Was colonialism THAT bad?
Was colonialism THAT bad?
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
Was colonialism THAT bad?
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
No, most change was neutral or in the positive direction with infrastructure development. Leopold's congo and the Native American population collapse are entirely misunderstood.
>No, most change was neutral or in the positive direction with infrastructure development.
Conveniently leaving out the negatives you can't bring up the "neutral/positives" then completely omit the "negatives". Not even the pro-colonials did that shit
What revisionist homosexualry.
What's revisionist about it?
/thread
Amerindian higher development rate will never EVER be forgotten.
>development rate
I remember that.
VVVVGH
they killed like +90% of them
>90% less petrol drank per year
This is now a bad thing
most people consider mass murder to be objectionable
"we" won't "colonize" Mars
there aren't Martians to colonize
colonization in biology and colonization in social sciences are 2 different concepts
>most people consider mass murder to be objectionable
Mass murder is fine if there is no ocean between you and the people you are killing.
>most people consider mass murder to be objectionable
Prove it
>most people consider mass murder to be objectionable
Name 3 known and credible people
Enoch Powell is an easy one. Objected to the Hola Camp massacre.
>warfare if mass murder because White people are martially dominant
HAHHAHHAHAHHAAA
didn't colonization fuel the industrial revolution starting the use of oil so starting the use of petrol
>abbos b like:ooga ooga i'll attack you
>*gets beaten and most of them die from smallpox anyway*
>bwahhh you killed me
there was bigger war casualties on the fucking late antiquity than dead abos, in the late ANTIQUITY
a single war with abbos was enough to kill them because they were on the fucking stone age
Mostly due to disease, except in Tasmania. British were relatively fair otherwise: kill a white, kill a black, you'll be hung
Lol a lot if the killings weren't exactly one for one and I'd say most were done but settlers or organized by them rather than the state since the state often lacked reach or had no real incentive to do it.
I'm pretty sure it's the opposite
A lot of lands colonized by Europeans had a population boom in the 1800s, because of better farming technology, vaccines, better sanitation, understanding how to fight malaria etc
Algeria had only like 2 million people when it was colonized by France. It had a smaller population than in Roman times. After French Colonization that population multiplied greatly, even if they accuse the French of genocide.
> even if they accuse the French of genocide.
You are aware how many died in the conquest and subsequent long-ass period of subjugation right anon?
>vaccines
Many areas could not fully supply vaccines due to remoteness and coasts alongside the fact that vaccines get fucked by heat.
>better farming technology
Like what? They didn't need farming tech because in the plantations in many parts of the world you merely used local labour since it's cheaper and importing tech is super expensive and many colonial governess basically fed labourers into the public/private sectors.
>better sanitation
Many colonies pretty much barred locals from living in urban areas with better sanitation or could not afford/did not want to spend for it.
>understanding how to fight malaria
Many still died form it because you can't just "wipe out malaria" nor just throw moeny at it. Everyone knows that and even the solutions like quinine had major caveats.
That doesn't actually meaningfully respond to what he said, it's still true that a lot of colonial nations saw their population increase during the period.
>it's still true that a lot of colonial nations saw their population increase during the period.
But they still had population loss and conflicts with high death tolls. Most of the jump happened post independence.
yet their populations increased 100x over.
You tell me
>Those ears
Bet he enjoys walkers.
>british obama
what should he tell you man
will it be this bad when we colonize mars?
The lie here is the assumption that there was nothing before Europeans established the colonies.
There was almost nothing tho
In Australia there was nothing, just 65 IQ ape people living in caves and failing to establish a link netween sex and pregancy
In Africa there were prehistorical mudhut villages waging war with each other constantly
>In Africa there were prehistorical mudhut villages waging war with each other constantly
Everyone wages wars little child.
You lost yours little child.
You don't even know what prehistory actually means. How is anyone supposed to take you seriously?
>In Australia there was nothing, just 65 IQ ape people living in caves and failing to establish a link netween sex and pregancy
Koori realized how to practice FGM and circumcision to simulate a vagina so at least they knew the meaning of wombs.
Only the west abos forgot everything from gathering to walking.
>In Africa there were prehistorical mudhut villages waging war with each other constantly
SS Africa yeah, but it's pretty sad euros interfered with Zulus right when they were entering copper age and developing outside mudhuts.
Not to defend it but that's fascism.
You can be superior to a race and still not kill them all. The plan to segregate them was far better ethically.
And to be honest I would have liked if we treated Australia as a big fucking zoo for abos and you could record them trying to live out in that shithole.
Aboriginals practiced organised agriculture and aquaculture
I don’t understand why people believe the value of a people group is determined by whether they built a religious temple in service of an organised religion but it’s silly
Obviously it’s okay to make the point medieval China and France had certain art forms that the Aboriginals did not thanks to technologies but to say that that means they deserve death, genocide, and stealing their children is insane.
I must say, Koori Abos were by abo standards the most advanced and maybe the ones that should have colonized them all.
They understood the concept of clothing and hunting and their shelters were actually functional
>their shelters were actually functional
On what metric. Many groups prefer quick to make structures that allow quick mobility. Also in terms of clothing many people around the world dress with minimal coverings (like blankets) or are naked due to the climate but still use clothing as parts of rituals and religions.
>Aboriginals practiced organised agriculture and aquaculture
LOL! lemme guess... you recently learned this during a Christmas lunch table lecture from your school teacher wine aunt who just read Dark Emu?
dark emu was debunked
>Zulus right when they were entering copper age and developing outside mudhuts.
they had Iron lmao. Do you not know they had iron for ages and prior to that in the migrations?
Copper Age is when the armors are made of copper.
It's not that space age is when our weapons are made out of space
sydney is the prettiest city on earth, shame that it's just one big soul-sucking real esate agency
Did those people ask for those cities, universities and parks? Would you be happy if I burst inside your house, kill your wife and children but left a nice TV and a washing machine after I'm done?
Except that they left much more than a "nice TV" and it wasn't your wife and children that have been killed but like your great-great-grandfather.
>Except that they left much more than a "nice TV"
Many didn't even get a "nice tv" and these systems were run for quite a long time. There's still plenty if people who lived in the colonial era descended from one who lived in one or lived in it and had family who also lived/was born in it
>There's still plenty if people who lived in the colonial era descended from one who lived in one or lived in it and had family who also lived/was born in it
Just because you lived in the "colonial era" doesn't mean you actually lived during the bad parts, massacres in Namiba doesn't mean that you as a Tanzanian can complain about muh Germans.
>it was not their ancestors killed but themselves, all for a TV and sewage system which their successors may have received.
Well yeah, but it's not them complaining and it's not them who would receive reparations, is it?
>Tanzanian can complain about muh Germans.
They can because the Germans did crackdown hard on them. Germany was known fir being exceptionally brutal and spending so much money on military campaigns it was a meme at the time. Heinrich Schnee was the first and last Tanzanian governor who wasn't a bloodthirsty asshole which was made him stand out compared to previous ones. WW1 pretty much reversed all his work and more because Lettow-Vorbeck led a guerilla campaign that pillaged and destroyed Eastern Africa to the point it setback all powers in the region by a decade or two and helped cause famines and disease due to basically him and his soldiers pillaging farms and villages.
The timeframe of the hypothetical is the present, retard. For those who were subjected to colonialism (YOU), it was not their ancestors killed but themselves, all for a TV and sewage system which their successors may have received.
Would you be happy if people came across the sea and took over your country then 2000 years later people praised it as an Islamic Golden Age?
Spain and Italy was already controlled and disarmed by Germans
for me personally that would be okay but maybe not for all of us I’ll give you credit
how many wives and children were actually killed?
and was it killing or was it collateral damage?
It's "colonialism" when whites do it.
It's "mass migration" when coloreds do it.
and "demographic shift"!
Because colonialism uplifts all lands and peoples ultimately, while turd world migration just shits everything up while making people who work in finance money. These distinctions are important anon.
sounds good, now take this opium
OK
This. But you need civilization to colonize. Which mexicans, indians and chineman dont have. They are economic migrants with no principles.
>It's "colonialism" when whites do it.
>It's "mass migration" when coloreds do it.
It's mass migration because governments in Europe and America willingly let the migrants in. European colonialists did not ask permission before raping the world.
Hmmmm...AKSHUYALLY many colonies in Africa were protectorates resulting from an agreement between some European power and the local ruling elites
You can't immigrate to a barren wasteland you retarded homosexual. The very concept of immigrating legally or illegally cannot logically precede the concepts of a nation state or borders.
Wetbacks and chinks flooding the country is a bad thing but holy fuck youre a retarded homosexual. Probably non-white yourself.
Libtards will say this was evil then extol the virtues and technological advancements of Moorish Iberia.
Libs say colonialism is evil and then turn around and praise going to African tribal societies and the Middle East and trying to spread woman's lib and gay rights and dont see the irony.
Because colonialism and white man's burden was a progressive movement and libtards desperately want people to forget that part. That the things they try to enforce on the rural parts of their nations is no different from the colonial nations enforcing their values on more rural and less developed parts of the world.
>Because colonialism and white man's burden was a progressive movement
Not it wasn't. Many opposed it fir varying reasons. On top of that not all conservatives were on board with it so your narrative falls flat
i dont get this. the left thinks like islam is an indigenous religion of mena and wasnt spread through like brutal colonialism and oppression. Americans lefties especially associate muslims with an oppressed minority class when they were the fucking colonizers and slave owners in the region
Depends on who colonized, if you were colonized by the Belgians it was certainly worse than being colonized by the Brits.
No French and HRE (now Dutch)?
Yes.
t. Patriot for Australia.
Colonialism was bad, but it has little to do with the current problems in former colonial nations/regions in most cases. That is definitely overblown.
Not really
Many things in the past still have an impact to this day. Southern Africa has endemic TB solely because mines back in the day refused to implement proper ventilation in their mines which led to the spread of TB between miners as well as in the villages as miners returned. People in the colonial admin actively brought up the issue but the state at the time refused to crackdown on health and safety standards so a problem that could have been kept in check instead spread around the area and became a larger issue.
>Southern Africa has endemic TB solely because mines back in the day refused to implement proper ventilation in their mines which led to the spread of TB between miners as well as in the villages as miners returned.
lol what a load of shit,. They have a high rate due to HIV and the fact naggers dont want to bother finishing their course of medication once they feel better.
Tuberculosis you dumb homosexual. How the fuck does HIV tie into what I said, you really don't know how to talk to people.
>the fact naggers dont want to bother finishing their course of medication once they feel better.
Meds are expensive and only very recently became little affordable.
>Tuberculosis you dumb homosexual. How the fuck does HIV tie into what I said, you really don't know how to talk to people.
Not that guy, but you're the dumb homosexual here. It doesn't take a medical degree to grasp the link between an immunosuppressant virus and TB.
>It doesn't take a medical degree to grasp the link between an immunosuppressant virus and TB.
What i said was long before HIV was ever a thing in South Africa since the colonial era.
Basically by the time HIV was thing TB was long endemic to Southern Africa
I mean, without colonialism, these places would have much bigger problems right now instead of those they currently have
So yes, their current state is the result of colonialism
>these places would have much bigger problems right now instead of those they currently have
That's an extreme what-if.
Name a single country that ended up better off than its compatriots who weren't colonized.
During the tail end of colonialism, the average Anatolian Turk was better off than other Turkics under the Russian yoke, the average Saudi lived better than most of the Arab lands under colonial rule, and Siam was better off than the rest of Southeast Asia
Countries like Thailand, Ethiopia...etc were affected by colonialism around them
You need to compare colonized countries before and after colonization, not to compare them to the current state of non-colonized neighbours
But anyway, even with your shitty logic, Gabon or Botswana are better off than Liberia and Ethiopia
You're arguing that whatever "benefits" brought about by colonial rule only existed because of it.
It's an idiotic assumption that technological progress could only have been brought about by force of arms.
Also
>Gabon
66% of its economy is based on Oil and the rest is on ores and tropical wood
>Botswana
62% of its economy is based on the diamond trade and the rest is mostly ores
>66% of its economy is based on Oil and the rest is on ores and tropical wood
That doesn't negate shit. Many developed countries have substantial part if their economy hinge on pull oil or ricks out if the ground.
Why the fuck dies Norway or Canada get a pass but not Botswana and Gabon. Fucks sake the former two countries have bloated public sector employment
What does that have to do with anything?
What's being argued here is whether or not colonialism is a net positive.
Gabon and Bostwana would still have had these resources and the wealth they generate regardless of French and British presence.
>Gabon and Bostwana would still have had these resources and the wealth they generate regardless of French and British presence.
Yeah as a matter of fact they already had them before colonialism, but for some weird reason no Wakanda arose
Because industries around them hadn't developed yet?
This is like saying Britain and Germany had coal for thousands of years, why did they only develop the furnace so late?
You still haven't clarified why that has any bearing on whether or they would be more or less wealthy.
lol you really talking non copmparative percentages?
You have it the wrong way around - those places weren't colonised because they were already relatively developed.
>already relatively developed.
>Saudi Arabia
Dear god anon do you hear what you are saying?
also Siam got lucky because it was better to keep it "neutral" and the reality that it was easy to economically cuck.
Oh, is spreading modernity a good thing now? Now you like globohomo?
If they are not subjugated it's no longer colonialism. You can achieve the same results with an amicable relationship.
Just another part of history. England was colonised by Saxons. English colonised Kenya. Just how it goes.
>Was colonialism THAT bad?
Depends. Be the average citizen of 19th century French Algeria and it won't be much different than if you just had a Maghrebi Sultan. Be the average Taino inhabitant of Hispaniola when Spain shows up in the 16th century and you get to watch your children get their skulls bashed in by some conquistadors looking for gold you don't have.
>Be the average citizen of 19th century French Algeria and it won't be much different than if you just had a Maghrebi Sultan.
Earlier on but France got real hard as time went on policies changed.
The difference in the Maghreb was that large-scale land confiscation happened, especially for land like Waqfs held in accordance with communal religious customs and not actual contracts.
Most people would probably still have been subsistence farmers, but they'd still own their lands at least and they wouldn't have been at the mercy of colonial companies' interests.
For Europe in the long run yes.
Not even close. Even if they lost the colonies many things didn't change for Europe since it still has its lucrative market position and metropole market.
>caused the creation of aussies
The biggest mistake that plague the country— nay, the world today.
How so?
Wacky hypothetical: let's assume the British and every other colonial power are suddenly endowed with the morals and sensibilities of a modern liberal. What is the best and most righteous course of action to take upon the discovery of Australia? Do you just sail away and never step foot on the continent again?
Invade them for not accepting poofters and turn their sons into trannies.
>Invade them for not accepting poofters
They did have their equivalent of gays and lesbos, unless you are saying they'd get invaded for not being queer in the western LGBT way.
Modern liberal? Buy shit from them for cheap and sell elsewhere while flooding them with mass produced manufactured goods they can't compete with so they just export raw resources and import everything else.
lol buy what? The Makassar couldnt even get them to catch and process sea cucumber relaibly
this board when Turks, Arabs and Slavs (both Byzantine era and Soviet era) expanded through Europe
>noooo i dont care what worship place, hospital, town or infrastructure they bulit! they killed people
this board when white people do same thing 10 times more extensive on Africa, Australia and Americas
>AWWW YEAH THEY MIGHT HAVE DONE CHATTLE SLAVERY, ENCOMIENDA SYSTEM OR KILLED EVERYONE AROUND BUT, THATS OK BECAUSE THEY BUILT A SINGLE UNIVERSITY AND A COTTAGE CHUECH IN MIDDLE OF A SWAMP
Reminds me when Serbs destroyed Mostar Bridge out of seething
It's the other way around, homosexual
Leftoids are fine with muslims colonizing Spain for centuries because they built some mosques, but Europe colonizing Africa for a few decades (taking them from the neolithic to the 20th century in the process) is horrible because they felt superior to the local and called them the n-word
You are so obsessed with the word "leftoids" it
''s hard to take your autism seriously. Liek why Leftoids? Do you know what "-oid" means in a words or are you some ESL who still can't grasp it.
Nice job responding to the point retards
Bro your shit is retarded.
They nearly all got converted to full on colonies and even the protectorate status was in name only since they still were cucked or often had their status pretty much stripped bit by bit.
>They nearly all got converted to full on colonies and even the protectorate status was in name only since they still were cucked or often had their status pretty much stripped bit by bit.
Point is it started with the complicity of the local elites, like in Europe right now
No one knows how the colonization of Europe by Africa will eventually turn out
>Point is it started with the complicity of the local elites, like in Europe right now
Don't be retarded, many of them got fucked over by it or had no say. You can't call it complicity when it was unilaterally done outside of cases like Buganda
Many of them put themselves under the protection of European powers because they were in danger of being exterminated by some not-so-peaceful neigbouring Wakanda
Somehow, they decided that being called the n-word by some civilizationally superior beings was less awful than being annihilated by their local enemies
>Somehow, they decided that being called the n-word by some civilizationally superior beings was less awful than being annihilated by their local enemies
No that's just you projecting hard which seems to be a common thing on this board.
Muh leftists
it depends where and by whom. Aboos hadn't reached civilization yet and so there isnt really any argument that what the british did there was negative, accept in recent years by accepting asian immigrants
>there isnt really any argument that what the british did there was negative
Having your culture and people get destroyed?
what culture? aboos had no written records or high society. also there are more aboriginals today than when the British arrived, and all their art and culture has been preserved and recorded by anthropologists. dub for everyone
>also there are more aboriginals today than when the British arrived
That logic sounds stupid no matter what you apply it to from the wars and to this.
no one is lamenting the fact that there aren't more aboriginal Australians today. most Australians died due to the environment before the British arrived also
> Africans had 200.000 year headstart.
Git gud
YES
Alot of aboriginals lived in genuine peace
>cities
To flood in more brits
>universities
for brits only
>parks
built on top of your home
>but but
I know you have a slave mentality but not everyone would like to ruled over by foreigners.
The mosques? For European colonists only, in case they felt like praying allah
The hospitals filled with naggers? For those among European colonists who loved to treat ill naggers as a hobby during their spare time
>The hospitals filled with naggers?
A fuckton of hospitals were basically missionary run and poorly funded due to colony politics.
>A fuckton of hospitals were basically missionary run and poorly funded due to colony politics.
stop embarrassing yourself, you have obviously no idea of what you are talking about
top=soul
British should have left them alone enslaving their own people instead of giving them technology skyrocketing their population and not even being grateful but instead despising Europeans
>Bamako before colonization
Trees and rock as God intended Eden
>Bamako after colonization
Consumism, beer, drugs and polluting cars as Satan wants
Whether you measure colonization by the number of Europeans who went there or the amount of time that a colony lasted there, you find that more colonized nations ended up being richer.
nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w18162/w18162.pdf
Now, you might say that this is all because more Europeans went to, and what stay longer at, richer African nations. You can say that, but you’re going to need some evidence. And that evidence will need to take into account the fact that the amount of precious metals in an area does not predict the degree to which it was colonized by Europeans:
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w18162/w18162.pdf
>you find that more colonized nations ended up being richer.
And more fucked in the head lol. Also a fuckton more Inequality due to settler/native policies. You CANNOT leave that out and economists ajways fail at looking through multiple lenses.
Also settler states had more policies allocated to producing amenities and QoL things to help entice migration.
Also Gilley said fucking Ethiopia is an example of a "non colonial state" when pretty much everyone in the forks if African history and African studies agrees it was an imperial empire so that's a major red flag lol.
RETVRN
>Brits sniff gold and other resources in cape of good hope
>invade
>kill boers
>despite outmanning and outgunning boers, lose so they resort to camps for the women and children
>Anglos and Americans support end of apartheid
Honestly immigration of caribbean blacks and pajeets/pakis to England seems sort of divine justice. You can make the case for Monroe Doctrine/CIA in latin america with immigration to the US too but that's for a different thread.