Settler vs Resouce Extraction colonialism

>>2998010
Only a handful of British colonies were settler colonies
>Australia
>Canada
>New Zealand
>Maybe South Africa

Many countries didn't get into colonialism until quite late like Germany, Japan, Belgium and Italy and when nations like this started their own empires the era of colonies for settlement was mostly gone and almost all colonies were for exploitation and strategic areas, the British and French conducted this type of colonialism also. It was the first era of colonialism (mostly in the Americas) which emphasised settlement and later era (1880's,90's, 20th century) was focused on resources and positioning.

Russia continuously colonised Siberia and Asia right through to the 20th century.

>>2998010
South africa was a settler colony, yet it's as equally shit as resource extraction colonies because the natives weren't largely wiped out, genetics and culture is the sole causation for a longterm successful society

>>2998010
Spain also settled their people.

Thing is: Spain started their colonial empire pretty much while they were still "Medieval" in conception of a state (namely: be christian and swear loyalty to Spic King = Subject). So you had a lot of natives who were pretty much loyal subjects.

Britain and France, once they started in earnest, were already working on race memes.

>>2998010
Apart from Canada and maybe if you really want to stretch it Saint Domengue I can't think of any other French colony that was a settler colony

How were Spanish colonies not settlers colonies? Do you seriously believe that all those mestizos that populate America came from rape?

>>2998072
Algeria. Easy.

>>2998010
Would German South-West Africa and Italian Libya be considered attempts at making settler colonies?

>>2998089
Well, Spain rarely sent families over, and for the long time just sent men: soldiers, civil servants, priests, and whatnot. Not exactly settler.

British and French (and at one time Spain and Portugal) were superpowers that could grab the best land.

>colonialism
This is a misleading term. There seem to be 3 elements to it..

1: Conquest
2: Bringing "civilization" to a region, which I am sure you already see the problem with.
3: Then there is the economic element.

If we assume we lived in a utopia with no oppression, would it be a crime to transport goods from a jungle region to a more populated region? It is no different from bringing a cartload of produce to sell at a nearby town. Why demand that a factory and all its laborers be moved from the town where it is economically placed to the countryside? It would break the nonaggression principle and run contrary to market forces, it is unamerican and antifreedom.

This leaves conquest as the only valid descriptor. Colonialism was conquest and should be treated as such conceptually like the Mongol, Mughal, Roman or Zulu conquests.

Please don't use "colonialism" or any meme variant like "settler colonialism" unironically anymore as it is irrational as I have just infallibly proven. Thanks.

>>2998128
>Spain rarely sent families over, and for the long time just sent men:
Then how was the white criollo elite formed? Magic?

>>2998147
No shit, the men married local women.

Usually the daughters of allied local elites.

>>2998133
>This leaves conquest as the only valid descriptor. Colonialism was conquest and should be treated as such conceptually like the Mongol, Mughal, Roman or Zulu conquests.
Are you a fucking idiot.
Conquest is taking land by force. After that you can do whatever the fuck you want (vae victis).
Colonization is when a group of people settle in a particular area and build dwellings and churches, schools, etc.
It's why the Ottoman Empire isn't a colonial empire despite meeting most of the criteria while the Portuguese are, despite only building naval bases.

>>2998152
Criollos were 100% Spanish. Did Spanish women exist in America before the Spaniards set foot on the continent?

>>2998010
The question should be why only nations who either are western or northern european nations, or is vassalized under them are the only successful societies currently

>nips and gooks are essentially american vassals since after ww2 and the korean war
>europe
>burgers and leafs
>strayans and zealand leafs

the rest of the world are essentially authoritarian primitives or a few authoritarian primitive microstates propped up by a single industry like oil

File: 2017-05-25T055453Z_115269826_RC1628D2D8D0_RTRMADP_3_PHILIPPINES-MILITANTS-940x580.jpg (133KB, 940x580px)

133KB, 940x580px

>>2998282
The Flips are Amerivassals and are still a complete shithole.

>>2998010
History said Parasitism is more effective than expansion.

>>2998019
>what are the 13 colonies
>what is northern ireland

>>2998324

you don't know anything

File: it aint me.png (442KB, 851x315px)

442KB, 851x315px

>>2998180
>Conquest is taking land by force
What do you think colonialism was dude lmao

>>2998068
>tfw Spanish colonialism was more humane
>If anglos didn't get their way colonialism would have been much more beneficial to natives and would bear better connotations

>>2998010

France never had "highly populated settler colonies" except for Algeria, and it was still a pretty small minority relative to the native algerians.

>>2998068
That's more because race became a concept to explain why different types of colonial subjects had different behaviors even under the same culture.