Rule comes at a price.
Take British India as an example. When India became independent, Britain took back100000 civil servants from India, even more than British civil servants at that time. These are pure Britons, born and educated in Britain, but only sent to overseas territories.
They are all "taijun" and cannot be abandoned at will like two devils and puppet troops. In order to find a place for these people, Britain had to establish state-owned enterprises after World War II and try its best to create jobs to fill these people. ...
To rule, it is indispensable to "eat the imperial grain." 100000 civil servants are just Indian colonies. If the colony is to be localized, the number of civil servants needed must be increased at least several times or even more.
What's the total population of Britain?
To say the least, even if the mainland can provide so many civil servants, and they are all very responsible, they can manage the colonies like the mainland.
Do colonial aborigines have political rights (the right to vote, be elected, and become civil servants)? Do white and indigenous hybrids have political rights? What about the second-generation whites who were born and educated in the colonies?
If we don't give the aborigines the opportunity to receive education and treat them as human beings, they will have no hope. When foreign forces provoke them, they will easily rebel and try to overthrow colonial rule. We can see the struggle between Britain and Germany in Africa.
To give indigenous rights, we must face the problem of national awakening after receiving modern education. I don't know how many generations of aborigines or their descendants will remember sooner or later that they have been the owners of this land since ancient times and will ask outsiders to get out.
For example, South Africa. ...
With or without Mandela, the final result is doomed. It's nothing more than bleeding.
Then take a step back and kill the aborigines cleanly like the United States, so that a blank sheet of paper can be drawn. Is it okay? Can it be considered as a local regulation?
Unfortunately, it still doesn't work.
There are many people and all kinds of hills. This is inevitable.
One of the hills most likely to be colonized is called "local faction".
The mountain is high and the emperor is far away, and you can be king behind closed doors ... careerists will always come out.
If we take a closer look at the "Boston Tea Party", why is it "pouring" tea instead of "grabbing" tea?
Because it was a group of smugglers. In order to keep the colonial people eating their expensive tea, it is necessary to destroy the tea to maintain the high price.
In fact, the American War of Independence was that the colonial people in North America were trapped by a handful of smugglers and careerists and colluded with France to fight against the British rebellion.
On the whole—
There are few successful cases of transforming colonies into native land. Ethnic problems and space barriers will all produce strong centrifugal force and separate from the mainland after a long enough time.
The sun never sets in the afterglow of the empire, and there are also some countries in the Commonwealth that are "royal dominions" that do not belong to Britain but recognize the Queen's rule, but obviously, these are just calling for long live the queen, borrowing some incense, holding a group to keep warm and get some benefits. It is impossible to ask them to make free sacrifices for their motherland.
The main reason is that the host country does not want colonial garbage people, but only colonial resources.
The inappropriate metaphor is that, just like labor dispatch, you want to extract value, but you don't want to enter the system with benefits.
The status of a second-class citizen cannot be given to a colony, so it cannot be regarded as a country. In addition, the land is occupied, and the national cost also increases, such as national defense.
Not all colonial countries have the same colonial model.
Portugal and Spain, the earliest colonized countries, are both Catholic countries. There are three main purposes of their colonization: first, wealth plunder, second, missionary work, and third, reward. Therefore, the colonies they first opened up were either directly sealed to heroes as territories (for example, the Columbus family was once sealed to the West Indies, which was inherited by one generation), or they established parishes or independent governor areas on the spot until Portugal completely fell in the early19th century. Only then did I think of directly "territorializing" Brazil and letting the Portuguese king sit in the temple directly in Brazil. However, the Portuguese, after all, have not adapted to a completely strange "land". When the homeland was restored, most members of the royal family couldn't wait to return to their homeland, but the prince started an independent strange thing in Brazil. More interestingly, the prince was overthrown after becoming the emperor of Brazil, and he was able to return to Portugal to be pampered, and his daughter was even more rich and expensive. But after World War II, the Portuguese military government also tried to localize African colonies. During Angola's independence movement, Portuguese colonists set up a big wooden sign after the massacre, which read "This is Portugal", but the castle peak could not cover it. After all, it flows east. Of course, such barbaric measures can't stop the torrent of history.
The Netherlands and Britain adopt the "indirect governance" model, that is, they only manage the pro-colonial upper class in the colonies with mature governance models, so that they can control large colonies with little investment, at the expense of localization and territorialization of such colonies; Establish "companies" with commercial governance model in colonies without mature governance model, such as British East India Company, Hudson's Bay Company, Dutch West India Company, East India Company, etc. A company is different from a colony. Colonists have more jurisdiction, but it is also different from territory. Residents in the company do not enjoy civil rights and many rights. Perhaps it can be said that "company" is the other extreme, that is, in colonies, colonialists have the same jurisdiction as territories, but they don't have to pay the price of making local residents nationals.
France has been carrying out the "Little France" model since the Napoleonic era, that is, copying a whole set of French systems, education and welfare in the colonies, with the aim of territorializing the colonies and legalizing the local residents. The advantage of this is that even if the colony is independent, the influence of France is still everywhere. The disadvantage is that once the colonial process goes wrong, the French can only bear the responsibility themselves. In the colonial era, some French colonies were completely governed according to the local model, such as Algeria, which was never called "colony" but "French territory" in the colonial era. So Charles de Gaulle allowed Algeria to become independent and withdraw its troops from there, which caused such an uproar. Today, France's "overseas regions" and "overseas provinces" are at least trying to territorialize it from the legal point of view. The difference with the mainland is more at the EU level. For example, residents of French Guiana can enjoy the treatment of French citizens, but they will not be recognized as EU citizens.
The most special is Belgium. They practiced the most barbaric colonial model in Congo and Rwanda, Belgium, that is, "as long as the land is not occupied", they directly opened up many places as "the king's private domain" and did whatever they wanted, and publicized in their own country that those places were Belgian land. When the first edition of the Belgian cartoon "The Adventures of Tintin" was published, Tintin was having a geography class in the Belgian Congo, pointing to the map of the Belgian Congo and teaching black students, "This is Belgium, this is Belgium.
Before answering this question, let me give you an example: During the Qin Shihuang era, Zhao Tuo led 500,000 troops to conquer the Baiyue area in Lingnan, and later Lingnan area has been an inseparable part of China since ancient times. Britain, the most representative country, was powerful enough to occupy a vast area of India, found that it occupied the mainland, but in the end it did not become a part of its territory.
Only by comparison can we see the difference. I think there are the following reasons:
Starting from the tribal system, the ancient farming people in China had the concept of * * * the world, and the elite was collective, and the concept of conquering difficulties with collective strength was very clear. Hou Yi shot at the sun for all the sentient beings in the world, and Dayu managed the water for Shu Ren. In the Xia, Shang and Zhou Dynasties, the concept of a unified country became clearer. "All over the world, it is the land of kings" and "All over the world, it is the minister of kings"? As long as it is included in the territory, it is regarded as a world and a country in space. In terms of human relations, all people are under the rule of the emperor and all are equal people. Westerners are developed from nomadic people. Conquering a place is not to form a larger collective, but to possess, plunder, enslave and publicize the superiority of this nation. When the Germans are superior and the angels are superior, the superior nation can dispose of the enslaved "inferior" nation at will.
China has a strong cultural heritage since ancient times, absorbing and assimilating the cultures of other nationalities, and finally forming a larger group. The Chinese nation is not formed by pure blood, but a collective developed by cultural integration. In ancient China, there was no concept of ethnic group, only the concept of culture, which was divided into advanced culture and cultural lag. China people entered China, while foreigners entered barbarians. Culturally backward nations are willing to accept the advanced culture of the Central Plains, and with cultural attraction, they naturally merge and develop into a bigger nation and a bigger country. Western countries have different voices, different beliefs and strong cultural conflicts. Conflicts of religious beliefs that do not exist in China will cause strong conflicts in the West. Westerners occupy a place, not seeking common ground while reserving differences in culture, but trying to destroy another civilization with one civilization. Without cultural integration, it is difficult to form a stable country, and a colony without cultural integration will not integrate with the suzerain and develop into a country.
The real strength of western countries began from the industrial revolution to capitalism. The interests of capital dominate the national attribute. Driven by capital, in order to get more profits, western countries expand their territory, plunder raw materials and dump industrial products. Colonies exist for the benefit of capital, not for the liberation of backward nationalities. The suzerain and the colony have conflicts in fundamental interests, so it is difficult to combine into one country.
The traditional strategy of expanding territory is to enjoy its benefits and assume its responsibilities. Where to fight, where to build, where to manage, all need to pay huge costs, and in some areas, the costs are even much higher than the benefits.
The way of western colonization and modern American economic colonization is to take away the benefits and leave the mess to yourself. It is more in line with the interests of the bourgeoisie to only exploit and not build.
The rise of colonial countries was gradually formed with the opening of new sea routes. The trade routes on the road were blocked by the Ottoman Turkish Empire, so the trade model had to be transferred from the Mediterranean coast to the Atlantic coast.
With the in-depth development of geographical discovery and the influence of The Travels of Marco Polo, most western European countries think that arachis duranensis, the eastern country, is the initial gold fever.
Spain and Portugal are the earliest colonial countries in the West. As long as they went to South America and Africa for colonial trade, they first exported goods, that is, in the colonies, people made goods for them and then dragged them to their countries to buy them, thus accumulating capital; Later, because the colonists knew that they could buy these goods in the colonies; Then all the accumulated capital will be shipped back to their own countries.
If a colonial country turns a colony into its own land, it may lead to the non-existence of its own country. For example, Britain's land area is 240,000 square kilometers, but in the19th century, its land and colony area has reached 32 million square kilometers, which can be said to be the largest country in the world.
But after World War II, Britain made the colonial countries independent, because all aspects were complicated. Australia, Britain's largest colony, became Britain once it was all included in its own territory. Perhaps the status of the British mainland will decline, so colonial rule was all about capital at that time, and the establishment of a governor in a colony could only be developed in other people's colonies and could not be decided in other people's places.
The colonial people rose up and refused to be the puppet of the colonial empire or be ruled by it, so the colonial countries rose up and became independent.
Colonial imperialism is squeezing the colonial people, and they can't turn the colony into their own territory.
Let's just say, it's the same as the current US takeaway riders. If all the riders are employees of Meituan, under the existing laws, Meituan can't survive for a day, but such third-party outsourcing has isolated Meituan from the riders outside and detained a link. It saves money and is not responsible for getting commission. The riders are not signed by a third party, and it is impossible to find a lawsuit with the US Mission.
Economically and politically, it is not suitable.
Let's talk about the economy first. You must understand why they want that land and western powers to spread love and justice.
The pattern was broken, and the powers went to the colonies to make money, earn more money, and earn more money.
Just like you said, you discovered a new continent, and then the people on it could not resist. What economic effect did he have when he declared it his own land? It doesn't make any sense. Doing business with others is what those in power want.
Of course, it is not the civilized negotiation in modern society, shaking hands and making peace, and then the business is reached.
The practice of the great powers is to seize the land by force, pull slaves to farm, and graze those who cannot farm, such as Australia. After the harvest of agriculture and animal husbandry, it will be bought back and shipped back to China at a very low price and sold to their nobles and ordinary people for enjoyment.
In the past, the climate in the Caribbean was very good. Sugarcane and tobacco, which cannot be grown in Europe, are suitable for tropical growth. Why do you think Cuban cigars are so famous?
Similarly, Sri Lanka has black tea, Indonesia has coffee, Africa and America have cotton and so on. All of them were occupied by foreign powers by force, and then the crops they needed were planted according to the local climatic conditions. In the past, no one in the local area sold black slaves to grow them. Like India, it has a large population and a pleasant climate, and is directly called the jewel in the crown of the Queen of England. One place in India contributes more economic value than more than a dozen local colonies in other countries combined.
Other countries soon realized this problem. Adjust the strategy of "grabbing money" in transnational trade and exploit colonies with trade wars.
With the promotion of the industrial revolution, the productivity has been greatly improved, and the finished products produced by the raw materials brought back by the colonies can hardly be eaten by Europeans, so they choose to transport the produced things back to the colonists, so that they can make a wave of profits.
At this time, the role of a large population is reflected. The more people there are, the more potential customers can buy his products. However, how to manage the huge population is a big problem.
Then talk about politics.
If they are given their own nationality and there are so many people in the colony, should they be given the right to vote?
Obviously, this cannot be done. What if their elected leaders are African-Americans or people from other places? There are few Europeans, and fair elections are obviously not dominant.
Therefore, it has become a common practice to choose one or more agents of pro-western forces from local aborigines.
It has become a relatively stable political ecology that foreign powers manage agents and agents manage colonial workers.
This action will not affect the plundering of colonial resources by foreign powers. But also beneficial to the dumping of finished products, and the management cost is low. Local people who support the puppet regime are more likely to accept the rule, and it is less difficult to establish their own political power directly than they are, and the management effect is better.
After talking about rights, talk about welfare benefits. If you accept the colonial people as nationals of your country, do you want to give some welfare, medical education and public health? Transportation, water conservancy and electricity. . . . . There are too many places that need to be built with money. Colonists came to rob money, not to build socialism. How can they be willing to pay for these things?
If the people want welfare, they can only reach out to the puppet regime and suppress strikes. Only when the colonists can't be suppressed will they step in. In the end, it may be that a few local officials who were not doing well calmed the public opinion. Get a new agent and continue to be a puppet of squeezing farmers.
In a word, what the colonists want is their money and resources. First it was direct robbery, then it was exploitation through trade. There is no need to turn each other's territory into your own.
This is the case in France. French Polynesia, French Guiana and kerguelen Island are all overseas territories of France.