city A and city B wouldn't exist without the road connecting them

So sad that your invasions and genicides didn't make you more money than it should have.😢

wow? they looted and looted until they were too tired and couldnt fight anymore. From Britain( they stole the most across the world)to multiple continents. They tried that stuff here in united states. NOpe we said no twice 1776 and 1812. They learned the hard way. then begged us for help in 1915 and 1939. we did so you're welcome England. Then in less developed nations with raw materials, labor, artifacts and oil. Also that super tiny country known as Holland. Spice, trade, free labor, coffee sugar, and then everybody needed tires etc... Rubber Tree Plants. Portugal, diamonds, gold., trade routes. Then Looting RINSE and REPEAT!!!

seriously?!! are you joking? you must think we're super dummies!! why do you think anybody watches your channels? If it wasnt so very very profitable why did some countries hold on with a death-grip for centuries. like them Dutch in Indonesia even after ww 2? or Portugal not leaving Angola until 1975. One of the last original imperialist countries to pull out of the continent? hhhhmm? why exactly? it was the money honey. Dutch in indonesia 1st the spice trade in wooden ship days, then coffee, sugar and cheap/free labour! Portugal for trade routes, free workers and then oil and diamonds. same goes for south africa for diamonds and gold. Many countries looted exotic lands for Many Many exotic artifacts etc for centuries. Then wars were fought over OIL!! Now that one country that is fear everywhere that cannot be mentioned on this site is doing it through looting raw materials in third world locals, also overfishing, stealing lumber and yet the world keeps giving into their soft power, and websites that i cannot also mention. pretty sure they own a large chunk of YT.

Cruelty has always been the point

Big business whispers into the ears of royalty. Royalty taxes. It works out.

Basically what Parenti explained

Historical revisionism

1:13 AoE theme song plays

I lost 11 mins listening to nonesense

One of the main benefits of colonisation was that you can force much more strategically wealthy regions to become export resource markets rather than independent markets, independent markets eventually industrialise and then compete with you. This is why europeans now are throwing pussy fits and asking why their economies are stagnating, because the rest of the world is actually able to compete now 😂

Meanwhile, it's been calculated that the british looted $40T from india...

Ransacking a whole country wasn't profitable! Says the man who benefitted from the barbaric doings of his ancestor!

thats a very simplist, common sense explanation. not entirely true at all

Ага, колониализм не был прибыльным. Белые европейцы выпустили справлялово

Did Great Britain benefit financially from the creation of the 13 colonies?

disliked @ 'land-based trading route'
c'mon, you showed the maritime routes in that same map 😂

Hispanic Americans don't speak Spanish and are Catholic because they were "Conquered", they speak Spanish because they descend partially or totally from the Spaniards. Mom and Dad taught them.
They also descend from the indigenous, African and even Asian populations that arrived through commercial routes and mixed for 500 years, a process that is still alive.

None of these countries existed before the contact and mixing with Europeans.

Yes, may be Africa and other places in the world have different history.

Colonialism is not even a complete picture of history; it is just an oversimplification mostly made by people who wants to feel morally superior.

I noticed a number of odd coincidences in this video ⌚

I don't know if everyone gets rich. But someone must have gotten rich

Colonies were not profitable for the government.
For the private investors they were profiting hand over fist.
Those private investors were themselves the major players in the governments, so they were interested in colonisation and used the state for these endeavours.

It is always so jarring how the images most of the times dont match the historical info being said

Feliz navidad OMYGHOD 5:07

Meantime the Dutch in the 16th hundreds: 👀💰💰

Because it made prominent individuals wealthy, instead of the actual nations

Only Greeks and Romans have the best way to run colonies.

Empires fall to the workings of the law of disminishing returns. When they start they get a lot of riches. They keep getting them, but then there are costs. Administrative costs first and them military and police costs to put down insurgencies. The riches are at best constant but the expenses keep mounting. Then the rule is "you spend more and more to get less and less". Eventually the balance sheet is in the red.