Scandinavian 'Nabob' of the British Empire: Discovery of a New Colonial Archive
thewire.in
thewire.in
Its _not_ a shocking new discovery of Scandinavian collusion in colonisation and empire building.
The US Virgin Islands used to be The Danish West Indies until 1917, also there were colonies in present-day Ghana and in India - at least part of the Andaman and Nicobar islands, as well as a couple of places on the mainland whose names escape me. Iceland was Danish until WW2.
Today? Greenland and the Faroes remain (sort of) in the Danish Empire.
Norway, being in union with Denmark when the empire building took place, bided its time until the nineteen thirties, when a group of whalers occupied parts of Eastern Greenland, an occupation which was backed by Norwegian authorities after the fact until the League of Nations told us to snuff it.
The Swedes, too, dabbled in colonialism but never really putting their heart in it; the only overseas colony lasting more than a few years was Saint Barthelemy in the Caribbean, which was Swedish from the latter part of the eighteenth century until the late nineteenth century.
The UK protested meekly for a little bit, then I guess realised it was worthless enough not to be worth arguing about.
Bouvet looked, to put it mildly, barren, mostly covered in ice as it is, and the few bits not covered in ice looks pretty much like the less hospitable parts of the Moon.
I'd pass.
(Oh, also we possess the slightly larger but no less barren Peter I Island, which for a while after it was discovered in the 1820s was the southernmost known landmass.)
We really ought to reiterate our claim to North America, though, what with Leiv Eirikson, L'anse Aux Meadows an'all.
Denmark–Norway held colonial possessions in India for more than 200 years, including the town of Tharangambadi in present-day Tamil Nadu state, Serampore in present-day West Bengal, and the Nicobar Islands, currently part of India's union territory of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands.
The story is more nuanced than your "Briton who just happens to end up in Sweden" summary though.
A lot of people praise British for developing India. They don’t realize that everything they did was to maximize their imperial control and economic gain.
The reason why the railways became so developed during the British Era is because the Crown promised up to 10 percent returns in many cases. So it was a speculative boom, with the cost underwritten by the miserably poor citizens of British India.
The mathematician Andrew Odlyzko has a lot of material on the railways boom, which occurred in England and in India during the 1840-1860s.
Many of the rail lines were also quite absurd. The first rail line in Kerala for example. Even 170 years later, there are no major population centres around. Why was this route chosen? To transport teak most economically.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nilambur%E2%80%93Shoranur_line
https://www.google.co.in/maps/dir/Nilambur,+Kerala/Shoranur,...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockton_and_Darlington_Railwa...
The need to move masses of freight predates the need to move masses of commuters.
[1] https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...
The way i would frame this, though, is that the difference between the UK and India is only in how much the railway-builders and so on could get away with. They would have done the same to British people if they had had the chance.
The simple fact that the colonization started with a commercial organization progressing from trade to flat-out military takeover really should put the lie to claims that the imperial project was somehow done to spread "civilisation".
Unfortunately, far too many of my compatriots have a ridiculously rose tinted view of the imperial project. From what I've encountered, it's something shared across most of the old imperial european countries, a view of their imperial periods as some kind of "greatness", rather than just greed and violence.
Fun fact: Along with all the wealth the pirates of the EIC bought back with the from India they alo bought the word "loot" which originates in Hindi apprantly.
A lot of British people praise Britain for developing India. Indians themselves and other ex-colonies (much of the world that was Victorian pink) aren't so convinced: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7CW7S0zxv4
British railways were basically Roman roads. They served to move the army -- the fact the citzens could use them for trade was a massive incidental benefit.
One thing that I learnt was how actively the British undermine the local industries on their colonies. They wanted the colonies to be only raw material exporters. The effects of that policy can be felt even nowadays.
Another thing that I had not realized before, but it's obvious in retrospective, is how important was the British manufacturing demand in consolidating slavery in the USA.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_and_the_America...
I have heard the claim that Britain destroyed the local Indian textile industry, so it would be interesting to know a different source for it. (The review doesn't touch on that specific claim.)
If I remember correctly, not only Indian, but also, for instance, Egyptian. I have not sources at hand unfortunately.
From an economic perspective, it's not zero sum game.
Canada and the US are colonies as well remember.
And the imperial power of the US since at least WW2 also demonstrates it's a human condition which continues through history.
After reluctantly being drawn into WW2, the US overran opposing forces, and then, unlike any other nation in history, actually invested to help rebuild those entities to be the most free and prosperous places on planet earth. Democratic, liberal institutions, high standards of living.
General MacArthur literally gave women in Japan the right to vote (or rather, facilitated it) and restored a better democracy in Japan than had ever existed. This is not the action of an Imperial power.
The USSR was an Imperial Power, the US is a Superpower.
The USSR's relationship with Belarus, Latvia, Poland etc. are examples of real Imperial power one that happened to be based on a supposed ideology more than anything else.
The US's relationship with Japan, South Korea and Germany for example, is obviously not Imperialist.
The US keeps the high seas open, the Suez/Panama Canal open for everyone, even military adversaries, let alone economic competitors. An Imperial power would control those assets and extract wealth out of them directly.
Now - to be fair, this is somewhat self-serving, as the US benefits quite a lot from stability and trade. They make a lot more money selling iPhones and coffee from Starbuck's.
Even the UK Empire was only borderline Imperial. They were big on trade, the colonies enjoyed quite a bit of autonomy. It rose on the basis of the Industrial Revolution - which was fundamentally driven by an underlying economic system, not a political one.
True Imperialism would be for example the Roman Empire.
It's obviously not all roses, I wouldn't imply that, but the US is not a good example Imperialism.
What about (checks notes), Hawaii, Samoa, Marianas Islands, Puerto Rico, Panama, Cuba, the Virgin Islands, the Philippines, and all the Native Americans we deprived of their land?
The US is far from the worst imperial offender, and our period of "let's take your land and screw your sovereignty to it" was for a comparatively short amount of time (unless you were Native American). But we are still just as guilty of those crimes as others are.
It's interesting to me how important the class distinctions were in managing the politics and workforce (same factors were used of course in the US Jim Crow regions once significant naked force was, er, discouraged).
The British were effective at titrating titrating this, by recruiting Indian professionals (lawyers, doctors, accountants etc) to manage non-Indian portions of their empire. Gandhi got his start (in the private sector) in South Africa for example. My own grandfather was recruited in the 1920s to move from Maharashtra to (then) British Malaya to be the doctor for a mining town.
It was a form of the effective "divide and conquer" strategy: they could get competent people who were, like the Europeans, not embedded in the local power systems.
In late 19th century San Francisco, rapid urbanization led to an exclusive enclave of the rich and famous on the west coast who built large mansions in the Nob Hill neighborhood. This included prominent tycoons such as Leland Stanford, founder of Stanford University and other members of The Big Four who were known as nabobs, which was shortened to nob, giving the area its eventual name.
--VP Spiro Agnew "as scripted by William Safire"
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/07/10/nattering-nabo...