What truth is there in "White Man's Burden"?
In regards to both humanities and history
>>737580
Anti European non sense created by Jews.
>>737580
To me it's sort of true. Take a look on how's nowadays world and you can still see how most of the world is full of barbarism craving people. i.e. China, India, the middle east, Japan, ... the whole Asia. Cultured barbarians do not count as civilized people.
>>737580
"Truth" in what sense?
>>737618
That white people have a burden on them to civilise the world
>>737617
Thing is they'll never be civilized because like zeno's paradox those societies will always even at super high levels of development will have that off feeling to them no matter how close because you'll always be approaching but never meeting the standard
>>737638
>"like zeno's paradox"
>Like a 'paradox' resolved by Newton an Liebniz 340 years ago
Shut the fuck up.
>>737634
That concept made more logical sense when European powers were actively turning foreign lands into colonies. It made sense, for example, to train the locals in "western ways" if you would be installing a western system of courts and administrators and so on.
It's not really applicable outside of that context.
>>737666
Thanks Satan
But stopping witch doctors and brining them science is civilising them
what exactly are you asking here OP
should the advanced share? probably.
does technological disparity proof racism? no.
>>737677
Yeah, but what's the point of doing that in a society that you don't own? It's one thing to stop Tanzanians from killing albinos to use their body parts in magic rituals if it's your colony, but why expend the effort to do so now? The country has its own government, police, etc.
>>737617
>implying the US and UK aren't full of white trash and chavs
>>737682
That is where the 'burden' comes in
>>737683
white trash and chavs who do not bring down the whole country nor ballast them to the point of stagnation
>>737580
Positivist trash that assumes history has some sort of goal.
It is certain that because of the West's meddling and active forcefulness the trajectory of much of the world has forever shifted.
We see in Central America the banana republics whose children cross our borders now, we see the migration of NAFTA affected farmers, we see the effects of war, CIA backed coups and refugees and prison/military industrial complexes all effecting colored peoples the world over.
It's not a burden on the back of Uncle Sam, it's what sprang from sowed seeds he threw that is ready to harvest.
Time to separate chaff from grain and I can tell you the husk ain't colored folks.
>>737580
I think history after the colonies were given back have proven it true. They obviously can't govern themselves, and harm themselves in trying.
>>737700
The problem was letting them go again. Under the watchful eyes of the west they would have been civilized and would have no need to flee.
>>737643
>DOUBLE AUTISM POWERS ACTIVATE
>>737643
wat
>>737580
The Europeans were there to exploit the natives, but it would be naive to believe that large native states did not exploit other natives. Also it is kind of a myth that Europeans didn't realize they were there to exploit the natives, not to altruistically share their technology with them.
Exploitation was an unchanging thing, it was background noise, what changed was technology. After the dust has settled you would have many European civilians entering the country trying to build mines, set up plantations, trade, ports and so forth who might end up frustrated with various problems that naturally arise which may or may not be due to cultural differences but would likely be blamed on them regardless.
>>737580
>Rudyard Kipling coins "White Man's Burden" in a satirical manner
>Retards take it seriously and use it to masturbate to national pride
>>737762
>RK
>not race realist
Stupid desu
>>737740
Zeno's paradox is not paradoxical when stated in terms of rates rather than absolute distance. The steps towards the end point become infinitesimal, but so do the time intervals. The rate of motion doesn't change.
>>737725
>Watchful eye of the West
Because that did so much to empower Congolese and South African blacks.
>Anons genuinely believing in colonial propaganda itt
>Not realizing it was just a ploy to justify economic exploitation of the Third World
>>737716
Are you willfully ignoring the amount of fuckery and interference the West still pulled in former colonies? Under Dulles, the CIA pretty much ruined Central America
>>737725
>Watchful eyes of the west
So watchful, the west fought each other in two disastrous wars.
>be a civilization
>expand your territory
>conquer other civilizations and consolidate your power like everyone else
>butthurt losers claim you're the spawn of evil because they couldn't handle the banter
in India it was commonplace for widows to be forced onto their husband's funeral pyre before the British outlawed the barbaric practice and tried to civilize the indian.
>>737750
>>738174
>>738168
Ok so we know in colonies like the Congo the system was basically purely exploitative- but weren't many other colonies unprofitable for the nations that owned them? Isn't it true that many colonies (like those in W. Africa) were not actually profitable, and that the European nations spent a ton of money in local education/infrastructure there?
Correct me if I am wrong, but from what I know the colonial experience had a bunch of variation and there overall result was more mixed. Obviously the Congo was horrible though...
>>737666
Sometimes European powers didn't even train the locals to administer and govern. They brought Europeans to do that.
>>737682
Because white people are the global police! Duh!
>>738343
>Isn't it true that many colonies (like those in W. Africa) were not actually profitable, and that the European nations spent a ton of money in local education/infrastructure there?
The purpose of colonization was not always profit based, often there were political or military factors to consider as well. While it is completely possible to argue that colonization aided these areas at times, the motives are never completely altruistic. For example you mention West Africa, many colonial powers had an interest in this area due to it's proximity to the Indian trade routes, and could serve as valuable military posts or refueling and trading stops on their way to India. Many Western Africa sultanates and principalities were also wealthy in their own right from trade with the Arabs and Indians.
>>738370
Why are motives relevant here at all? What people thinked of colonies at the time is irrelevant, what matters is that colonization built the modern world and brought many shit-tier societies to acceptable levels. It was overall a good thing. If it wasn't for major powers expanding over the world, your chances of being born in a country with internet access and decent education would be abysmal.
>>738343
It was a mix bag, but to say positives outweighed the negative is a bit naive.
The Congo Free State, Herero and Namaqua Genocide, Slavery in the Caribbean colonies, the building of the Suez Canal (though the Egyptian government under Sa'id is also to blame) are all prime example of colonialism at its worse.
But you also get positives result like the banning of Sati in India by the British Raj, the consolidation and protection of thousands of ancient artefacts that would probably have been destroyed or neglected by the local population (though most of them where looted or bought through the black market) or the eventual eradication of slavery in most western controlled colonies (though Japan and China where miles ahead of the west in regard that).
You see the problem with most people (on either political spectrum) is there inability to comprehend complex phenomena with multiple cause-and-effect. Western imperialist apologist and SJW can only see colonialism through a white and black dichotomy.
Written circa 1550 by the Flemish Habsburg ambassador to the Ottomans
>>738388
Firstly, liberals are hypocrites. They are butthurt over colonialism because they are secretly chauvinists and nationalists themselves and don't like the idea that Europeans once dominated their ancestors. That is their main motivation for demonizing colonialism while having a neutral view of the islamic conquests, the mongols etcetera... To them it is great when white nuns are raped and Kiev is razed, whereas it is a huge crime for some peasants escaping religious oppression to start farming land that was only used for game by half a dozen native americans.
However, I think it is up to debate whether colonialism made much difference in terms of the spread of technology. In an ideal world, merchants from Europe would just sail around the world trading with everyone, naturalizing themselves as citizens in places where they want to settle. Eventually technology would spread.
>>737617
The west created ideas like human rights or rule of law. This is true and nobody will argue with it.
The problem with the white man's burden is that it had that messianic "we'll make barbarians civilized" which backfired over and over again, mostly because of the way we've handled it.
For example.
You couldn't turn Japan into modern western nations without certain amount of brainwashing to the population.
We've tried. We gave them industry, modern administration, army and navy. Of course not for free, those things are never free(despite its backwardness, China and Japan were always very rich though) but they've got them. We didn't gave them our culture though. Asians are generally quite xenophobic, even today, but back then treating other east asians as subhumans wasn't something that raised anybody's bullshit alarm.
They've got modern toys. They've did Nankin, they've did Burma Railway, they've did unit 731.
In Africa, majority of conflicts are a result of giving them government that expects the citizens to be loyal to them on the basis of nation-statehood, while tribal sentiments are still alive and kicking. If you'd give them God Emperor they would listen to him, but you gave them presidents elected by themselves, who were usually loyal to their tribe rather than entire nation and it all quickly backfired and turned into shitshow. Not that they've didn't fought at all before the colonists came but now the conflicts are much better organised, the countries are much more unstable and the sides are much better equipped than they would be without white people spreading civilisation here.
Civilisation is double-sided weapon. It cured smallpox(in fact if somebody would care to do SUCH huge campaigns to contain other diseases we would cure much more than just smallpox at this point) but it also created weapons of mass destruction. You can't forget about that other side.
>>737750
The exploitation is mostly badly understood.
Almost no colony was profitable for the state in the long run, but individual people(who lobbied for colonisation) made fortunes on it.
I don't mean to scare anyone but if you live in America please be safe this summer... They are coming
>>738417
This is pretty much the only logical way of looking at colonialism. It happened and there were positive and negative side effects but to characterize the entire experience as the same for all cultures is grossly naïve
This is partly why I cant stand when Muslim states go on about their colonization like it was in any way comparable to Africa
>>738462
who?
>>738434
>In an ideal world, merchants from Europe would just sail around the world trading with everyone, naturalizing themselves as citizens in places where they want to settle. Eventually technology would spread.
Europeans traders did so, but compared to Muslim traders they were more cutthroats. The reason for that is because of shitload of bullshit wars Europeans had during the Early Modern Era. Compared to that, Gujarati people were surrounded in a more stable political environment.
>>738441
The Japanese were literally doing the same shit as the Western Great Powers did: Racial and cultural superiority. It means the Westernization is a success.
>>738462
What?
>>738491
Didn't realize I used so many 'shit' word.
What a shitty post.
>>738491
>The Japanese were literally doing the same shit as the Western Great Powers did: Racial and cultural superiority. It means the Westernization is a success.
Yes, but they've spiced it up with their enormous xenophobia(on a scale unknown to the Europeans) and authoritarian, hierarchical mindset.
European colonial nations tended to hire local grunts to do the atrocities for them, because their own people couldn't stomach doing it themselves, Japanese had no problem with doing everything they've did by themselves.
>>738491
They weren't inherently more cutthroat, few merchants saw the horrors of the 30 years war and became hardened thugs as a result or whatever. They just had more opportunities to be beastly after creeping ahead of the curve in naval warfare.
>>738417
Bingo
>>738486
>Muslim states go on about their colonization like it was in any way comparable to Africa
Africa is literally 50% muslim though
>>737580
>It is the white mans burden to teach the non-civilized how to overcome things like Oppression
>When America was still oppressing the blacks and the British were impressing the Irish
That should tell you what a load of shit the white mans burden is.
And why is vice there twice?
>>738353
>Sometimes
You mean all the time
>>738417
>the building of the Suez Canal
Why would that be one of the worst example?
>>737580
Just look at the world today. Even now there are places barely touched by the white man, out in the jungles of South America, in small islands in the ocean, and in the deserts of Africa.
These people are still living like its the stone age.
>>739059
Im talking more of the countries subject to the Sykes-Picot agreement but you are right. My point is that those Muslim states not in Africa speak of their colonization as if it had the same historical impact that it did with Sub-Saharan Africa
>>739138
That tends to happen when you live in isolated communities that are physically cut off from other peoples
