I thought the fire nation was meant to be Britain/Japan (pretty similar countries in some key ways)
it's an island nation that industrialises first and then goes on to stage a brutal empire. Admittedly Japan is a better analogy because they seek to settle and industrialise where the British were pretty much only interested in revenue extraction and the fire nation isn't shown seeking profit from imperialism so much as power and prestige
America and canada were the same colony to begin with. They were a weird one as they were practically settled by political refugees from the aftermath of the civil war to begin with and those settlers lobbied for protection. The money there was with trade with the natives for furs which the settlers kept fucking up by not respecting treaties and the slave trade. Although the north american slave trade wasn't as profitable as the carribean
australia was a penal colony focused on revenue collection
I don't know as much about south africa but from my understanding the intent was to make money from ivory and precious metals.
The French in comparrison to the British intended to make everyone French. The British horrors were largely motivated by a depraved indifference to human life and love of money. So yes all those colonies were for money which makes the fire nation more like the Japanese than the British as the fire nation rarely mention revenue which would have come up a lot in British discussion of empire
America as a colony was a weird one as it was largely settled by political refugees in the initial stage (canada was the same settlement) and then lobbied for protection. The only real money to be made from a British perspective was with the native's and their fur trade but the American settlers were just liabilities in that regard as they absolutely refused to stick to any treaties. That and the slave trade of course which also began to loose money after a while as well as being politically unpopular not to mention it made the Scottish richer and more influential which isn't always what the English want
Australia was a penal colony ultimately focused on revenue
south africa I don't know as much about but my understanding is there was some intention to make loads of money off precious metals and ivory
I thought the fire nation was meant to be Britain/Japan (pretty similar countries in some key ways)
it's an island nation that industrialises first and then goes on to stage a brutal empire. Admittedly Japan is a better analogy because they seek to settle and industrialise where the British were pretty much only interested in revenue extraction and the fire nation isn't shown seeking profit from imperialism so much as power and prestige
America and canada were the same colony to begin with. They were a weird one as they were practically settled by political refugees from the aftermath of the civil war to begin with and those settlers lobbied for protection. The money there was with trade with the natives for furs which the settlers kept fucking up by not respecting treaties and the slave trade. Although the north american slave trade wasn't as profitable as the carribean
australia was a penal colony focused on revenue collection
I don't know as much about south africa but from my understanding the intent was to make money from ivory and precious metals.
The French in comparrison to the British intended to make everyone French. The British horrors were largely motivated by a depraved indifference to human life and love of money. So yes all those colonies were for money which makes the fire nation more like the Japanese than the British as the fire nation rarely mention revenue which would have come up a lot in British discussion of empire
fate worse than death
America as a colony was a weird one as it was largely settled by political refugees in the initial stage (canada was the same settlement) and then lobbied for protection. The only real money to be made from a British perspective was with the native's and their fur trade but the American settlers were just liabilities in that regard as they absolutely refused to stick to any treaties. That and the slave trade of course which also began to loose money after a while as well as being politically unpopular not to mention it made the Scottish richer and more influential which isn't always what the English want
Australia was a penal colony ultimately focused on revenue
south africa I don't know as much about but my understanding is there was some intention to make loads of money off precious metals and ivory