Northern Europe didn't import a lot of slaves but they sure as hell benefitted financially from the slave trade.
> Colonialism was not a huge success for England when you look at how much it cost. It was great for national pride and as a symbol of their "greatness" however.
The motivations for colonizing were primarily economic. Do you think the belgian congo was created to satisfy king leopold's fondness for cutting off hands too? The idea that colonialism is some kind of beneficent force that exists to civilize savages is painfully condescending
Since the north is more rich than the south, that's supposed to be an example of how they weren't enriched from slavery? They both benefited tremendously from slavery, ending when they fought a devastating war over it. A slavery based economy does not transition well into a world where slavery is illegal. Not to mention that a lot of the poor people in the south are literally the slaves and their descendants.
I disagree. The European colonial period started in the 15th Century[1]. It established the wealth and power of those nations for almost half a millennium following. The main enabler was not power and wealth, but technology (sailing ships)
> Colonialism was not a huge success for England when you look at how much it cost. It was great for national pride and as a symbol of their "greatness" however.
Again, I'm not sure is correct. By 1914, European colonial powers controlled 84% of the globe[1]. Effectively the only competition was other colonial powers and colonialism demonstrated itself as effective to achieve economic power through (ruthless) acquisition and exploitation of global resources.
As we should understand rather well, sometimes technology is power.
Does this analysis account for the fate of the former slaves and their descendants? I think part of the "wealth" of a society built on these things is leaving those effects as an externality. That doesn't really work when the people who were oppressed are freed and live among you.
European nations who strip mined the rest of the world never really had to account for this head-on, since the most visible exploitation was safely far away.
I'm not convinced that citing economies in decline with historic abuse of slavery is evidence that it isn't a requirement to some of the degrees of wealth we see now. If an entire economy was based around an assumption was that a bunch of free exploited labor like slavery would exist indefinitely then it disappeared over night and no transition strategy existed for that economy or that economy was further tied to slavery... then it's completely possible to see economic decline. Meanwhile, one could have seen the writing on the wall that slavery was gone and moved their resources accumulated off the back of slavery elsewhere and been more successful.
Colonialism is a lot more complicated because there are more inherent costs that could offset the benefits from an economic perspective so its pretty difficult to measure. Slavery is pretty much a guaranteed 'win' from a business perspective, after all, automation of processes with cheap reliable machines is most businesses current wet dream. I'm not saying slavery is a 'good' thing (it's absolutely not), I'm just saying a bunch of cheap ways to create services/goods you can then sell or accumulate seem like a clear way to accumulate/capture wealth. Slavery was one such mechanism abused in the past (and even today, really).
> The interdependency between North and South was more than the direct connection between mass production of cheap cotton in the South, picked by enslaved people, and the success of northern textile mills. Recently, historians of American capitalism argued that slavery was even more tightly connected with the modernizing national and global economy. Above all that the U.S. domestic slave trade, worth perhaps $440m in total and moving more enslaved people (about 750,000) since 1790 than the middle passage of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, was crucial in the westward movement of investment together with the development of new financial products including securities, bonds, and mortgages. These historians have revealed how deeply committed many nineteenth century banks, especially in New York, were to the continued expansion of slavery.
https://acwm.org/blog/myths-misunderstandings-north-and-slav...
The south had slavery, because it was massively profitable. They did not done it for fun and giggles. Owners fought to keep slavery multiple times, because they wealth was in slaves and in what slaves produced. The slave owning families were the richest and most powerful.
Same with colonialism. It was not done out of boredom, it was done because resources you get from all of it.
Both of these persist for many generations post slavery. We are still dealing with them in the form of everything from police violence to far right and far left performative extremist ideologies re-enacting the drama.
I disagree with the people who say slavery is responsible for our wealth. We would be much, much wealthier and far less dysfunctional as a culture had it never existed.
One of the more intriguing ideas I’ve run across is that total slavery abolition is a major contributing factor to the industrial revolution by pricing all labor and incentivizing automation.
I wonder if Egypt and Rome would have industrialized and the solar system would look like the world of The Expanse now had slavery been abolished in the ancient world.
Slavery dwindled away in England around the same time and was abolished in 1833 right before the industrial revolution really went white hot.
I should have mentioned the connection was a hypothesis. It's also possible that causation goes the other way and industrialization led to abolition by reducing demand for slaves. It's easier to make moral progress when it doesn't cost very much, which is why in our current society you see a whole lot of very inexpensive "corporate woke" virtue signaling but massive pushback if someone mentions the word "union" or "increasing the minimum wage."
As far as I understand, this is actually a myth - at least the first two. It's a common cynical refrain that the current level of abundance would be impossible without slavery.
There are many many places where there has been slavery throughout the years, and they have not ended up richer for it. The American South, where slavery was more prevalent, is poorer than the North. Brazil, who imported double the amount of slaves as the US, is poorer. Northern Europe, not known for their abundance of slaves, is wealthier.
Similarly with colonialism - that's something that is only possible once your society is already rich and powerful enough to go around and dominate others. Colonialism was not a huge success for England when you look at how much it cost. It was great for national pride and as a symbol of their "greatness" however.
Cheap imported labor can definitely help parts of an economy - but remember that many people lose their jobs when labor like that is imported - not necessarily granting them upward mobility, and the ones from whom the labor has been imported are more likely to be better off than they were.