From: morris@isye.gatech.edu (John Graham Morris)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Subject: Historical Colonization Rationales (Re: Clinton and Space Funding)
Date: 5 Oct 92 17:13:01 GMT
Reply-To: morris@chmsr.UUCP (John Graham Morris)
Organization: ISyE - Ga Tech


	It might be of interest to understand the motivations underlying English
governmental support for colonization. It was not based on their vision but
on the needs of the state. Three motives dominated English thinking in the 
1600 and 1700s concerning their support of colonization:

	1. Colonization brought with it expanded trade and shipping. For
	   England ships and the men who manned them were a strategic
	   resource. In times of war commercial shipping vessels could
	   be converted to warships and skilled sailors could be forced
	   into military service. This was not a happy coincidence, but
	   the rationale underlying government support for colonization.

	2. The new world, namely north america, provide England with
	   access to strategic naval resources such as timber, 
	   hemp (for rope), and pitch. The commdities were normally obtained
	   from Scandinavian countries and could be withheld during
	   times of war.

	3. North America provided an excellent base for preying on Spanish
	   shipping.

Motives 2 and 3 could have also been achieved through military occupation
of North America, but Colonization was less expensive. Continued expansion
was motivated by the desire to protect existing resources. That is, it was
thought to be easier to protect a given site if one controlled the area 
surrounding it. Clearly, this was a never ending task.

So, what is my point? First, colonization, space exploration and the
like are tools of state. Some tools may be prefered over others; some 
may be more politically salient, but they all must be capable of
furthering the national interest (however that is defined). And the national
interest is usually not defined in such terms except when the true intent
is less politically palitable. For Kennedy, going to the moon was
the expiedient and logical course of action in response to the
Soviet successes and his policy failures.

Second, the aims of the English government of the 1600 and 1700s
could as well be the aims of the US government in the future with respect to 
space exploration. However, the world would have to be more hostile place to the
US before such aims would make sense.

It is also important to note that although the English were extremely 
successful in creating a powerful new state in North America, by the
end of the revolutionary war they saw their colonial policy as wholely
bankrupt and colonization as the road to national ruin. Whereas, North 
Americans to this day are likely to take the opposite position. To them
colonization (in the absence of oppression and displacement of earlier
inhabitants) is though to be a very positive agent of change. The British
and Europeans in general may well have a dim view of space colonization
for historical reasons.

English support for Colonization was in the form of military protection,
exploration, and subsidy. As well as other things I am probably unaware of.
The government received no revenue for these
services except through the selling of monopoly rights to various regions
by the crown and through the taxes and fees generated by the associated
commerce in England. Hence, the absence of taxes that went straight to 
England was another element of support. When the English sought
to offset the cost of its support through taxation the colonies revolted.
	   
--
John Graham Morris

UUCP:	morris@isye.UUCP
        {backbones}!gatech!isye!morris
INTERNET:	morris@isye.gatech.edu