How extreme could colonizers oppress their colony without getting a revolt?

Belgium were probably the worst colonizer in 19th century, how much worse could it gets without people getting "I rather face machine gun with my teeth than live another day under your rule."?
 

Zachariah

Banned
Not much worse; and I'd say that any regions with a pre-existing national, racial or religious collective identity would have probably risen up in anti-colonial revolution for less. I was going to bring up Dotrou-Bornier's privately owned 'Kingdom of Rapa Nui', which he attempted (and failed) to get the French to make into a protectorate, as a potential contestant for the worse case scenario, but then I remembered he was actually killed by the few surviving natives on the island IOTL, in what could be termed as a wholesale revolt, 7 years after seizing power.
 
Not much worse; and I'd say that any regions with a pre-existing national, racial or religious collective identity would have probably risen up in anti-colonial revolution for less. I was going to bring up Dotrou-Bornier's privately owned 'Kingdom of Rapa Nui', which he attempted (and failed) to get the French to make into a protectorate, as a potential contestant for the worse case scenario, but then I remembered he was actually killed by the few surviving natives on the island IOTL, in what could be termed as a wholesale revolt, 7 years after seizing power.
I think you're right, it's not as much oppression by the coloniser as what was there before.
If your native king was already torturing left and right and the new white guys do the same, not much has changed
 
I think this is enormously context dependent, particularly on the homogeneity of the oppressed population, the level of technology to resist rule, the perceived stomach of the oppressor for a fight etc.

One thing I would say is that a lot of research into revolts shows it's not the absolute level of life quality that makes a difference, but the level of dashed expectations. It's one of the reasons a lot of post-colonial regimes faced trouble 15-25 years after independence. Many thought they would achieve the wealth level of the colonists once their people were in control, but political economy is obviously a lot more complicated than that.
 
I think this is enormously context dependent, particularly on the homogeneity of the oppressed population, the level of technology to resist rule, the perceived stomach of the oppressor for a fight etc.
Homogeneity is important: Vietnam took decades to be pacified, and yet never fully, that's because they had a national feeling very early on.

It's building an Us vs Them. If the natives are already divided, it becomes very easy for the coloniser with superior tech, finance and means of communication to control the political system
 

RousseauX

Donor
Belgium were probably the worst colonizer in 19th century, how much worse could it gets without people getting "I rather face machine gun with my teeth than live another day under your rule."?
depends on who you are making things worse for

the average person? probably a lot worse: Britain literally starved 10-20% of Ireland to death within a few years in the 1840s-1850s and there was no massive uprising.

The real problem comes when you make things a lot worse for the colonial elite (whether native or imported) and then revolutions happen
 
depends on who you are making things worse for

the average person? probably a lot worse: Britain literally starved 10-20% of Ireland to death within a few years in the 1840s-1850s and there was no massive uprising.

The real problem comes when you make things a lot worse for the colonial elite (whether native or imported) and then revolutions happen

No, they didn't. The British didn't deliberately engineer the potato famine. Their zealous free market mindset contributed to enormous callousness, but that's not the same as starving people as an intentional act. I think the Congo is the best (worst) example of horrendous colonial behaviour.
 
Belgium were probably the worst colonizer in 19th century, how much worse could it gets without people getting "I rather face machine gun with my teeth than live another day under your rule."?

As much worse as you'd like, as long as you gradually introduce atrocities, and your metropolis supports this.

Belgian colonial rule in Congo collapsed not because locals rebelled, but because of pressure from Belgian public and great powers.
 
No, they didn't. The British didn't deliberately engineer the potato famine. Their zealous free market mindset contributed to enormous callousness, but that's not the same as starving people as an intentional act. I think the Congo is the best (worst) example of horrendous colonial behaviour.

RousseauX didn't say anything about British deliberately trying kill Irish, just that they died under their rule, and second, tariffs on grain that contributed to the famine were mercantilist policy.
 
I think you're right, it's not as much oppression by the coloniser as what was there before.
If your native king was already torturing left and right and the new white guys do the same, not much has changed

It is very very rare for not much to change after colonization. The negative effects of colonialism are far more pervasive and damaging then "just" killing and torturing people. Divide and conquer tactics, destruction of native institutions, extractive infrastructure, and re-tribalization are all sustained colonial policies that-in the long run-have far more lasting and damaging effects for the country than ordering people tortured. it's not about the individual whims of people at the top as much as the inherent nature of colonial vs metropolitan rule which causes the implementation and continual reinforcement of destructive policies.
 
depends on who you are making things worse for

the average person? probably a lot worse: Britain literally starved 10-20% of Ireland to death within a few years in the 1840s-1850s and there was no massive uprising.

The real problem comes when you make things a lot worse for the colonial elite (whether native or imported) and then revolutions happen

The famine happened instead of the traditional uprising every two and a half generations (even the Troubles fit into this general scheme). The response to the famine was why there were other uprisings.

No, they didn't. The British didn't deliberately engineer the potato famine. Their zealous free market mindset contributed to enormous callousness, but that's not the same as starving people as an intentional act. I think the Congo is the best (worst) example of horrendous colonial behaviour.

If we believe that the government would have made the same decisions to protect British aristocracy from something like the famine as they did to protect the Irish, or if we believe that an Irish government would have responded in exactly the same way, then we can't say they have much fault for it. I don't believe that. Britain turned away offers of charity for Ireland, perhaps they would have done the same, in pride, if the aristocracy were dying, perhaps not. At a certain point, neglecting someone you have kept in captivity becomes as bad as injuring them directly.
 
It also depends on the type of colony - settler colonies such as the US, Australia, Argentina, etc. seem able to treat the natives with impunity. There were some 'revolts/resistance' during the initial conquests but very little afterwards.
This also has a lot to do with numbers - when the coloniser outnumbers the colonised by 100s to 1 then most revolts will have little impact.
 
The famine happened instead of the traditional uprising every two and a half generations (even the Troubles fit into this general scheme). The response to the famine was why there were other uprisings.



If we believe that the government would have made the same decisions to protect British aristocracy from something like the famine as they did to protect the Irish, or if we believe that an Irish government would have responded in exactly the same way, then we can't say they have much fault for it. I don't believe that. Britain turned away offers of charity for Ireland, perhaps they would have done the same, in pride, if the aristocracy were dying, perhaps not. At a certain point, neglecting someone you have kept in captivity becomes as bad as injuring them directly.

The British deserve enormous blame for their response to the Famine. But standing by while someone drowns is not drowning them.
 
The British deserve enormous blame for their response to the Famine. But standing by while someone drowns is not drowning them.

'Standing aside' implies less influence of Westminster over the affairs of Ireland than was actually the case. This is standing aside after having pushed the victim to the edge of the lifeboat, and then preventing others from coming to aid. It was the wind that bumped the victim into the water, but it should be clear the kind of blame involved.

I stand by my first analogy, it is as if one is neglecting a captive. Were Ireland simply an independent neighbor experiencing a crisis, we may say it was like refusing a call for help.
 
No, they didn't. The British didn't deliberately engineer the potato famine. Their zealous free market mindset contributed to enormous callousness, but that's not the same as starving people as an intentional act. I think the Congo is the best (worst) example of horrendous colonial behaviour.
A "free market mindset" was not at all what caused the famine. The British had massive tariffs which had huge effects on the famine, and that flies in the face of the free market. Secondly, the British purposely tried to stop donations going to the Irish. That goes against the free market. Saying the free market caused the Irish Potato Famine is ridiculous. Thomas Malthus, British racism, Protectionism, and the want to protect the Britsh Aristocracy is to blame for the famine.

Edit: Spelling
 

B-29_Bomber

Banned
It also depends on the type of colony - settler colonies such as the US, Australia, Argentina, etc. seem able to treat the natives with impunity. There were some 'revolts/resistance' during the initial conquests but very little afterwards.
This also has a lot to do with numbers - when the coloniser outnumbers the colonised by 100s to 1 then most revolts will have little impact.

Actually in the US there were armed native uprisings up until the 1890s, largely by people who had already been put on reservations and thus technically "conquered". Indeed, beyond armed uprisings there was resistance to the US Government right up to the modern day.
 
depends on who you are making things worse for

the average person? probably a lot worse: Britain literally starved 10-20% of Ireland to death within a few years in the 1840s-1850s and there was no massive uprising.

The real problem comes when you make things a lot worse for the colonial elite (whether native or imported) and then revolutions happen
Indeed. The Haitian revolution only sparked off because the whites started to make noise about independence. Caribbean plantations were worse than Ireland by a fair margin, yet they kept chugging along except for the one exception.
 
Top