Why is the European colonization of Africa portrayed as something destructive and bad?
Some ignorant people think that Europeans underdeveloped, in fact the colonization of Africa is the brightest era in African history
>If you think I'm wrong try to debate me
>>404520
Belgian colonization of the Congo led to up to 10 million deaths. The tribes and small indigenous kingdoms never could have cause that amount of bloodshed.
>>404530
Nothing of value was lost
Now fetch my tea matumbo
>>404530
Yet Congo improved. If there is any trace of civilization in modern day Africa it's thanks to European colonialism.
Yes mistakes were made, even big mistakes.
Still the outcome was positive
Nice try, white devil.
>>404550
racist
>>404536
Dont expect people to have a serious debate and have a serious discussion if you are going to troll or act like an edgelord. The answer to your question is complicated because colonization often brought huge positive benefits but thete was often a huge human cost or borders were drawn that later lead to big issues.
If you wanna have a good conversation about that people will be happy to oblige but not if you act like a child.
Civilization isn't a good thing for Africans, the same way democracy isn't good for Arabs. This fucking retarded nonsense about universally applicable ideas needs to stop.
If Europe had never touched Africa it would still be unstable and violent, and instead of being blamed for colonisation we'd be blamed for not helping enough.
You can not win. It's exactly the same in the Middle East right now. We get blamed for not being able to solve every problem over there but we get vilified for not helping as well.
You'll be branded a monster regardless.
>>404544
>Yet Congo improved
How? Before they were poor mostly tribal people with a few kingdoms here and there. While the Europeans controlled them they remained just as poor but also got massacred. Now they're a war torn failed state.
How did anything improve?
>>404567
Now this is not a bad argument. I can see your point. However I believe that a minimum of civilization would be necessary even if unwanted
>>404544
>mfw Africa still hasn't evolved past tribal savagery but instead of spears they now have guns
>>404520
Development of Africa was limited to...
>Plantations
>Mines
>Harvesting camps for ivory, lagos rubber and similar
>Garrisons
>Ports to send raw materials back to europe
>Railways to move stuff to ports
>Missions
Colonies existed to extract wealth and send it elsewhere. Black people provided manual labor, administration and machine tending was done by white people. Machinery was always imported from europe to the colonies. Creating self sustaining industrial infrastructure in Africa was the last thing on their minds.
>>404579
Rhodesia did have industry, Czechoslovak immigrants founded a shoemaking company in Gweru for example.
>>404574
>If Europe had never touched Africa it would still be unstable and violent, and instead of being blamed for colonisation we'd be blamed for not helping enough.
Why? Africa had functioning civilizations before Europeans arrived.
They weren't impressive, but they were functioning states with laws and proper government. If Africa was never colonized, most African countries would probably be like Botswana, not that great or important, but moderately well off.
>>404576
>>404578
Not true. They have at least some basic infrastructure and some semblance of government. It's better than being savages living in a hut and constantly killing each other with clubs.
As sad as it might be progress never happens without sacrifice.
Do you think that Europe or the US got to where they are without spilling a single drop of blood?
>>404520
it is bright because of the technology, not the colonialism specifically
of course liberals have this idea that the african kings who preceded them were less oppressive, or that like japan, africa was the ideal location for industrialization and could have undergone something like he meiji restoration, they are wrong, but unless you want to get into a lengthy debate about the ethical choices someone had in the 19th century, in general colonialism was immoral
>>404574
I don't know, apologist man. Maybe if colonial powers didn't go specifically out of their way in the Near East to fuck things up, the Near East wouldn't be so fucked up after World War I. That shits still on you.
>>404576
European colonialism in the Congo actually destroyed the existing state structures that existed and then when they left, there was nothing left to fill the gap left by the colonial government. On top of that, colonialism often left poor infrastructure (railways and roads went from sources of resources to the coast, at best), poor civil society due to the denial of education and advancement in government to native people, a lack of a middle class, an extractive economy, and a population that had been denied education. So of course it all went to shit when they left. And this happened inside living memory--Africa is still recovering in many places from colonialism and arbitrary drawing of borders. There are places in Africa that are doing much better and others that aren't. Things will get better, just takes time.
Relevant to the thread
>>404579
>Garrisons
Bens?
>>404606
>They have at least some basic infrastructure and some semblance of government.
lmao nice joke. Even their pre-colonial societies they had were more functional.
>It's better than being savages living in a hut and constantly killing each other with clubs.
Yes because now they live in huts and constantly kill each other with Kalashnikovs and helicopters. Big improvement.
>>404599
Oh come on. African kingdoms were amongst the most cruel and oppressive regimes in history.
>slavery
>death punishment
>torture
>no women rights
>racism
I could go on
>>404567
This.
People need to realize that the world has divisions for a reason, and many peoples cannot have what the west has.
>>404616
I agree.Seven of the world 10 fastest growing economies are African. They're finally beginning to emerge now (thanks in part to massive Chinese investment).
>>404615
Maybe it's not a good idea to demand muh freedom before things can properly be sorted out.
Same goes for Africa, we were forced to grant them independence without having time to ensure they would remain stable.
Also you cannot blame all of the problems in the Middle East on Colonialism, that's modern Tumblr thinking. It has been a violent shithole since the Mongols came through and rekt it.
>>404625
>lmao nice joke. Even their pre-colonial societies they had were more functional.
That is factually wrong. You are trying to preserve an imaginary narrative.
Look at Somalia: during colonial times it was orderly and well governed, and people had objectively higher living standards. Look at it now.
Let's stop pretending that everything is the evil Europeans' fault please
>>404629
Whereas the colonial government had?
>slavery
>death punishment
>torture and mutilation
>no rights at all
>racism
The only difference is the Euros could kill far more people that the indigenous kingdoms ever could.
>>404625
>now they live in huts
Are you even trying?
>>404636
>thanks to Chinese neo colonialism
FTFY
>>404606
>Do you think that Europe or the US got to where they are without spilling a single drop of blood?
Can someone remind me how this logical fallacy is called again?
>>404618
There is still nothing but sand in the Sahara. Cities and harbors were already made by the natives (at least in the Maghreb), african roads aren't worth shit.
>>404643
>Also you cannot blame all of the problems in the Middle East on Colonialism, that's modern Tumblr thinking.
I think you need to reflect more on what I said before trying to compare my post and statements with SJW logic.
>>404647
Yes they did. And they left some form of civilization and infrastructure behind at least
>>404645
>That is factually wrong. You are trying to preserve an imaginary narrative.
Are u actually arguing that Congo's present government is more functional than the pre-colonial ones? Is that what I'm hearing right now?
>>404599
The current states are "Functional" as well. They just have a dash of tribal warfare slavery and genocide. Just like the pre-colonial Kingdoms did.
Don't tell me you think Pre-Colonial Africa was this simple, humble land where people just danced around fires and fucked each other all day?
>>404652
Not a logical fallacy. No civilization ever improved without blood shed. It's a fact
>>404649
The majority of them lived in huts in the jungle prior to colonialism. They also had some people living in cities. Now the majority of them live in huts. They also have some people living in cities.
Point?
>>404647
>slavery
France abolished slavery in 1794
Spain in 1811
Britain in 1834
Portugal in 1836
German empire as far as I know never had slavery.
In fact it was the retarded indigenous African kings who threatened to go to war with Britain over it because slavery was the main source of their income.
>>404650
Nice meme
>>404657
It definitely is, as fucked up as that sounds. I actually visited Congo and, even though it is not even remotely compared to the West, it is still better than a tribal warzone
>huur but ppl still kill eachother
Yes they do. But there is at least some semblance of civilization
>>404670
Majority of them don't live in huts, you're confirmed for never visiting Africa at all.
>>404678
"abolished"
Explain to me how the Europeans obtained labor from the natives in Africa in the 1800s and 1900s.
>>404679
So what? Of course they love the Chinese. They are improving their countries like the Europeans did. The difference is that as of today civil rights exist and back then didn't.
Resources are still being stolen, governments are still being propped up and so on.
Again the only difference are civil rights (which were introduced by the evil fascist and colonialist West by the way)
>>404687
By employing them?
>>404667
A logical fallacy almost always use facts, but with a flawed logic. Comparing african control wars to european and american wars related to their development is assuming the situations were as bad in all of those countries, which they aren't: it's much, much worse in Africa, where there is sacrifice without progress
>>404682
>it is still better than a tribal warzone
How so?
>But there is at least some semblance of civilization
Barely. And during the time of colonialism there was even less. The only specs of civilizations existed to serve European interest. None of the infrastructure actually benefited natives
>>404687
By employing them and paying them wages?
>black person works for a white person
>must be a slave
You're so incredibly fucking racist lol
>>404618
>muh white mans burden
>muh benevolent colonial societies!
Colonialism by and large was to serve the interests of the colonizers, period.
Colonialism may have brought some infrastructure to colonies, but it sure as hell wasn't there to serve the indigenous folks or promote stable growth post colonialism.
India had hundreds of miles of railroads...but designed for resource transport. Similarly, sewage in these post colonial environments were extremely difficult to maintain in the long run because they were built with technology and materials foreign to the region. So while the European empires did leave the colonies with some infrastructure, they sure as hell weren't gonna stick around to maintain it or help expand it.
The last part, the lack of expansion is directly why post colonial societies suck ass. Colonialism essentially gives you a gold Mercedes as a farewell present when you still dont have roads to drive it on and would be better off with a bus or a bullozer, then smugly looks back and comments on how ungrateful you are.
It didn't help that the longer the colonizing powers held on, the more radical the natives got. For example, Rhodesia could have been peacefully resolved but Ian Smith was firmly against it, thus Mugabe came to power and fucked it all up.
>>404691
>They are improving their countries like the Europeans did.
>implying Africans loved the Europeans when they started land grabbing
>>404544
But now we are judging them by our standards instead of just letting them run around and do their own things by themselves
>>404696
Hah if u can call forced labor "employment" sure.
>>404679
lol Japan worried
>>404704
>How so?
Visit Congo and judge for yourself
>Barely. And during the time of colonialism there was even less. The only specs of civilizations existed to serve European interest.
Ah those evil pesky Europeans never did anything for the natives (aside from living behind a LOT of up to date infrastructure).
>>404718
What forced labor? This isn't the USSR or Nazi Germany we're talking about you fucking retard.
All conquest entails bloodshed. The difference here is just that European colonization occurred at a juncture very close temporally to the death of the old world, which meant that once the era of globalist modernism rolled around, critical theorists had the tales of Africa and America's subjugation fresh in their cultural memories to intellectualize and postulate about. In reality, the Khanates of the Eurasian steppe, for example, did things to exogenous polities and peoples at least as horrible as Von Trotha's worst crimes; in truth, the call for conquest is a foible native to all our collective blood, regardless of the melanin content in whomsoever it flows through. Europeans just get the most blame for this innate flaw in all races of man because they had a lot of power during the epochs leading up to the Cold War, which is around when our contemporary notions of history started to really coalesce.
>>404707
>By employing them and paying them wages?
k
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indig%C3%A9nat#In_practice:_Africa_1887.E2.80.931946
>>404678
>France abolished slavery in 1794
It came back from 1802 to 1848, and then it was definitely abolished
Of course, it didn't prevent forced labor for natives who committed the crime of not liking the new governement, seizing of lands, requisition of workforce, ...
>>404724
>Visit Congo and judge for yourself
I have it sucks. The government has no control. The murder rate is insane and Eastern Congo is effectively an endless infrastructureless war zone
>>404596
What was Rhodesia's steel output per anum?
What was it's energy output per capita?
What was it's main industries?
How much of it's population was urbanized?
What was the standard level of education among the native population?
>>404716
>But now we are judging them by our standards instead of just letting them run around and do their own things by themselves
Because we introduced human rights and we are not selfish beasts. Look at all the humanitarian aid and NGOs operating in Africa. We want them to be able to prosper instead of going back to tribal warfare. We can't stay in the side lines and watch as people massacre eachother
>>404724
>Ah those evil pesky Europeans never did anything for the natives (aside from living behind a LOT of up to date infrastructure).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indig%C3%A9nat#In_practice:_Africa_1887.E2.80.931946
>>404712
Nobody is claiming that colonialism was primarily to benefit natives.
We are simply contesting this idea that Colonialism actually ruined anything and the shifting of every single problem facing former colonies onto Europe.
Those problems were all there before Europeans arrived. When Colonialism ending you got left with your old problems and some railroads, factories, trains, mines and developed concepts of democracy.
So how exactly was Colonialism completely bad? The way I see it it was a mixed bag.
>>404727
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indig%C3%A9nat#In_practice:_Africa_1887.E2.80.931946
>>404737
If it wasn't for that "out of control" governement you probably wouldn't be here to tell me your story and neither would I
>>404732
>Of course, it didn't prevent forced labor for natives who committed the crime of not liking the new governement, seizing of lands, requisition of workforce, ...
Yeah duh. I can't believe these people don't realize this
>>404712
>the longer the colonizing powers held on, the more radical the natives got
doesn't work like that, whoever has power will abuse it to the same extent regardless of how much thir underlings were trolled by the last regime
if the colonials made a mistake it was failing to provide security to the newly independent states, just passing it on to the nearest strongman then buggering off back to blighty
>>404718
>forced
They had a choice in regards to whether they worked, therefore by definition they were not slaves.
>But how else were they supposed to survive?
You can make the same argument about employment today. The fact is after slavery was abolished black people could get paid, go to their own homes at the end of the day and be with their own families.
That is not slavery by any definition of the word.
>>404745
>We are simply contesting this idea that Colonialism actually ruined anything and the shifting of every single problem facing former colonies onto Europe.
That's not what I'm seeing. I'm seeing people unironically claim that Africa improved under colonialism and that the European Empires never used forced labor.
Sure There are many problems with Africa and many of them are not caused by Europeans. But did colonialism help? No
>>404748
>If it wasn't for that "out of control" governement you probably wouldn't be here to tell me your story and neither would I
Implying that people didn't visit the Congo and return alive before colonialism
>>404740
And? No one denies that. It was unfortunately common practice back then, not only by Europeans. The point is that they still left behind usable infrastructure which wouldn't have existed otherwise.
Do you think that native governments weren't doing the same horrid things?
>but Europeans killed more people
Again yes, and it is sad. No progress has ever happened without bloodshed however. If Europeans didn't do it, someone else would have. Most likely Middle Easterners
>>404773
Sure they did. I would still rather take my chances with the current out of control government rather than a precolonial one
>>404750
>Stop spamming you mental cripple.
Explain how I'm wrong then. Did the European not use forced labor? You seem real smart tell me why I'm wrong and why the benevolent Europeans never would've forced the people into horrible working conditions killing millions.
>>404758
>if the colonials made a mistake it was failing to provide security to the newly independent states, just passing it on to the nearest strongman then buggering off back to blighty
The one man, one vote system pretty much took care of that. The colonials didn't hand their colonies to strongmen, they handed them to who the people wanted and elected.
That ended up being Marxists backed by China or Russia.
Shitting on the colonial powers for not wanting to construct an interstate system before they left is fucking hilarious.
>>404745
>So how exactly was Colonialism completely bad?
That's a dull question. There is absolutely no regime or policy which was completely bad: nazis had their advantages, the stalinian policy which led to the deaths of millions by starvation because of sheer incompetence at least was a first step into modernizing agriculture
Here we're checking if the bad is outweighing the good
>>404763
>They had a choice in regards to whether they worked, therefore by definition they were not slaves.
No they didn't. Hence the term forced. If they didn't work, in many instances they were beaten or killed.
>>404780
All civilizations used forced labor. Africans in primis. Do you really think that slavery was invented by Europeans?
>>404567
/thread
>>404788
It's worse when white people do it tho because I hear about how bad it is more often.
Therefore it must have been worse.
>>404774
>And? No one denies that.
Actually half the people on this thread seem to deny it. Scroll up and see all the revisionist claiming that Europeans paid the natives fair wages and never forced them into work.
>The point is that they still left behind usable infrastructure which wouldn't have existed otherwise.
Which was promptly used for war and genocide. Part of this is surely the Africans fault but part of it is the fault of the Europeans for not dividing up the countries boundaries properly and educating the new governments.
>>404798
Oh I see. Let's not mention how the arabs invaded and enslaved a ton of people from Iceland or how African slavery existed centuries before the first American slavers started doing their thing
>>404788
>Do you really think that slavery was invented by Europeans?
No, where did I say that? Africans enslaved there own long before Europeans arrived I was simply responding to the idiots above who claimed that the Europeans never used Forced Labor which is verifiable false.
>>404745
It didn't transfer control over to the natives until it was convenient for the colonizers to do so. All the resources being taken from the land was not going back into improving the society.Had the natives had self determination, all the material wealth would have been theirs to exploit and then we could make a moral judgement on how indigenous societies are compared to western ones.
>Compared to what was there before
Colonialism did not start as a humanitarian mission, it was pure exploitation with the side effect of putting foreign developed infrastructure in place to help with the exploitation. Where colonialism also sought out to establish long term civilizations is where we see actual development of the region. It was too bad that this development for long term occuppation was almost exclusively discriminatory and essentially apartheid. Get rid of the apartheid part and you can claim colonialism brought civilization to natives without any baggage. Too bad that never was the case.
.
>>404804
>Oh I see. Let's not mention how the arabs invaded and enslaved a ton of people from Iceland or how African slavery existed centuries before the first American slavers started doing their thing
We could mention that except it has no bearing on the actual topic which pertains to whether African Colonialism was bad :)
Penal labor is not the same as slavery you fucking morons.
>>404799
>Actually half the people on this thread seem to deny it. Scroll up and see all the revisionist claiming that Europeans paid the natives fair wages and never forced them into work.
Some people are just ignorant unfortunately.
>Which was promptly used for war and genocide
The infrastructure? How?
>>404781
Nigeria and Kenya voted conservative, the governments just fell prey to corruption, the result of democracy being attempted in unideal socioeconomic conditions. Angola and Ethiopia became commies after a civil war.
>>404821
>Some people are just ignorant unfortunately.
And those are the people I'm arguing with. I'm not trying to say that Africa would be lovely had Europeans never colonized it. I am simply stating that Colonization didn't help the Africans either.
>The infrastructure? How?
The modern weapons and technology were utilized by the new governments and rebels alike to perpetuate violence and destruction to wider regions than ever before. Just look at the Rwandan genocide. You can't kill a million people in a few months without guns and cars.
>>404718
want to know how i know you're a NEET?
>>404842
>I am simply stating that Colonization didn't help the Africans either.
And that's were I disagree with you.
>You can't kill a million people in a few months without guns and cars.
You seem to imply that no one in Africa would have had access to those tools if it weren't for Europeans. This sounds a bit far fetched to me.
Also what about the infrastructure left there by the colonialists? How is it a bad thing?
>>404826
Sorry. I was assuming it was simply an open statement.
>>404781
>construct an interstate system
or cooperation between the UK, France and newly independent nations to cut off supply routes to guerrillas, promote global security and stop the spread of communism
>>404856
No problem. The lack of a way to identify posters is pretty bothersome and tends to lead to samefagging and messy discussions, in my opinion
>>404851
>want to know how i know you're a NEET?
Still denying forced labor was a thing even after I already proved it was. I think this man is brain dead sadly.
>>404853
>You seem to imply that no one in Africa would have had access to those tools if it weren't for Europeans.
They wouldn't be in as great numbers IMHO but also the boundaries of the states might actually make sense making ethnic wars less likely.
>>404821
>The infrastructure? How?
I think he means the state militaries that were trained by the colonizing powers to ease the transition. Once in power, the first thing a warlord would do is use the military to eliminate competition, hence genocide. The fact that infrastructure existed in some ethnic/tribal groups area but not others is an extension of this. You can genocide a group of people by cutting off their water supply and charge a special tax for them to use roads. He who controls the water wins.
>>404875
>They wouldn't be in as great numbers IMHO
I disagree. I don't think there would be a noticeable difference.
> but also the boundaries of the states might actually make sense making ethnic wars less likely.
This is actually a good point I didn't think about. Thanks
>>404884
You put it much more elegantly than I could. Thank you
>>404606
>le progress mem
So you're trolling them? This assumption that what's best for us must be what's best for them is retarded.
>>404913
>le Western civilization cannot be exported in any other place.
Look at which civilization became dominant and managed to colonize almost all others and draw your own conclusions.
>>404926
Yes western civilization works great when there are westerners around. I'm not denying that. I'm saying we shouldn't force our way if life on others in the name of progress. Not everywhere should be westernized. Once you put down the white man's burden, maybe you'll be less fatigued and you can think more clearly about this.
>>404943
Yuo have a point.
>>404943
The ideas that make western civilization successful are universal. They don't need colonialism to spread as the europussies seem to think but it is naive to think that we should sit back and watch some insane islamist, communist or whatever totalitarian dictatorship swallow up the rest of the world. Instead what we need is global capitalism and freedoms, Reagan and others were morally justified in spreading it everywhere.
>>404520
I'll just leave this there:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatekeeper_state
>>404618
This is literally Australia.
>>404530
>""""Belgian""" colonization of Congo
It was a personal project of the King. Stop trying to shift the guilt complex to our nation amerifat.
>>404768
>I'm seeing people unironically claim that Africa improved under colonialism
It improved during colonialism, but went back to shit as soon as it ended (the only difference is that instead of chimps killing each others with spears between mudhuts, you now have chimps killing each others with guns between houses)
>all these people arguing that the technological development that would have happened anyway was due to the benevolent rule of Europeans
lol
>>405257
>that would have happened anyway
Not if Europeans hadnt invented globalization
Why do you think Africans were still living like literally monkeys centuries after the invention of bricks and gunpowder?
>>405209
You ignorant cunt, Belgian Congo was a Belgian colony. You're confusing with the Congo "Free" State, which was indeed Leopold's own entreprise and only lasted until 1908.
Your "nation" (if you can call a dysfunctional buffer state torn apart by separatist movements a nation) is also guilty of the situation in Rwanda.
>>405270
>Your "nation"
Not him but where are you from?
>>405270
>guilty of the situation in Rwanda
doubly guilty, even:
https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/george-ruggiu/
>>405287
Why do you care where anonymous posters are from?
>>405307
Because I get a hunch that your country is even less of a nation than Belgium, thus giving you no real right to talk shit.
>>405268
>Not if Europeans hadnt invented globalization
But they did. Europeans were trading with Africa long before they were conquering all of Africa.
>>405310
And your hunch is wrong, but even if I lived in Sealand it wouldn't change the nature of Belgium one bit.
>>404820
Forced labour, corvee and hut taxes, deliberate economic and social mobility handicapping of the populace ain't slavery but it's pretty fucked up.
>>405270
>Muh white devil
>>404567
Finally someone gets it
Technically all humans came from Africa so Africa belongs to everyone.
>this argument kills the SJW
>>404842
>Just look at the Rwandan genocide. You can't kill a million people in a few months without guns and cars.
The Rwandan genocide was carried out almost exclusively with machetes.
>>405428
>spelling labor with an u
I'm gonna retch
>>404520
People should have the right to self-determination and an ethnic homeland.
European powers didn't make infrastructure for a functioning country, it was a playground for them.
The scramble for Africa was a giant dick measuring contest for European nations.
>>404520
>Why is the European colonization of Africa portrayed as something destructive and bad?
Because of marxist propaganda during decolonization. During the cold war, one of the big angles of attack of the USSR was to create satellite states in the third world. In that goal, they flooded the third world with anti-colonial propaganda, which stuck.
If sub saharan africa had never been colonized, it would today look like papua new guinea.
>>404530
>10 million deaths
doubt it
nobody actually knows how many
>>405966
>didn't make infrastructure for a functioning country
What kind of infrastructure makes for a functioning country if not the kind built by Europeans?
Are you suggesting that they built random roads into cliffs and deserts, or maybe did they connect population and industrial centers to areas with raw materials?
>>406395
>industrial centers
You realize basically none of the world outside Europe and (parts of) America was industrialized before the later half of the 20th century, right?
The existing infrastructure simply connected raw materials to ports for shipping to the global market, which cemented Africa's fate as a periphery region for decades, exporting cheap materials and cash crops to import manufactured goods and staple foods.
>>404574
re: the middle east
it's not that people complain about both intervention and lack of intervention
it's that the west/USA has historically intervened in the middle east climaxing in the Iraq war, massively destabilising the region and causing even more problems, THEN taking a step back and saying "it's not my problem, fix it yourself". It's somewhat justified imo, you can't cause a problem with ignorant and shortsighted military action then wash your hands of the consequences. Not convincingly anyway.
>>406453
Definitions of industry matter, rubber needs processing before it's shipped for example.
>infrastructure simply connected raw materials to ports for shipping to the global market
So that's somehow a negative? Sounds like most of what exists in the US to be honest. It's why infrastructure exists in the first place.
>>404842
>rwandan genocide
>guns
wtf? it was mostly carried out by machetes and farm tools, by the fucking neighbours of tutsis
these rwandans are fucking scum murderers fuck them all. how could you kill your neighbours on such an unimaginable scale? because why? because some false flag assination and racist radio tells you too?
rwandans are known for their blind following of authority. they're scum murdererss mindless drones
fucking whites always thinking they fucking know what's going on in africa hurr we are all equal all people are the same
no, come to africa and see for yourself, us africans will kill you just for your clothes. life is nothing to us, your property is already mine
>>404550
>>404559
>>406453
>basically none of the world outside Europe and (parts of) America
Except Japan obviously.
Even famous ultra-industrialized/urbanized states like Hong Kong, Taiwan or Singapore were essentially stuck in the 18th century before the 30s-50s, and had the luck of being developed as actual industrial centers by their colonizers and having most of the infrastructure they needed crammed into a small island. Yet they still needed heavy-handed economic reform and steering to diversify their industries, catch up to Westerners and stop being backwater shitholes full of nothing but sweatshops and slums.
>>406491
>So that's somehow a negative?
When it's your only infrastructure? Yeah.
>rubber needs processing before it's shipped for example
Pretty sure most vulcanization plants and other rubber processing factories weren't even in rubber-harvesting countries, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.
>Sounds like most of what exists in the US to be honest.
Please, tell me all about how the US is a Third World country. About the only feature it shares in common with African banana republics is that it exports a lot of cash crops, but they're cultivated by large-scale high-tech agribusinesses.
Oh, and there's the corruption and sham democracy obviously.
>>405983
No it wouldn't because no rainforests
>>404763
Not even comparable. You aren't literally beaten or murdered for refusing to work.
>>404738
>Muh steel
Mao plz
>>406713
yeah, who cares about economic output
look at the wonderful infrastructure built by the white man to benefit the white man
why isn't darkie happy with that?
>>404599
>Africa had functioning civilizations before Europeans arrived
And post-colonial Africa is just as bad as the pre-colonial kindoms. Worse, actually, because they can kill each other offmore efficiently now.
Sub-saharan kingdoms lacked the sort of institutions that prevented most European kingdoms from breaking out in wars of succession between every other king.
Like the Magna Carta, for example.
>>404636
>fastest growing economies
BS apologism. Here's why:(EXAMPLE NOT REAL NUMBERS!!!)
Germany: economy level 100
Congo: level 4
Germany's economy increases by 5, i.e 5%
Congo's economy increases by 1, i.e. 25%.
Which country has the highest growth rate?
>>406794
>the Magna Carta
Literally an ancient meme, a pretty forced one too.
>>404520
I wonder if these people who see colonization as a good thing, that it helped to "civilize" the natives or what not, would actually support that for their own cultures.
Imagine if an advanced race of aliens contacted us tomorrow. They have ambitions to conquer and colonize Earth, exploiting many of our resources, forcing their laws and customs upon our people, and will be brutal in their treatment of humans. On the bright side, though, their advanced technology will eventually diffuse to us. Would the kinds of people who justify European colonization by claiming that it "civilized" the natives accept those aliens with open arms?
>>404687
Same way they got poor, desolate Europeans to work in dangerous, unhealthy factories: By kicking them off the land (enclosure act, anyone?) and offering them the oportunity to not starve to death.
>>404687
They forced them to pay taxes, mostly. And they had to be paid with colonial monopoly money, which was earned by working for the colonists.
To be fair, that's the same trick empires used on the populations back home.
>>406822
It's an example of codified law regulating how the state/kingdom is to function, beyond the say-so of whoever is in charge of remembering the laws.
Japan, Iran, Thailand, Korea, and China have all managed to modernize without being colonized by Europeans. Clearly colonization is not necessary for an undeveloped nation to modernize, so how can colonization be justified with that claim?
>>406816
Congo, why?
>apologism
Noting that a 1000 dollar microloan at 10% has a higher interest rate than a billion dollar loan at 0.1% is apologism as well?
>>406885
Over what timespan?
>>404678
>France abolished slavery in 1794
>Spain in 1811
>Britain in 1834
>Portugal in 1836
Most of those dates are just when they were abolished in the homeland. Portugal didn't slavery in its colonies until 1869, for example.
>>406551
Wow the edge lol.
>>406281
The population of Egypt in 1800 was 4 million, it is now 90 million. Do you think the Congo could support a population 3-8 times larger than Egypt when Belgium colonized it?
>anti-colonialists ITT
>M-muh evil white man
>pro colonialists ITT
>we dindu nuffin, we benevolent!
>>406551
Speak for yourself faggot
>us africans
ayy
>>406885
>Economic growth rate is synonymous with actual capital
Please stop. Please.
Maybe the euros would have been more willing to help the post-colonial countries if they hadn't forced out/murdered all the whites
>>406943
idk what do you think?
>>406949
In this case, the anti-colonialists are right.
White people aren't evil. But the ones who decided to conquer other people probably were. They definitely weren't benevolent.
>>407063
Maybe whites wouldn't have been forced out or murdered if they came peacefully in the first place?
>>407219
>good
>evil
>relevant categories in discussion of historical events
Seriously though, it's not like white people have a monopoly on conquest or empire. Was Shaka Zulu any more benevolent than the colonialists he fought?
>>407275
>Shaka Zulu
>fighting colonialists
I agree with you, but come on man.
>>406831
the Romans are praised for civilizing barbarians in large parts of Europe
>>407317
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso
Colonialism was probably better than the alternative, which would be leaving Africa to be fucked over by Arabs. That doesn't change the fact that colonialism was extremely brutal and completely ineffective in it's 'civilizing mission'. Just about everyone involved was utter scum, African or European, except for a handful of missionaries and more educated Africans.
>>404567
Who ever said it was for the Africans?
tbqh white people aren't that bad and people need to stop blaming them for their personal problems
>>404712
>sewage in these post colonial environments were extremely difficult to maintain
Literally blaming the white man that Indians can't poo in loo... You apologists kek me up.
>>407275
>Seriously though, it's not like white people have a monopoly on conquest or empire.
No, they don't.
I'm saying that the specific white people who decided to go and conquer places were evil.
>Was Shaka Zulu any more benevolent than the colonialists he fought?
No. Who the fuck would say he was?
>>407381
>white people aren't that bad
that's kind of a weird thing to say. It's like saying "I don't really appreciate asians, but they could definitely be worse."
>>407390
>evil
oh boy
>>405735
>white people cant do anything wrong ever
>>407351
What are you sperged about retard.
>>407447
>black people can't do anything wrong ever
>>406749
This
>>406864
China was a literal sock puppet for Colonial powers and even Japan and the US though so you can't really say that.
>>406749
>infrastructure necessarily benefits only the person who built it
I'm sure you just hate truck drivers for using your public roads.
>>407495
Large-scale industrialization in China didn't really happen until after WW2. They were largely agrarian for the first half of the 1900s.
>The colonists weren't doing it for the natives, they were doing it for their own self-interest.
Infrastructure benefits everybody. That ports, railway lines, hospitals, schools, farms, and so on weren't built as part of some altruistic mission does not invalidate their usefulness.
The same can be said of western cultural values like individual liberty. The only difference is that these weren't fully finished by the time the Europeans left.
Obviously these are bait threads so why do mods allow them?
Look at what the Italians caused? Eritrean identity and an ensuing War that was based off of Italian intervention.
Look at what the Germans and Belgians did, caused the Rwandan genocide with their stupid classifications and privileges.
There are many instances of them being the root cause for much death and destruction. The small African population that may have marginally benefited doesn't invalidate the suffering of the majority. get over the propaganda and need to deny facts that hurt your feelings.
>Some ignorant people think that Europeans underdeveloped, in fact the colonization of Africa is the brightest era in African history
But it isn't. No historian thinks this.
You have to remember that the goal of colonisation wasn't to set up the apparatus for governance and statehood. It was just establishing the bare minimum for transportation and extraction of resources.
This can turn out well in some cases. Nigeria used the very little infrastructure the British had left to their advantage.
It turned out badly 99% of the time. The Portuguese destroyed all the infrastructure they had built in Angola out of spite and left the new government with basically just a gigantic pile of dirt to govern. Niger is just a big hole in the ground with some uranium in it. These weren't good countries, and they're still not good countries. They were never supposed to be countries.
The best country in Subsaharan Africa today is Botswana, and it's that way for a reason. The Tswana offered to become a protectorate and the British didn't think there was anything valuable there so what little infrastructure they built remained. Diamonds weren't discovered until after independence.
>>409004
>That ports, railway lines, hospitals, schools, farms, and so on weren't built as part of some altruistic mission does not invalidate their usefulness.
But most of these things weren't built.
>>404530
Additionally, when the belgians left, so did the only doctors, teachers, etc in the country. Effectivly congo was left in ruins with no.working infrastructure.
The only reason one can say they improved afterwards was because of improved technology globally and charity, not colonization
>all this black and white thinking
Many colonialists genuinely believed they were doing the right thing, even if missionaries were "tools of oppression", they were willing to risk malaria and being killed to set up hospitals and spread jesus's message of charity and kindness etcetera etcetera
I think the left wants everyone to believe they were all 100% pure evil because colonialism is eerily similar to their own socialist and social democrat leanings. They don't want to believe that people with good intentions sometimes get it wrong.
This is a very dangerous idea in politics. Imagine if people stopped believing that only they represent anti-racism anti-sexism anti-homophobia etcetera etcetera and started thinking for themselves.
So I wonder, how many people who accept the thesis of OP, also accept and apply the same argument to International Communism?
>>404520
Purposeful underdevelopment, enslavement, and genocide are not bright spots.
>>404530
I think the current belgian monarchy should not have the right to have the throne... Like leopold is on the 4th on the list of most kills in the world after mao zedong if im not mistaken. They should have overthrown him since congo was his 'personal' possession and so this makes him the culprit. And if they acted correctly in that time then there would be a presidency in belgium right now... I hate the monarch family with there spoiled kids and there monarchalprotection!>>404530
>>409118
>Many colonialists genuinely believed they were doing the right thing
So? Just about every person in the world believes they are doing the right thing, Al-Qaeda believes they are doing the right thing, Mao believed he was doing the right thing, The Aztec priests believed they were doing the right thing.
>>406976
That wasn't my point at all, but Germany obviously has a lot more capital than Congo as well.
>>404520
>Why is the European colonization of Africa portrayed as something destructive and bad?
Because marxists dominate modern historiography.
>>409004
>Infrastructure benefits everybody.
Obviously not the people who aren't allowed to use them.
>>410245
Do you have any proof that africans, say, in Nigeria, were barred from using colonial infrastructure?
>>404599
I don't understand why the African states don't just dissolve their borders and form new ones. I've always been taught that one of the main reasons that Africa is fucked royal is because of the different ethnic groups that were placed with each other in artificial boundries. Would that destabilize the continent more so than it is now?
>>410273
Because that would involve giving up land, and no government in modern history has willingly given up land without a fight. Sure there may be ethnic tensions, but generally the people in power don't give a shit about that. They're more inclined to just violently suppress whatever group it is causing trouble than even think about redrawing borders and losing land, resources, and prestige.
>>404712
>>410594
http://newobserveronline.com/zulu-king-blacks-destroying-south-africa/
>>404739
>We can't stay in the side lines and watch as people massacre eachother
Sure we can
>>404520
This. Before colonizing Africa, Europe even held a conference to make sure it wasn't as big of a disaster as colonization in America.
>>410661
no because they all come over here. we live in a globalised world, their problems are now our problems because millions more of them will come here if shit gets worse there.
see syria
i actually agree with this
>>404567
but unfortunately for us sitting back and doing nothing is not the answer in either the case for arabs or for africans. we'll end up with tens of millions of both coming to live in europe if things arent kept stable in their countries and they seem incapable of doing that alone
>>404649
>Harare
Posting the dilapidated remains of Salisbury isn't proving your point. Just about every building you see in that picture is from when the place was still called Rhodesia.
All you've shown is that white civilization is sturdy enough to last a few decades worth of niggerdom.
>>404667
We're not discussing whether colonialism was good for Europe or America dipshit. Keep up, dumbass nigga.
>>404520
It's not necessarily that the colonisation was inherently bad it's more that it wasn't planned for a long term stable Africa and the rapid de-colonisation really ruined things
>>404530
Not all colonization is the same.
German and Belgian bad
French and British not so much
>>404567
Don't be a retard just because it hasn't worked doesn't mean Africans and Arabs are incapable of it.
>>404579
Except it wasn't, hospitals and education were both brought to Africa by colonization. Also the hospitals were not only for whites
>>404616
>poor infrastructure
There was no infrastructure before colonization, only the most basic of roads
>>404713
You'd be surprised how much support there was for European ways and colonialism from Africans. Was it the majority, probably not but still worth considering.
>>404728
Good post
>>404815
What it started as is irrelevant to the question of if it improved things. It brought education, infrastructure and the concept of human rights.
As for as a conquest goes it was one of the least brutal as compared to Europe's and Asia's wars (with the exception of the German colony in Namibia and the Belgian congo)
>>404842
There wouldn't be a high enough population density in Rwanda to commit genocide without European medication.
>>404875
Europe never had boarders drawn on it by an outside for and it has been filled with ethnic/national wars for centuries.
>>404536
Oh, I get it now, this is another /pol/ b8 thread.
>>405060
This nigga gets it
Why use a separate term "colonialism" at all? Pygmies were enslaved by negroids before the Europeans came, and they still are today. It's not a matter of difference of morals but simply of scale. Africans didn't kill/rape/enslave each other by the millions not because they wouldn't, but because they couldn't.
And where do you draw the line? Does the Bantu conquest of Khoisan peoples constitute colonialism? It's usually labelled plain old genocide/assimilation, another ugly conquest lost to the sands of time, forgotten by an illiterate people unable to record their own evils.
>>404745
>mixed bag
>Europeans treat native populations like shit, steal all their valuable resources, and then, when they leave, create countries based on colonial borders, ignoring ethnic strife, ensuring a breakup of Yugoslavia style bloodbath would engulf the continent for the foreseeable future
>a mixed bag
>>411022
>Europeans treat native populations like shit
They treated the natives far better than how they were treated by their native kings. They outlawed slavery for instance.
>steal all their valuable resources
Investing in industry to extract resources is not theft..
>when they leave, create countries based on colonial borders, ignoring ethnic strife,
This is a shitty excuse. Why were there no ethnic wars during colonization? Why was the african continent peaceful despite the colonies being mega-blobs full of varying and different people? Because europeans brought civilization and the rule of law. The reason african countries descended into bloodbaths isn't "muh borders".
>>404652
>Can someone remind me how this logical fallacy is called again?
Post hoc, or something quite like it.
>>404815
>Had the natives had self determination, all the material wealth would have been theirs to exploit and then we could make a moral judgement on how indigenous societies are compared to western ones.
They did, before the Europeans got there. What did they do with the material wealth? Nothing, just sold slaves to anyone who wanted them.
>>410607
Are you really surprised that rural idiots who had a completely foreign economical system handed to them didn't know how to run it well?
>>410680
and it was still a fuck up, top kek
>>409126
Still waiting on an answer on this.
How many people touting the mixed bag, good intentions and important legacy of Colonialism also agree the Warsaw Pact brought civilization to Eastern Europe?
>>411412
No, because eastern europe was definitely worse off under soviet domination.
>>411554
That may be, but they brought hospitals, schools, roads and modern governance to the people of Eastern Europe, most of whom were living in DP camps.
>>411589
>That may be, but they brought hospitals, schools, roads and modern governance to the people of Eastern Europe
Not really.
Plenty of hospitals and schools existed before soviet domination.
You can't possibly compare Czechoslovakia in the mid 20th century with pre-colonial Congo.
>>411642
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Pardubice
There were parts of Czechia that only have universities thanks to the Russian Occupation. In Slovakia, the number is even more noticeable.
>>411691
A single university built under soviet domination does not constitute a valid counter argument. Universities had already been built, and would have continued being built in czechoslovakia without soviet influence.
Soviet influence caused eastern europe to severly lag behind the rest of europe.
>>411691
>something happened after ww2 in Eastern Europe
>ergo, it was thanks to the Russian Occupation!
kek
First off, the establishment of the Pardubice university was proposed in 1945 already.
Second, are you seriously suggesting that Czechoslovakia, a rather successful, relatively rich, quite industialized democracy in the interwar years somehow would not have continued on its upward path without Soviet meddling.
>>406593
>Please, tell me all about how the US is a Third World country. About the only feature it shares in common with African banana republics is that it exports a lot of cash crops, but they're cultivated by large-scale high-tech agribusinesses.
Oh, and there's the corruption and sham democracy obviously.
Did the US start out as a first world country? Pretty sure the US started off as a colony, much like African colonies. Wealth of natural resources, infrastructure geared to ports to ship it back to Europe. There is one major difference between African colonies and North American colonies. Care to take a guess on the major difference?
P.S.
It isn't slaves, they were in Africa too. Also, not forced labour as was pretty standard in North America as well.
>>410876
Leopold II's colonization was bad, Belgium not so much
and the former was less "evil whitey" and more "giving a single psychopath absolute control over an entire population" which never ended up well for anyone throughout history
>>411739
Why? The assumption of this thread is that once occupied, an occupied people lose all their agency. The comparison is between what came before, and what came after.
In absolute terms, you can't deny that Czechoslovakia was wealthier in 1990 then it was before.
>>411007
>quite literally "And you were lynching negroes"
>>404606
Congo is still an underdeveloped shithole and what infrastructure they have just boils down to being able to move their resources out of the country.
>>406831
No, we would fight back as best we could muster. Just like the natives that were colonized before. If they beat us, what are we gonna do? Cry and claim oppression? More like, do as told to survive as long as possible. Just like the people who were colonized before. Nobody can stop it from happening, unless they actually can stop it from happening. In that case, it doesn't happen.
>>409015
>Privilege
>Get over hurt feelings
Go somewhere that is not /his/, please and thank you.
>Sub-Saharan Africa
>Everyone running around half naked with spears dying of simple infections and diseases. Mass murder, genocide, cannibalism and slavery everywhere. Eternal warfare as the strong prey on the weak.
>Europeans show up and take over. Bring law, technology, and medicine. Slavery abolished.
>Europeans leave, some people running around with guns, some people dying of simple infections and diseases. Mass murder and genocide on occasion. Slavery returns in Islamic areas.
Clearly European policies are responsible because technically those policies preceded and in some way shaped the new behavior that actually wasn't new at all.
If Colonialism was such a good thing, clearly Ethiopia should be the worst place in Africa. A place without laws, with massive technological and infrastructural, and institutional deficits compared to it's neighbors.
Surely there is a marked improvement as soon as you cross the border into Eretria, Somalia or the Sudan, right?
>>404728
underrated post
Can someone tell me why "races" supposedly don't exist, but racists do?
I've had people outright call me racist for saying races exist, seems a bit counter logical
inb4 /pol/tard style responses
>>413497
Simple. A racist believes in these constructs, and believes there's a hierarchy of them.
Similarly, we can talk about the notion of "Revolutionary Purity" being a bullshit thing people made up to legitimize their power, but the North Korean government being made up of "Revolutionary Purists."
>>406749
Fucking racist mines and factories. And those goddamn bigoted markets, won't buy raw materials from black folk. I'm loving that people are now blaming 'white infrastructure' for Africa's shittiness. Here in America people are starting to blame gun companies for individual murders. I'm looking forward to seeing how much deeper we can go before people have to abandon their bogeymen.
Also, tangential to a different conversation, I recognize that first and third world are shorthand for rich and poor at this point. But it technically means whether a nation was/is aligned with the US or Russia.
And on topic, it has more to do with our abandoning regions politically. Colonial building brings no harm, but trying to push a civilization from tribes to modern republics is stupid. It took us thousands of years to get here, and a shitload of internal strife.
That said, we aren't to blame for every civil war they have. Those are legitimate growing pains. It's not like there's a single nation living in perpetual harmony anywhere.
>>413497
>races don't exist
>you white oppressor
>>410876
>tfw Algeria
>tfw neither Pieds-Noirs nor Harkis were "welcome" in their home country nor Metro France
>tfw Camus went and fucking died before giving us anything to go on other than L'Exil et Le Royaume
>tfw colonization produced as much opportunity as it did death
>>406831
You're confusing 'good' with 'enjoyable.' Colonization sucked for the colonized. It would suck for us as well. It has always been awful.
So of course I wouldn't choose to endure it. It would probably bring net positive though, in the long run. Assuming they didn't drain us of every natural resource. Which we certainly didn't do in colonial eras.
Basically, if you're asking if an alien colonization following the European model would be good: Personally, no, overall, yes. Following some unknown model? Too many possibilities. Probably ends with everyone dead.
>>413508
>and believes there's a hierarchy of them.
This implies the races are all simply worse or better than any other of them. That A is all around worse or better than B and C likewise to A. But there are many possible differences and thus many different hierarchies. Furthermore the differences between races contrary to popular impression are not a reason for unequal treatment before the law as racial populations are on bell curves.
You say that there was positive change as a result of colonization but you don't actually tell me what were they.
Even the heightened technology was mostly accessible to the colonists than the indigenous populations so it's hard to say they benefited from that. Starving to death, having their resources going directly to the conquering country, being put to slave labor, dying from disease since the new medical technology will end up only in the hands of the colonists. All positive changes according to OP.
>>413925
Rule of law, capitalism and entrepreneurship, education, religious tolerance, widespread infrastructure projects. Also you say that technology was only given to the colonists which is not true.
>>414254
None of those are actually true
all the former colonies are wartorn, disease-ridden, third world countries.
You say that Euros introduced positive changes but the reality shows they clearly didn't, nor was that the case when they were still there.
>>404544
Yep cause the congo is doing just super these days
>>414254
>Rule of law, capitalism and entrepreneurship
The Euros did everything they could to stamp these things out.
>>411979
>In absolute terms, you can't deny that Czechoslovakia was wealthier in 1990 then it was before.
Yes - with about twice the GDP per capita of the interwar years. Meanwhile, countries in the western part of Europe have experienced a growth roughly ten (10) times greater.
>>414339
So? You said it right there. The Soviets DOUBLED what the Czechs were capable of.
>>414298
What do you think they were like beforehand?
The Europeans improved almost everything when they were in control. The only downside is that they had to leave before the culture could completely take root.
>>414344
But Czechoslovakia was never a part of the Soviet Union.
>>414344
Yes, the commies doubled their GDP over a period of fifty years.
At a time when everybody else including countries comparable to or even worse off than prewar CZ-SK octupled (or more) their GDP.
Hence, communism hindered the development of CZ-SK by some 400%.
>>411691
>Slovakia
>Russians founding universities
In some parallel reality maybe
