The idea that the well-being of Europe was built up by empire suggests that this is something permanent, that empire produced a hoard of preserved wealth. Can the wealth of a nation be hoarded? After the Second World War the well-being of Europe was reset to a quarter of its previous level. London, Southampton, Liverpool, Berlin, Hamburg etc. were unimaginable ruins. Within 25 years you would scarcely have known that this had happened because the countries were rebuilt. The well-being of a country is a result of current economic activity, it is not a bag of gold that can be hoarded. The current state of nations is due to the efforts of the last 25 years and not due to any wealth from centuries ago.
More surprising is that even a current empire has little effect on current wealth. When the French and British relinquished their empires in the 1950s and 1960s this had little or no effect on the GDP per head of either country. The loss of empires did not impoverish these countries. Many European countries did not have empires but they had similar levels of wealth to the imperial countries. For instance, in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries non-imperial countries such as Switzerland, Germany and Denmark had a similar GDP per head to France and Britain and much of Europe had a greater GDP per head than Spain and Portugal, two of the leading imperial powers. That the "The well-being and progress of Europe" was based on empire or that there was some permanent loot collected by empire is incorrect.
The expansion of Europe in the 16th century was due to its technological and economic expansion before colonialism. This technological development occurred prior to empire and was not due to empire. It was this progress during the renaissance that allowed Europeans to sail the seas and deploy heavy artillery.
The British and French rush to empire was due to wars between European countries. Anyone who has considered military strategy will understand that you win wars by denying the opponent resources. Britain acquired most of its empire by defeating other European powers and taking their possessions. Even as late as the 1920s the British acquired East Africa from the Germans. Empire was not a deliberate attempt to exploit the "Negroes, Arabs, Indians and the yellow races".
Every part of Fanon's statement is incorrect. The well-being was not due to empire, the progress of Europe was not due to empire and it was not the principle intention of the British and French empires to exploit the various ethnic groups, the intention was trade and defence. Fanon's statement is Marxist propaganda to create difference and division amongst modern people for modern political ends.
Empires occurred because European countries developed the technology and economic volume that allowed them to project power overseas. Empires expanded because of conflict between European countries and the consequent threat of denial of trade. They continued because the imperial powers needed to prevent being outflanked by the enemy. When colonies became prosperous these colonies became independent, this independence struggle led the colonists to characterise their mother country as "the enemy". Soviet and Maoist propagandists understood this antagonism and exploited it ("imperialist running dogs"). Postmarxists, whose aim is to spread division, have continued the propaganda to divide the Europeans from the rest of the world and create division within European countries. As I pointed out above, the modern Spain, Portugal, France and Britain are creations of the current generations of people, they maintain their old buildings out of a love of architecture and history at huge cost and this fools the ignorant tourist and foolish schoolchild into imagining that these are the loot of empire. Except for the very early days of the Spanish empire* there never was a "loot of empire".
Of course, Barack Obama is neither a foolish tourist nor an ignorant schoolchild so I would hope he would reject postmarxist propaganda. Perhaps he is playing along with the new postmarxist, socialist regimes in South America for machiavellian reasons.
See:
Colonialism? Its the Colonists Stupid!
Postscript: School teachers should be stopped from indoctrinating children with postmarxism. Showing children a picture of a mid-eighteenth century slaver ship and then asking them "how could we have done this?" is pure postmarxist propaganda. "We" did not do it, people 300 years ago did it and it was normal for them and for the tribal chiefs who sold the slaves. "We" are the result of the enlightenment that occurred in the intervening 300 years, much of it as a result of the efforts of our British ancestors.
We are all familiar with the postmodern/postmarxist version of the history of the European empires that is taught to our children as propaganda. This version is lies. The true narrative is that in the 17th century almost every country in the world used slaves (with the exception of the country of England and a couple of others). The European empires became morally aware and abolished this evil globally, it was the empires, particularly the British, who changed the world from slaver to free.
This global effect of the empires was also evident in social changes such as changes in working conditions. Prior to the twentieth century every country in the world abused workers, for instance, in England in 1800 it was normal for children and their mothers to be sent down mines on 12 or 18 hour shifts and for workers to share a bed between night and day shifts and even to share their clothes so they could work. In Europe prior to the mid nineteenth century almost all countries would shoot workers who objected to poor working conditions. This poor treatment also occurred in the colonies and was slowly alleviated as the European empires became socially aware during the nineteenth century. The existence of the empires meant that these changes spread globally. The true narrative is that the French and British empires changed the world for the better as their mother countries developed.
The portrayal of this social change from oppressive slaver states to modern democracies as racism and the struggle against racism is pure postmarxism and vicious, divisive propaganda. The postmarxist propagandist conjures up a vision of the world that has the mother countries of the empires enjoying twenty first century privileges whilst their colonies lived in racist subjugation. But this is a lie. The whole world was repressive when the empires began and mostly modern minded when they ended. Individual people were largely racist but the British and to some extent the French empires were remarkably enlightened and progressive considering the global environment, slowly changing the world from repression to modern. In the independent USA, where the whites had the rights of Englishmen and the blacks did not there was a racial dimension but the USA was not an empire at that time. The USA has made up for this, certainly the vigour of the USA in opposing fascism and Marxism in the mid-late twentieth century has saved us all from slavery. The new challenge is to stop postmarxism.
Postmodernism-poststructuralism-postmarxism
*Nowadays we print money to emulate the effects of importing gold and silver.
Further reading:
Quotes from Frantz Fanon - Spot the Marxism
Comments