Why is Europe so rich?

Before 1763, European powers had only a few foothold in Asia and Africa, mainly occupied in North and South America. After 1763, they politically controlled most of Asia and almost the whole of Africa. However, in North and South America, they can do much more than that. They really Europeanized North America and South America by taking advantage of the sparsely populated America. This is impossible in Asia and Africa, because there are too many indigenous people there and they have developed to a high level. However, in North and South America, especially in Australia, Europeans transplanted their civilization from all aspects-race, economy and culture.

To a great extent, the industrial revolution is the main reason for this Europeanization. As we have seen, the growth of productive forces and the progress of medicine led to the sharp increase of European population in the19th century. The resulting population pressure is to find a way out through overseas immigration. Railways and steamboats effectively transported a large number of people to the oceans and continents, and various persecution further promoted migration; Before the First World War, 15 years,10.5 million Jews fled from Russia to the United States, which is a major example. The combination of these factors has led to unprecedented large-scale immigration. Every past 10 years, the wave of population migration has increased dramatically. 19 In the 1920s, only145,000 people left Europe; in the191950s, about 2.6 million people left Europe, 1900 to1.

Before 1885, most immigrants came from northern and western Europe; After that, most immigrants came from southern and eastern Europe. Generally speaking, British immigrants went to the dominion of the British Empire and the United States; Italians travel to America and Latin America; Spanish and Portuguese travel to Latin America; Germans went to America, and a few went to Argentina and Brazil. From the perspective of world history, the significance of this extremely huge migration lies in that, except for a large number of people pouring into Asia and Russia, a small number of people slowly flowed into South Africa, and the goal of migration was completely directed at America and Oceania. As a result, North America and Australia are almost completely Europeanized in race. Although the Indians in South America managed to survive, only a few people survived. In other words, the colonial branch in the period before 1763 has become several new Europe juxtaposed with the old Europe in the period of19th century.

North and South America and Australia are not only racially but also economically Europeanized. /kloc-before 0/763, European colonies on these continents were mainly confined to coastal areas. But in the next century, the inland of the mainland was crossed. The industrial revolution made it possible to invade by land by providing necessary machinery and technology. If there is no road from the coast to the inland, no canal connecting rivers, no transcontinental railways and telegrams, no steamboat between rivers and coastal waterways, no agricultural machinery capable of cutting grassland turf, and no continuous guns to conquer indigenous people, the wilderness cannot be conquered. These machinery and equipment used to conquer vast areas of the mainland are as important to Latin Americans and Australians as to the residents of the American frontier. For example, an Argentine wrote an article in 1878, commenting: "The military power of Indian barbarians has been completely destroyed, because Remington has made them realize that an army can cross the entire South American prairie and cover the ground with the bodies of those who dare to oppose it."

The colonization and economic development of the New World naturally led to the transplantation of European culture. It is true that in the process of transplantation, culture has changed. Culture has not only been adopted, but also changed. Today, Canada, Australia and the United States are not exactly the same as Great Britain, and Latin America is not an exact replica of Iberian Peninsula. However, the fact remains that the languages are basically the same, although American slang fascinates the British, while the ancient French and Canadian dialects make the French curious. The same is true of religion, although there are also campfire revival and Mormonism. Literature, schools, newspapers, government-all these can be traced back to Bode countries, Spain, France and other European countries.

Of course, there are also some cultures in North and South America and Australia that did not originate in Europe. Black people in America have retained some remnants of their African background. Surviving indigenous peoples, especially Latin American Indians, have contributed to a mixed culture, and people should not forget the influence of the wilderness; It left an indelible mark on European immigrants and their customs. All these forces explain why new york, Melbourne and Toronto are very different from London, and why Buenos Aires, Brasilia and Mexico City are very different from Madrid.

However, from a global perspective, there are more similarities than differences. In the process of their westward expansion from their hometown in the Middle East, the Arab nation crossed North Africa and extended to the Atlantic coast. Today, Moroccan culture is different from Arabian Peninsula culture, far more than American culture is different from British culture or Brazilian culture is different from Portuguese culture. However, Morocco is now regarded as a part of the Arab world, and there is no doubt that it thinks so itself. Similarly, North America, South America and Australia are now part of the European world.

The conquest of the industrial revolution by neo-imperialism is not only the main reason for the Europeanization of the United States and Australia, but also the main reason for the establishment of Europe's huge colonial structure in Asia and Africa. The construction of this empire was carried out steadily for decades after the emergence of a huge colonial settlement in 1763. Indeed, at the beginning of the19th century, there were many anti-imperialist sentiments among some groups in Britain and France. Supporters of free trade think that colonies have little economic value, and the experience of Britain in dealing with 13 colonies seems to provide evidence for their views. However, the fact remains that Britain and France continued to acquire territory in those decades. For example, Britain 18 15 acquired Cape Colony and Ceylon, New Zealand 1840, Hong Kong 1842 and Natal 1843. Similarly, the French conquered Algeria from 1830 to 1847, and Zina from 1858 to 1867. In addition, in 1862, they tried to establish themselves in Mexico, but failed. However, these gains are insignificant compared with the huge wave of empire building after 1870; After 1870, "neo-imperialism" made a large part of the earth look like an accessory of a few European powers.

Colonies can be used as markets for more and more manufactured goods; From the growing desire to acquire colonies, we can see the close relationship between new imperialism and industrial revolution. /kloc-during the 0/9th century, several European countries and several overseas countries began to industrialize and soon competed for each other's markets, and in the process, they raised their respective tariffs to resist the products of other countries. Before long, it was suggested that every industrialized country should have a colony to provide its manufacturers with a "market free from foreign competition". In 1898, American senator Albert beveridge gave a representative explanation to a group of Boston businessmen on this point:

American factories produce more things than the American people use; American land produces more things than the American people can consume. Fate has formulated policies for us; World trade should and must belong to us. Therefore, we will get what our motherland (Britain) tells us about world trade. We will set up trading posts around the world as distribution points for American products. We will send our merchant fleet across the ocean. We will build a truly great navy. Autonomous and huge colonies that fly our flag and trade with us will grow around our trading post.

The industrial revolution also produced surplus capital, which in turn led powerful countries to look for colonies as their investment places. The more capital accumulated in China, the lower the profit, and the more profitable foreign investment market is needed. In fact, powerful countries, especially Britain, France and Germany, have invested heavily in foreign countries. For example, Britain has invested 4 billion pounds in foreign countries, equivalent to a quarter of its national wealth. At that time, France also invested 45 billion francs abroad, accounting for about one-sixth of its national wealth. Although Germany was a latecomer and spent most of its capital on domestic industrial development, it also invested 22 billion to 25 billion marks overseas, accounting for about one-fifteenth of its national wealth. Therefore, by 19 14, Europe has become a banker in the world. /kloc-in the first half of the 0/9th century, most of these overseas investments were in North and South America and Australia-the white world. However, in the second half of the19th century, most of these overseas investments were in non-white and relatively unstable countries in Asia and Africa. Thousands of small private depositors and some large financial institutions that provide funds will naturally worry about the safety of their funds. They prefer to have a "civilized" administration in the areas where they invest, which is best carried out by their respective governments. In this way, the need to invest surplus capital promoted new imperialism.

The industrial revolution also led to the demand for machine raw materials. Most of these raw materials-jute, rubber, oil and various metals-come from "uncivilized" areas of the world. In most cases, in order to fully produce these goods, a large amount of capital expenditure is needed. As we all know, this kind of investment usually leads to political control.

The origin of new imperialism is not entirely economic; It is not only related to the industrial revolution. There were other factors at work at that time. One factor is the hope of acquiring strategic naval bases like Malta and Singapore to strengthen national security. Another factor is the need to obtain another source of labor, as France has done in North Africa. Another factor is the influence of missionaries, who were particularly active in the19th century. These missionaries have been trying to convert aborigines, and they are sometimes abused or even killed by aborigines. Although missionaries themselves may be willing to tolerate such dangers for their own career, they think it is acceptable, but public opinion often demands a counterattack. Therefore, the government knows that such incidents can be used as an excuse for military intervention. Finally, social Darwinism, its survival competition and the popularity of the theory of survival of the fittest naturally led to the theory of racial superiority and the idea that whites have the "responsibility" to rule the "inferior" colored people in the world. On this issue, Cecil Rhodes, the outstanding founder of the empire, was very frank. He said: "I insist that we are a world-class race;" In this world, the more places we live, the better for mankind. If there is a God, I think what it wants me to do is to draw as much red as possible on the map of the British in Africa. "

The final result of these economic, political and ideological psychological factors led to the largest land plunder in the history of the world, and even Genghis Khan's conquest could not be compared with it. In the 30 years from 187 1 to 1900, Britain has increased its imperial land by 4.25 million square miles and its population by 66 million, France by 3.5 million square miles and its population by 26 million, Russia by 5 million square miles and its population by 6.5 million in Asia, and Germany by 500,000 square meters. Even tiny Belgium managed to acquire 900,000 square miles of land and 8.5 million residents. These conquered lands, together with the original colonies, created a strange and unprecedented situation: a small part of the world dominated the rest.

Industrialized European powers not only fully own these huge colonies. But also controlled those economically and militarily weak areas that were actually not tolerated for various reasons. China, the Ottoman Empire and Persia are all examples; They are nominally independent, but in fact they are often plundered, humiliated and controlled by powerful countries in direct and indirect ways. Latin America is also an economic subsidiary of a powerful country, but in this region, European military operations have suffered setbacks because of Monroe Doctrine. However, Monroe Doctrine did not hinder the repeated armed intervention by the US Marine Corps to "restore public order". The Great Russian Empire was also largely controlled by the economy of Western Europe, but at that time, the military power of the czar regime was strong enough to prevent foreign economic influence from spreading to other fields.

Therefore, we can see that the control of Europe extends not only to its huge empire, but also to the equally vast affiliated areas. In fact, more European capital is invested in affiliated countries rather than colonies. These investments are protected by various means and political and economic pressures, such as military delegations that train local troops, financial delegations that supervise and usually control local finances, extraterritorial rights that give Europeans the privilege of living or doing business in these areas, and various arrangements related to extraterritorial rights. If necessary, there are always US Marines or gunboats as a last resort in the Eastern Hemisphere.

The details of the relationship between great powers and colonies and dependent countries will be examined in the following chapters. The purpose here is only to describe the general pattern of these relationships. This pattern clearly shows that by 19 14, most of the earth's surface and most of the world's population have been directly or indirectly controlled by a few European countries, Russia and the United States. This development is unprecedented in human history. Today, in the middle of another century, most of the chaos in the world is an inevitable response to this European hegemony.

The influence of neo-imperialism1Why is the great expansion of Europe in the late 9th century called neo-imperialism? Imperialism is nothing new after all. If imperialism is defined as "direct or indirect political or economic domination or control by a country, a nation or a country over other similar groups", then imperialism is as old as human civilization. There is no doubt that the Romans were imperialists because they conquered most parts of Europe and the Near East and ruled these areas for centuries. Moreover, before and after the Romans, many other empires in the world were conquered by various nationalities.

But the word "neo-imperialism" still makes sense, because this kind of European expansion in the late19th century is completely unprecedented in terms of its influence on colonies and territories. Although Rome exploited its colonies simply and directly by plundering and collecting tributes mainly in the form of food, its exploitation did not particularly affect the economic life and structure of the colonies. The colonies continued to produce almost the same food and handicrafts in the same way as in the past. Comparing this imperialism with the imperialism that later invaded and transformed the whole continent is like comparing a shovel with a steam excavator. Traditional imperialism includes exploitation, but it does not include fundamental economic and social changes. Tribute belongs to only one ruling group, not another. In contrast, neo-imperialism forced the conquered countries to carry out radical changes, which was not so much a well-thought-out policy as the inevitable influence of dynamic industrialism in western Europe on the static self-sufficient agricultural regimes in Africa and Asia. In other words, industrial capitalism in Europe is too complicated and expansive, and it is not a simple tribute relationship with the colonies.

Of course, the conquerors in Europe did not hesitate to plunder and collect tribute. The British have done this in India, just as the Spanish did in Mexico and Peru before. However, after this initial stage, Europe's vibrant economy began to surround and change the economic and social structure of the colonies in various ways. As we already know, this is because industrialized Europe needs to obtain raw material sources and markets for its surplus capital and finished products. For example, Britain used to transport a lot of textiles and capital to India, and the capital was mainly used to lay railways. By 1890, India had laid about 17000 miles of railways, which was roughly equivalent to the British railway network. However, from 1890 to191,India's railway network roughly doubled, reaching 33,000 miles, while Britain's railways only increased by more than 300 miles in the same period.

It should be pointed out that railways and other large-scale projects, such as irrigation projects and port facilities, are exchanged with British capital. In other words, India does not have to wait until it has accumulated enough capital to develop its economy and increase its exports. Therefore, at this early stage, India's economic development was driven by its relationship with Britain. However, the important point is that India's economy has not only failed to improve, but also been rebuilt and invalidated in the later period. British textiles are very cheap, so they can be distributed to the whole country through the railway network at this time, thus ruthlessly bankrupting indigenous craftsmen, just as they bankrupted British craftsmen a century ago. However, there is an extremely important difference between the two situations. British craftsmen go to work in factories that have sprung up in cities, but Indian craftsmen have nowhere to go because there are no factories in their cities. British people naturally don't want to build a competitive industrial structure in India. They like the Indian economy to supplement their own, but they don't like the Indian economy and their own competition. Therefore, India supplies raw materials to Britain, and in return, India obtains the capital needed for finished products and construction projects.

This is a natural and understandable arrangement, but it has deeply affected the Indian people. They used to make a living by agriculture and handicrafts. At this time, craftsmen had to cut prices and compete with competitors for business, and there was no alternative source of life. Farmers have to be affected because many of them are involved in the production of jute and other commodities for British factories. This means that they are no longer just supporting themselves and people in nearby towns. At this time, they have become an integral part of the world economy and are dominated by fluctuations and crises in the world economy. Europe has also fundamentally influenced India by introducing medical science and various health measures, because medical and health measures have led to a sharp decline in population. This has happened in Europe before, but millions of people in Europe have entered cities or gone overseas, and Indians can't do this. So the final result is that population growth and economic development are hindered.

This is the essence of the influence of new imperialism on colonies and dependent countries. India has been used as an example of this influence, but in other regions, the general pattern is the same, except for some changes in natural areas. This model should be remembered, because it explains why today's world is divided into the developed world and the underdeveloped world, why the living standards of the two worlds are so amazing, and why the primary goal of people in the underdeveloped world after gaining political independence is to become a developed world-to reach the western economic level as soon as possible.

The review of new imperialism should not come to the conclusion that new imperialism is an out-and-out disaster for the world and even for the subordinate colonial people. From a historical perspective, neo-imperialism will undoubtedly be regarded as a great progress in the world, just as the industrial revolution was a great progress for Europeans. In fact, the historical role of new imperialism lies in pushing the industrial revolution to its logical inevitable result-making industrial countries, that is, industrial capitalism, play a role in the world. This has led to the extensive, coordinated and effective utilization of the world's material and human resources. Undoubtedly, when European capital and technology were combined with raw materials and labor in underdeveloped areas, which led to a complete world economy for the first time, the world productivity was immeasurably improved. In fact, the industrial production in the world has increased from 1860 to 1890, a threefold increase, and from 1860 to 19 13, a sevenfold increase. The value of world trade has increased from 185 1 to 1880, 4.045 billion pounds in 1900 and 7.84 billion pounds in 19 13 years.

People don't have different views on the benefits of increasing the size of cakes. More precisely, the debate centered on how to cut the cake. The colonial people felt that in the past, they got less than they deserved. The total amount they get has obviously increased, otherwise their rising population will not be supported. For example, a British economist pointed out that in 1949, European companies engaged in mining in mineral-rich northern Rhodesia sold their products for 86.7 million pounds. Of this money, they only spent 654.38+0.25 million pounds in Northern Rhodesia; This means that two-thirds of the money has been transferred abroad. In addition, of the 654.38 million pounds spent in Northern Rhodesia, 465.438 million pounds were paid to Europeans living and working there. Of the 36.7 million pounds, only 2 million pounds went to Africans working in mines. However, these workers get an average of 4 1 pound a year, while the average income of each adult African in the colony is 27 pounds a year.

In this case, it is understandable that the colonial people are not interested in the increased productivity or wages paid by foreign companies. What impressed them deeply was their poor living standards, especially compared with those in the west. They are not content to let themselves play the role of hard workers; Even in areas with human and material resources needed for industrial development.

Obviously, the reaction of western workers to industrial capitalism is similar to that of colonial people to new imperialism. Both of them are dissatisfied with their own fate and support the movement aimed at achieving fundamental change. However, there is another basic difference: the colonial people are not against their own emperors, but against foreign rulers. Therefore, at least in the initial stage, the movement they opposed was not socialism, but a series of western political theories-liberalism, democracy and especially nationalism.

Then we will study these theories that constitute the political revolution in Europe. Understanding this revolution is as important to world history as understanding the industrial revolution. As we will see, the world is not only influenced by western cotton goods, railways and banks, but also by western ideas, slogans and political systems.