Maybe because you dont really need to go to far flung places if you have all the resources at home.
European colonisation began due to rise of technology and just because a country is at the top now does not guarantee that it will be at the top forever. A quick look at history will tell you that.
Technology enabled colonization, but that's not what drove colonization.
> just because a country is at the top now does not guarantee that it will be at the top forever. A quick look at history will tell you that
No one is making this claim. Every empire rises and sets.
What drove colonization?
If you read about various big colonial enterprises, eg the Spanish colonisation of the Americas it's rare to see technology mentioned as a motivation that drives the action, at best it's an enabler that provides success when expanding into less advanced territory.
eg:
The Spanish expansion has sometimes been succinctly summed up as being motivated by "gold, glory, God", that is, the search for material wealth, the enhancement of the conquerors' and the crown's position, and the expansion of Christianity to the exclusion of other religious traditions.
Not mentioning the reconquista is historical laziness.
The conquering of the Americas and the mass evangelization of Christianity into the new world is directly due to Muhammed and his conquests and their descendants.
The linear approach to the origins of a Reconquista taken in early twentieth-century historiography is complicated by a number of issues. [.. etc.]
The period is seen today to have had long episodes of relative religious coexistence and tolerance. The idea of a continuous Reconquista has been challenged by modern scholars.
The consolidation of the modern idea of a "Reconquista" is inextricably linked to the foundational myths of Spanish nationalism in the 19th century, associated with the development of a Centralist, Castilian, and staunchly Catholic brand of nationalism, evoking nationalistic, romantic and sometimes colonialist themes.
Regardless of how we in the modern world think of as "the Reconquista" the question remains whether Spain at the time colonised the New World because for long periods of time Christians and Muslims peacefully coexisted and now that Muslims had been ejected it was "directly due to Muhammed and his conquests and their descendants" that Spain continued to do unto others what Islam was alleged to have done to them.
really?
Like the US was allegedly colonized by English colonists?
I do want to point out that the modern world is quite different. Extractive institutions tend to fail and network effects may create a new form of economic transparency. I don't believe humanity has to continue our old ways in the future. Although the space race might restart the conquest cycle.
I disagree, sorry. I started with this because I claim that racism and imperialism are the basis for the article—both this, and the study published by the MIT faculty member.
I will not accept any point that attempts to show that the current developmental state of the countries of the world are inevitable in any way. It leads to an extremely slippery slope that only ever ends in racism—'oh, X person is from Y region, they deserved to be conquered anyway, they don't deserve a place at the table, they are... subhuman'.
History could've turned at any point. If WW3 had happened (and we came fairly close several times), the 'Western world' and its cities as we know it today would be a smouldering, cratered, ruined moonscape, and the 'victors' (if you could call them that) would be the current third world.
And additionally, I believe my first paragraph has succinctly shown why Europe's development today is not a result of its climate. If that were the case, it would've been the most developed region for all or almost all of human history. It is not; Europe's development is a fairly recent development (pun intended).
That you refuse to accept reality shouldn’t affect us. Poorer countries are poor primarily because of bad governance and resource management, not long-gone colonialism.
Richer countries (Europe and North America) are rich because they manage resources better and have much better leadership.
Denying the above facts does nothing but keep poorer countries in their poor states perpetually, instead of acknowledging that good governance, preferably a liberal democracy, helps these countries progress.
In the 21st century, there’s really no excuse for widespread poverty except bad governance.
Yours Truly, someone from a poor country (Nigeria).
If anything - your arguments actually reinforce the article's point of view because resource heavy areas get pilfered by others and the victors often place or leave extractive institutions in these areas, thus leading to poor economies. Countries that have winters have incentives to colonize resource-rich areas for the reasons you cite. If these resource rich areas have the advantage of having resources... then why is it that these areas are often colonized instead of the other way around?
Also - the article presents these arguments because they're simply sourcing arguments from Daron Acemoglu, who is a labor economist from MIT. Therefore, it will be written from a developmental economics point of view, not from political economics.
>In a just world, Spain, Portugal, the UK, France, the US, and the Benelux countries would collectively be forced to pay reparations amounting to about five to ten trillion euros/pounds/dollars per annum to their ex-colonies, slaves, and exploited peoples until the latter returned to a semblance of development with everyone above the poverty line, and with reliable electricity, sanitation, food supply, housing, and Internet access.
You're not wrong for wanting reparations but this argument has nothing to do with the article at hand.