"Somebody pointed out my post about the United States was wrong, so I will post an article that is about other countries instead."Holy fuck... Please get some basic reading on Colonialism and it's effects before coming back. You can start here.
"Somebody pointed out my post about the United States was wrong, so I will post an article that is about other countries instead."Holy fuck... Please get some basic reading on Colonialism and it's effects before coming back. You can start here.
Funny, because they don't seem to mind American medicine, technology, aid, universities, trade, finance, food, emigration opportunities, and products.
But you could say exactly the same about Britain in the 19th Century - except that every country that industrialised, including the US, did so using British finance and British technology, which is far more important than anything achieved by the USA.
Err, no. This is not about jingoism, but rather the reality of the revolution and what it meant for the world, including in countless national liberation struggles well into the twentieth century.I'm pretty sure this one's more accurate. At least for the people who don't live in the US, Canada and EU countries, so yeah, for most of the world (the 6.5 billion people who don't live in any of those three locations), it's likely the world would be better off.
And then multiple protests and mini revolutions lead to a great flowering of liberalism across Europe and then a lessening of exploitation of nonEurope earlier than OTL.Err, no. This is not about jingoism, but rather the reality of the revolution and what it meant for the world, including in countless national liberation struggles well into the twentieth century.
No American Revolution likely means no French Revolution, which means no end to slavery in the French Empire, which means no Haitian Revolution which means no Napoleonic conquests in Europe which means enduring serfdom and feudalism for sometime longer, while allowing the endurance and strengthening of settler colonial empires, and the prospect of greater rather than lesser European exploitation of Asia and Africa.
Isn't this kind of an overly deterministic view of history, that liberalism was bound to appear and become relevant no matter what?And then multiple protests and mini revolutions lead to a great flowering of liberalism across Europe and then a lessening of exploitation of nonEurope earlier than OTL.
I repeat my assertion that the lack of an ARW does not inevitably lead to an eternally less liberal world.
Isn't this kind of an overly deterministic view of history, that liberalism was bound to appear and become relevant no matter what?
No, my point was that assuming the ARW is the only source of liberalism and that without it liberalism is impossible or just massively delayed is highly erroneous and probably overly parochial.Isn't this kind of an overly deterministic view of history, that liberalism was bound to appear and become relevant no matter what?
Not really, @TheProffesor isn't saying it's "bound to appear and become relevant no matter what" (well, it would appear because it existed before the POV) they are saying that the rise of liberalism is not inevitably linked to the US becoming independent (that would be more deterministic). I would go further and say that liberalism isn't inherently related to the world being better either, you can have a marxism-wank TL too.Isn't this kind of an overly deterministic view of history, that liberalism was bound to appear and become relevant no matter what?
Sorry, didn't get you were a troll, will stop feeding."Somebody pointed out my post about the United States was wrong, so I will post an article that is about other countries instead."
There's the flaw: no US independence != no French Revolution. Many of the underlying causes of the latter are independent from the revolution in the Colonies in British North America being successful. Their revolution failing would probably make the French one happen quicker, if anything, given that one of the reasons it happened was France going into bankruptcy by supporting (read: doing the heavy lifting for) Britain's colonies.No American Revolution likely means no French Revolution, which means no end to slavery in the French Empire, which means no Haitian Revolution which means no Napoleonic conquests in Europe which means enduring serfdom and feudalism for sometime longer, while allowing the endurance and strengthening of settler colonial empires, and the prospect of greater rather than lesser European exploitation of Asia and Africa.
Well, a quick British victory would butterfly away French Revolution, which would delay the rise of liberalism by decades, and the emergence would be much weaker.Not really, @TheProffesor isn't saying it's "bound to appear and become relevant no matter what" (well, it would appear because it existed before the POV) they are saying that the rise of liberalism is not inevitably linked to the US becoming independent (that would be more deterministic). I would go further and say that liberalism isn't inherently related to the world being better either, you can have a marxism-wank TL too.
Sorry, didn't get you were a troll, will stop feeding.
There's the flaw: no US independence != no French Revolution. Many of the underlying causes of the latter are independent from the revolution in the Colonies in British North America being successful. Their revolution failing would probably make the French one happen quicker, if anything, given that one of the reasons it happened was France going into bankruptcy by supporting (read: doing the heavy lifting for) Britain's colonies.
Well, what if an earlier Holy Alliance was formed to deal with these mini revolutions? With a more conservative and more authoritarian Britain in such alliance.And then multiple protests and mini revolutions lead to a great flowering of liberalism across Europe and then a lessening of exploitation of nonEurope earlier than OTL.
I repeat my assertion that the lack of an ARW does not inevitably lead to an eternally less liberal world.
Would it though?Well, what if an earlier Holy Alliance was formed to deal with these mini revolutions? With a more conservative and more authoritarian Britain in such alliance.
This. Going further, I also don't understand the insistence that the one and only way for the world to become better is if liberalism is successful. There are alternatives, people.I do not understand why people are so wedded to the idea of "US = liberalism, no US = illiberalism". The Enlightenment still exists and nonnobles are still expanding their wealth and power.
It depends how liberalism is defined I think. Whether it is concerned with individual liberties or whether it extends to national liberties.This. Going further, I also don't understand the insistence that the one and only way for the world to become better is if liberalism is successful. There are alternatives, people.
The world has never seen a more altruistic, unselfish, idealistic and giving great/superpower than USA!
And don't forget supporting dictatorships in South America.*looks at the genocide of the natives, the slavery, the robber barons, and my home country, and then the realpolitik of the Korean, Vietnam, and Iraq Wars* Eh.
I also have to remind you that IOTL, the outcome of the ACW (freedom and voting rights for slaves, while the Jim Crows not yet existed) was one of the three main factor that drove the Reform Bill 1867, the others were Lord Russell's reforming mind and Disraeli's opportunistic nature. As long as Palmerston survives, there wouldn't be any Reform Bill.I do not understand why people are so wedded to the idea of "US = liberalism, no US = illiberalism". The Enlightenment still exists and nonnobles are still expanding their wealth and power.
Well it would be a much more elitist and despotic world if the British crushed the Patriots quickly (and hence butterfly away French Revolution). Serfdom might even continue well into the 19th century in Continental Europe.In a pre 1900 context the difference would not be significant, but if going to the 20th century and on I would like to state: The world has never seen a more altruistic, unselfish, idealistic and giving great/superpower than USA!
For South America, Spain and Portugal may continue to play the role of OTL USA. There is no guarantee that the Brits would not do the same (look at how the Brits enthusiastically pressured Eisenhower to launch the Iranian Coup). No change at all.And don't forget supporting dictatorships in South America.
ITTL, all of Asia and Africa, not just your home country and Korea and Vietnam, would continue to suffer from colonization. I think I don't even have to tell you how brutal European colonialism was.*looks at the genocide of the natives, the slavery, the robber barons, and my home country, and then the realpolitik of the Korean, Vietnam, and Iraq Wars* Eh.
*looks at the genocide of the natives, the slavery, the robber barons, and my home country, and then the realpolitik of the Korean, Vietnam, and Iraq Wars* Eh.
It'd be a different world, I feel. Not worse, not better.