(I agree the sins of the colonizers and their role in European growth are worth talking about, of course. But the view where they were obviously the key factor behind a phase change in the rate of progress now shared with the majority of the world, that's really alien. I guess we both find each other odd.)
[1] https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/server/api/core/bitstr...
[2] https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w10586/w105...
I have it fixed in my head that progress generally requires an external catalyst. In 2023, it would be very controversial to suggest Europe and the historical colonies are both wealthier as a result.
I have seen how the Spanish destroyed La Paz's natural environment yet it is a bustling city. What do you think?
Why the colonies were so adversely affected is a bit more complicated, and I think is more related to destruction of existing societal institutions and the installation of deliberately extractive institutions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_the_Indi...
The aboriginal peoples of the Americas mostly died from diseases which they hadn't been exposed to. It was tragic but not unique and rarely deliberate.
But what about the smallpox blankets? Well, smallpox isn't spread through bedding, and that single story happened in the late 1800s after centuries of the aboriginal peoples dying of disease.
Sure, they were monsters for _trying_ to kill those people with smallpox, but it didn't work.
There was plenty of war, also, and later displacement and Indian Schools and other atrocities, but we shouldn't promote a "noble savage" myth or misrepresent what killed the aboriginal peoples: it was disease as a natural consequence of contact with foreign peoples.
A world of difference between say the philippines or india and 'settler colonies' of the US, Canada, etc.
When people talk europeans exploiting their colonies, most are talking about traditional colonies, not settler colonies which are ultimately european nations themselves.
Insofar as the mother country was inexperienced at having colonies and lax at imposing its will on them. The British tried hard to prevent America from establishing any industries and reduce it to just importing everything at the cost of raw resources. They got a bit distracted in the 1600s with civil war and religious strife, and in the 1700s with fighting the French; so a bit of wealth accumulated in America anyway. (Much if not most of it belonged to smugglers.)
In the 1800s the British imperialists got their act together and became much more efficient at extracting wealth from their colonies, as evidenced by massive famines ( Ireland, India), opium wars etc.
Its kind of odd that people miss this (and particularly the first sentence) since that’s the big picture behind essentially each of the specific grievances that led to the rebellion.
Also take Ireland, which is now richer than it's colonizer.
The colonies were a burden. They were useful for military and political reasons, but not for economic reasons. The reason Europe is so wealthy is Capitalism and early industrialization. The reason the colonies are so poor is colonialism.
It was a shitty deal for everyone involved
An easier way to understand it is imagine if the US got a 5% discount on Chinese imports -- would that help the US economy? British got close to a 90% discount (by force) on imports from India.