If Africa is such a poor hellscape, why did everyone "scramble" for it?
If Africa is such a poor hellscape, why did everyone "scramble" for it?
Falling into your wing while paragliding is called 'gift wrapping' and turns you into a dirt torpedo pic.twitter.com/oQFKsVISkI— Mental Videos (@MentalVids) March 15, 2023
because the cost of doing so was so little and because the white man could build mines and railroads and so forth
>because the cost of doing so was so little
this is literally wrong, people who were aggravated with the pursuit even called it "expensive overseas adventurism"
what do you mean delusional this is on record idiot
you are delusional
only an utter retard would believe what you believe
hence all the great arguments coming from your party
Yes dude, they just did it for no reason. They spent decades, lives and endured tons of hardship in hostile environments for literally NO reason. They just came in, fought wars and built all that infrastructure because... uhh... they thought it would be cool?
It seems weird to a 21st century Western, but yes
Reminder that France started the Franco-Prussian War because they felt Bismarck had "insulted" them
Not everything was about muh money back then
> France started the Franco-Prussian War because they felt Bismarck had "insulted" them
You're confusing pretext (PR for the proles) with actual reasons. France feared that a unified German state would displace them as the dominant military power in continental Europe, which it ended up doing after this war.
>Not everything was about muh money back then
If it's not for money or resources, it's for strategic advantage. People didn't magically evolve in the last 200 years.
>People didn't magically evolve in the last 200 years.
Yeah bro, society and mindsets can't radically change in 200 years
In the US 200 years ago, Americans would totally have kneeled in the streets to honor a dead black criminal...
>society and mindsets can't radically change in 200 years
Not as fundamentally as your identity politics fried brain would have you believe.
>In the US 200 years ago, Americans would totally have kneeled in the streets to honor a dead black criminal...
So which is it? Did people evolve beyond waging irrational wars in the last 200 years or did they evolve into pursuing irrational civil wars over dead criminals?
Given how intelligent you pretend to be, just fucking go and look online for state budges, trade balances, amount of goods extract etc. and see how profitable Africa really was instead of trying to answer the question in such an indreict manner.
I fail to see how this answers the question, again you have a wealth of information to look for these supposed profits.
the actual colonial enterprises were not profitable because they exported raw materials at a slight loss. But the economies of europe benefitted greatly from the abundance of cheap raw materials and were able to export more expensive manufactured goods at a massive profit. India and the EIC was the same thing.
20th century after british colonization ≠ 17th century trade kingdom pre colonization
>20th century after british colonization ≠ 17th century trade kingdom pre colonization
Fuck of dishonest homosexual, the British arrived like 3 years before the 20th century.
No, Benin city wasn't some Wakandese megapolis that got magically turned into mudhuts by the British.
It was always a village of huts. Only difference with other hut villages is that it had a weird 9ft tall mudwall that split the village into several districts.
>a region of africa nearly 2000km away from benin had decent blacksmiths therefore benin was not a hut village
are you even trying? disregarding that you're talking about two completely different parts of africa, what would this even prove? they could make decent iron but the rest of their society was essentially stoneage-like?
Don’t listen to him, it’s the mindset he’s been forced into his entire life, everyone is equal, but white people are also evil racists who stole everything, which is why black people cant build anything, etcetera etcetera on and on until he dies
African trade kingdoms meke you seethe
The fact that Europeans sought out Africans due to their trade dominance makes you seethe
The idea that Africa had wealth like most other regions of the world makes you seethe
And the idea that Africans were basically at the level of 99% of europeans until recently makes you seethe
>The fact that Europeans sought out Africans due to their trade dominance
Nigga please, get a hold of yourself...
The only thing Africa was trading was enslaved black people....in exchange for fucking sea shells
>i got called out on my bullshit argument so i will say that he's seething
is this the part where i answer with "cope"?
Not him, but the difference is germanics lived in those like a thousand years ago, naggers still live in them to this day.
>Africans we’re basically at the level of 99% of Europeans until recently makes you seethe
Recently meaning since like the Middle Ages?
>we wuz blacksmith
Germanics 2000 years ago lived naked in huts and they too had blacksmiths
Having blacksmiths doesn't mean you dont live naked in huts
Come one bro, don't force us to post photographs of Benin city yet again
NO, Benin city wasn't anything comparable with Lisbon, Madrid or Florence
YES, that text you're posting is Wakanda tier bullshit
Mostly prestige and spreading Christianity. Yes they introduced them to the modern world (medicine, centralized governments, etc.) but that wasn't the intent. More like a side quest for propoganda purposes (to create an official narrative for their presence).
The crusade against slavery was very real.
I will grant you that much.
Mostly carried out by the British.
Literally just dickwaving and FOMO. Those colonies never returned anywhere near what was invested.
The Congo did and so did South Africa because of the White settlers there. Also Egypt had the Suaz Canal which gave them money but most importantly a strategic port.
>Those colonies never returned anywhere near what was invested.
This. Prussia / Germany never bothered much and ended up prosperous anyway
never returned it to the treasury but a lot of private concerns made out like bandits, was the late 19th/early 20th century version of corporate welfare
There's no point in having resources if you can't exploite it. There's a reason despite having so much oil Russian sold Alaska to America because at the time it was basically dead weight to the empire. A lot of the resources that Africa has couldn't have been exploited by the local population. Also some of the resources they had did become sought after until WW2.
>There's a reason despite having so much oil Russian sold Alaska to America because at the time it was basically dead weight to the empire.
Alaskan oil wasn't discovered until the 20th century, the Russians just traded for furs
Mostly for national prestige
It may seem weird in our current era, but back then politicians actually cared about national prestuige, an painting the map was seen as prestigious
And by the 1880s, Africa was one of the last places not owned by any civilized nation
They had Ivory and Rubber. Dunlop made his first tire around 1888
also this. Leopold II just wanted a colony and the congo was unexplored and up for grabs.
Prestige projects, mostly.
>least obvious bait on LULZ
It becomes hellscape after Turkic-European left.
Africa is extremely rich in resources, incomparably more than europe is.
It's the people living there that is the problem.
Because imperialism is inter-state competition, it doesn't matter if it creates any wealth.
Its poor only because the natives are too braindead to utilize its resources. That's why whites decided to spread their influence by civilizing the continent in "their" image, providing free gibs and developing it until they got kicked out, which has resulted in continued poverty.
if the scramble didnt happen that energy would have been funnelled into an earlier great war. europe was too energetic
The conquest of Africa was a side project that involved very few white people
Most places were conquered by a few dozen white officers leading columns of a few hundreds local recruits
Africa was never Europe's main focus
If you didn't grab it someone else would. Conquering SS Africa was so unbelievably easy it was comical. You could probably round up a dozen lads from your village, steal your dad's old rifle and some cash for the boat fate, and live like a bronze-age king in less than a year
By that point it was mostly for resources, they built infrastructure to extract and defend it, however they made sure not to let the Industry there get strong enough to compete with industry back home and put a limit on the social development of the natives.
This ended up being the death of colonialism though as international finance capital became more powerful than the national capital of the colonising nations.
That shackle on the development of the colonised nations was a shackle on the potential profit of the international investor.
>By that point it was mostly for resources, they built infrastructure to extract and defend it, however they made sure not to let the Industry there get strong enough to compete with industry back home and put a limit on the social development of the natives.
You're a mentally ill black revisionist
There was no epic conspiracy to keep the black man down
Civilizing the locals and taking them out of prehistory was a secondary goal, but it wasn't the main goal and thus most efforts weren't used on this
It's that simple, it's not some ebin conspiracy
The American Revolution happened because Britain was deliberately preventing America from competing with British industries.
The entire revolution started over tariffs.
>There was no epic conspiracy to keep the black man down
Its not a conspiracy when many policies directly or indirectly/accidentally kneecaped the subjects ability to compete in the market or actually be of use to the colonies bottom line lol.
Even the admins knew of this issue.
Honestly just a massive fear of missing out.
It wasn't as poor before. The scramble occurred because the powers wanted and needed ground rules to determine how claims would work since there were times powers brushed too close to each other and went into war.
>It wasn't as poor before.
It was much poorer
The average African lived naked in a hut
So did the average Asian.
Asians wore clothes and they had some actual cities (that weren't just hut villages like Kumasi or Benin city)
and they had beautiful women
>Asians wore clothes and they had some actual cities
So did Africans lol. The trade and crafting and clothes within Africa and outside Africa was a thing before Euros came.
Brah most people lived like shit it, you do know urbanisation rates in the works was total ass until pretty recently in human history.
>The average African lived naked in a hut
How heartening that you care about them so much.
>be a merchant
>convince your state leaders that it's super important and glorious to own as much land as possible and to submit thirdies
>the state spend tons of taxpayers money to make it viable
>you make tons of money from the new commercial outlets, cheap labor and ressources
Every time something doesn't seem reasonable in your leaders decisions, it just boils down to: privatized profits, socialized costs.
Africa is terrific.
Africans, on the other hand...
I know there are a million excuses given for why there is not a single developed, nice place to live in sub Saharan africa, but after decades of independence how is it actually possible that they are all still so shit? Why did the Asian tigers or whatever manage to develop with nothing but Africa with all its resources can’t prop dice one good country
> a single developed, nice place to live in sub Saharan africa
> a single developed, nice place to live in sub Saharan africa
Botswana is nice. Rwanda has also been doing pretty well since the end of the civil war.
Define 'develop with nothing.'
Africa is poor today because of the people who live in it. If Africa were in competent hands it could be a land of milk and honey
>Ivory Coast props up French economy to this day
>provides produce that doesn't grow in France
>hurrrrr why would anyone do this
From which conspiracy theory website did you get it from?
Any cool anecdotes about Wakanda and black pharaohs to share with us, Darius?
>France still has a de facto colony
>REEEEEEEEEE DID YOU JUST POST A WE WUZ CONSPIRACY???
holy shit you homosexuals are retards
>get called out and asked to provide proofs
>REEEEEE what I read on my black nationalist blogs is totally the truth!!! How dare you question it reeeeee!!!
look it up you lazy homosexual, this is common knowledge
>this is common knowledge
Sure is is, DeShawn
Just like black pharaohs and Yakub
You still haven't specified what are these epic "products" that already existed in Ivory Coast prior to colonization and that magically "prop up" French economy
>provides produce that doesn't grow in France
Care to name them so I can debunk your bullshit.
Anyway, no matter what these "products" are, it's almost certain they weren't being produced yet in precolonial Africa, so the conquest of the place wasn't about them.
>Aid in reverse: how poor countries develop rich countries
>The US-based Global Financial Integrity (GFI) and the Centre for Applied Research at the Norwegian School of Economics recently published some fascinating data. They tallied up all of the financial resources that get transferred between rich countries and poor countries each year: not just aid, foreign investment and trade flows (as previous studies have done) but also non-financial transfers such as debt cancellation, unrequited transfers like workers’ remittances, and unrecorded capital flight (more of this later). As far as I am aware, it is the most comprehensive assessment of resource transfers ever undertaken.
>What they discovered is that the flow of money from rich countries to poor countries pales in comparison to the flow that runs in the other direction.
>In 2012, the last year of recorded data, developing countries received a total of $1.3tn, including all aid, investment, and income from abroad. But that same year some $3.3tn flowed out of them. In other words, developing countries sent $2tn more to the rest of wthe world than they received. If we look at all years since 1980, these net outflows add up to an eye-popping total of $16.3tn – that’s how much money has been drained out of the global south over the past few decades. To get a sense for the scale of this, $16.3tn is roughly the GDP of the United States
>That’s 24 times more than the aid budget. In other words, for every $1 of aid that developing countries receive, they lose $24 in net outflows. These outflows strip developing countries of an important source of revenue and finance for development. The GFI report finds that increasingly large net outflows have caused economic growth rates in developing countries to decline, and are directly responsible for falling living standards.
As I've said before: Africa/The Global South doesn't need the world; the world needs Africa and the Global South in general to be as poor and powerless as possible. For its massive exploitation the Global North is more than worthy of being buried under a sea of immigrants.
>But that same year some $3.3tn flowed out of them.
What does this mean?
That African countries sold for $3.3tn of goods (mostly raw material) to non-African countries.
Yes they did get paid for these, but to mentally ill leftards, when Africans sell their resources it's theft by the buying party.
Basically they look at what the sold resources are worth, and then act like Africa was sold that amount of money, while ignoring the fact they did receive that sum in exchange for the resources.
3.3 trillion in exports and raw goods. The stuff that makes our economy tick. We don't mine our own coal, cobalt, bauxite, or grow our own cotton. Not anymore. Back when we did, most westerners lived in africa/asia tier conditions which makes sense
>es they did get paid for these, but to mentally ill leftards, when Africans sell their resources it's theft by the buying party.
>Basically they look at what the sold resources are worth, and then act like Africa was sold that amount of money, while ignoring the fact they did receive that sum in exchange for the resources.
You're mentally disabled
It's obviously more complicated than that. There is still a great deal of european influence in African politics, exchange rates, and trade overall. Africans are stuck exporting cheap raw goods to their former colonizers for below world market prices. only a few african cunts are able to get into secondary economic success and those are the ones which gradually cut ties with their european "allies"
I'm not really a leftist I just like history and econ
>commerce is theft
So you think what China is doing in Africa and SEA is not predatory or anything? It's totally fair and not one sided in the slightest? Because its the same shit Europe/America/Russia has been doing in africa since ww2 ended.
Resource exploitation in Africa is quite interesting. So on the one hand you have foreign companies coming over and getting mining concessions etc,
but on the other hand, when it comes to consumer goods like wine etc, Northern companies are hands off, and are essentially becoming like marketing agencies (while getting the lions share of the supply chain value.
>“An increasing number of South African wine suppliers are now complying with global, codified and standardized best practices that include environmental content (such as the BRC Global Standard-Food and/or the IFS-Food standard) and/or that are focused on these aspects (such as ISO 14001 certification). This trend is well known and publicized by supermarket chains in importing countries and by export marketers in South Africa. What is less known is that primary producers receive no price premium for these efforts...Despite the good intentions of coffee sustainability initiatives and certifications, and the support of bilateral donors in helping small producers to meet new and stringent environmental standards, the hidden costs embedded in these processes are placed on the shoulders of farmers – who are also receiving small or decreasing environmental premia. This means that the value produced by farmers through environmental upgrading is captured mostly by roasters.”
So resource rich poor countries are making money off developed countries, while also receiving 1.3 trillion in aid? Wow, and you’d think they could build a peaceful society with all that money
It's the equivalent of zoomers wanting to become influencers/youtubers/streamers, or boomers who ran away from home to start their own band. 99% of them didnt make any money but everyone was gunning to be the 1% that made it
>why are you poor?
>because white and now Chinese people steal from us!
>why are they able to steal from you?
>because we are weak
>why are you weak?
>because we are poor
Unironically there's nothing wrong with wooden or earthen architecture.
Then why dont you go live naked in a hut?
Tired of the bait posts from the brainlets who think everything associated with European society is "better" than other societies and then try and imply that because African societies didn't build brick churches in the 18th century, then they are somehow forever backwards. History and humanity doesn't work like that.
>"Why yes, living naked in a hut, having a 80% child mortality rate and dying at 25 because a fly is hungry is totally a respectable lifestyle and civilization model"
you're being dishonest. You changed a statement that "using organic materials for homes and buildings is a good thing" to something else completely. You are not a historian, clearly
It was a hellscape but it was a hellscape with resources and still is.
Unironically obsession with black people. White people are genetically disposed to constantly thinking about black men 24/7. For most of their existence however, they didn’t have the technology to go and get them. So once they had the time and the resources, Europeans literally fought with each other over the right to invade africa.