Was the colonization of Africa a good thing? Is the way that is now better than being a tribal?
>>921097
No we should have never touched that hellhole and never ever meet the blacks once in human history.
>>921097
Depends on the region.
West africa should have stay uncolonized because it had some stable societies emerging whose destruction undid cultural potential that could have stabilized the region greatly.
Congo was always a shithole.
South afrika mostly improved, the zulus were ravenous cunts and while the boers made themselves an uppercaste, livingquality and oppurtunity was risen to astronomical highs for the subjugated once.
Dont know about central africa and the muslimic/semite mixed parts.
Still, showing formerly warring or at least different tribes into random lines of countries was a terrible idea because multiculturalism leads to envy, division and thus failure.
>>921097
>It must also be remembered that the "blessings of civilization" are not in practice by any means as obvious as some simple-minded folk would like to believe. It can be said with fair accuracy that among the tribes with which we have been dealing there is, in their uncontaminated society, no pauperism, no paid prostitution, very little serious drunkenness, and on the whole astonishingly little crime; while practically everyone has enough to eat, sufficient clothing, and an adequate dwelling, according to the primitive native standard. Of what civilized community can as much be said?
Major Browne, a high official of the British Government Administrative Department of Kenya
>>921097
watch Empire of Dust
>>921233
This is also something brought up by Native Americans, ALL WE DID WAS NOTHING BAD
except the whole bloodletting and human sacrifices stuff. And oh yeah, those untreated disease sure are nice.
White people have a super hardon infatuation for "tribal" colonies, when there's a specific reason we developed civilization and that's because it's fucking way better.
>>921150
Kongo was doing great until the slave trade went out of control
>>921097
No, Europeans should have isolated themselves from the rest of the world
>>921274
This was in the 1920's by a man carrying out colonialism. It's not romanticising, he is literally talking from personal experience
>blood letting muh evil sacrificing
The Spanish didn't colonize the Aztecs to end human sacrifice.
>>921274
Anon, this may shock you but the world isn't black and white
Ibn Battuta for example noticed the good qualities of the people he met AND the bad
>>921457
Im not implying that it isn't, I just find it fucking hilarious when people think that tribalism is somehow way better then the civilized world when you are literally posting this on a computer
>>921432
Im not saying it was completely justifiable as greed and the violation of other peoples property played a great role, but some lil tribe in the south of africa not getting Mfecane'd but allowed to life under the rule of some arrogant fucks who provide you with high tech they could never dreamed of is an overall improvement, espeacially if you think about the fact that their children would have had the chance to be someday as privileged as the conquerers themselves.
For the same reason it was a good thing for the germanics to get romanised to some point.
>mods
Are these threads forbidden?
>>921097
White man came and stole all the wealth from the land.
And left nothing to the natives. Of course it was a bad thing.
Belgium wasn't a blessing.
>Beaver in Wisconsin
>Beaver fur in high demand
>We pay Indians to get us Beaver fur
>they literally cause beavers to go extinct in the state
WHITE MAN FORCED ALL THOSE NATIVES TO TRADE FOR BETTER TOOLS, NO WAY NATIVE AMERICANS CAN BE GREEDY DICKS TOO
>>921097
Depends what you consider "better" to be.
Really, though, it depends on what parts of Africa we're discussing. Colonization almost universally disrupted the local cultures (often destructively), and it generally put in place exploitative systems that have lingering impacts even today.
Many areas (particularly West Africa and the Horn of Africa) most likely would have been better off without European intervention, as they already had plenty of cultures that were developing fine on their own. Other parts were huge clusterfucks, however, where the European presence was "good" in that it brought urban civilization.
The real problem is that the European colonization was never about "fixing" Africa, but rather about exploiting it, and that's where the big problems come in. There's plenty of post-colonial conflicts that have come about from things as simple as the arbitrary lines drawn on the map when dividing Africa.
Hell, the fact that there's actually a debate as to whether or not colonialism was good for Africa should tell you how bad it was if the goal was to "make Africa better."
>>921491
Spreading alcoholism and creating an arms race with guns amongst the tribe. Europeans disease breaking down societies forcing a dependency on trade companies to survive, refugees from the east coast moving away from colonists.
Somehow it's all the natives fault to you though.
Do you believe the decline of Africa after the colonial powers withdrew suggests it may have been a good thing?
>>921553
>.actually, no, you wanna know why those natives needed weapons? it's because other natives formed a alliance and started murdering other tribes for territory. They also traded for simple tools because europeans had things called axes. Both sides were fucking greedy as shit.
>>921566
No because I'm not a retard who believes Europeans decolonising in anyways ends neocolonialism or the toppling of legitimate leaders.
>>921576
Because the breakdown of complex Mississippian cultural complexes into small clans fighting for reduced resources amongst refugees from the colonized East isn't reactionary and coming from a place of desperation.
Basic survival is now defined as greed.
Nice revisionism.
>>921566
not at all. The decline of Africa during the postcolonial period was due to a variety of reasons:
>US and Soviets vying for regional supremacy
Just look at the Horn of Africa for evidence of that. Especially on the Soviet side, the sponsoring of various resistance groups to undermine local governments purely in hopes of getting a country to change their allegiances really undermined things.
>inadequate preparation for majority rule
Local leaders were never really trained to lead so much as keep the population quiet for the colonial leaders. The guys who took power in the immediate postcolonial period were more often than not used to a very adversarial system that usually played ethnic groups off of eachother to keep resentment against the colonial government to a minimum. Little to no effort was put into actually preparing local leaders for leading a real country, so it's not too surprising that they've had a rough time.
>Ethnic tensions
Turns out arbitrarily choosing borders based on what looks pretty on a map doesn't work so well. Just about every postcolonial conflict in Africa has had something to do with ethnic tensions resulting from some poorly created border.
>>921591
>basic survival
>we definitely need metal axes to survive, just like our ancestors
>>921600
increasing time efficiency with metal axes in the face of demographical collapse and the forced inclusion in the market economy.
yep, it is in fact survival.
>>921639
>tribal people were literally incapable of greed
>all they wanted to do was walk around and hang with butterflies all day
>darn whites and their civilizations
>Im gonna go post this on my computer!
>>921478
>Are these threads forbidden?
this board is tumblr lite. anything that isnt 100% PC is bannable
>>921658
Those are definitely all things that specifically weren't in that post.
Who are you arguing with again? Was it that anon, or is it a strawman inside of your head?
>>921682
Just ignore this apologist. It's not worth it.
>>921471
You're still thinking in terms of black and white.
What you term as 'civilisation', 'white mans burdens', and speak of things such as 'we developed civilisation' as though it was a concious teleological goal of man when so many varying, decisive and chance factors went led different parts of the world to the way they are now are astonishingly simple minded.
Could the standards and values of 'the colonisers' have been bought to these parts of the world without 'colonising them' per se but between mutual deals and diplomatic exchanges or was it absolutely necessary to do in such a condescending and aggravating manner?
>>921553
>blaming whitey because abos were rampant alcoholics
Typical.
>>921763
>Ignoring social collapse the the reactions to such events
this debate has been done to death
technology: good
oppression: bad
>>921097
no, colonization only ever works when you genocide the natives
>>921676
>implying 4chan and tumblr don't share the same degenerate userbase
add reddit to that as well
>>921274
Ah yes, We Wuz Mesopotamians n shit.
>>921796
Technology was very slowly let in due to the nature of colonial management.
>>921596
Also the economic and social policies that hindered or ruined the colonies and set them back and/or locked them in a time stasis of sorts. Property rights were enforced in South Africa but the government eventually took that away and made blacks only able to do communal rule to get land which heavily hinders developmen so the government which enforced property rights took it away.
Essentially the gap between Africa and Europe actually grew drastically from the 1600 to the end of colonization.
>>921150
You have little idea about Africa at all.
>>921478
Lol do you know how fucking god awful bantustans and townships are and the aftermath of the policy? Basically a whole different world of misery where unless someone told you it was SA it would look no different from other places like it in Africa and those places were left to rot with nothing resembling modern tech. You know the corn in shit? That's what they got.
Africa would be in a comparable situation it is today even without colonization. We have a huge landmass with low-technology and overwhelmingly illiterate societies, and a wealth of resources that are not being used. Any interaction with the economically, technologically and culturally (in terms of raw output, transmission, diversity of art) superior civilizations up north would have disrupted them no matter what.
Even if Europeans didn't assert direct political control, we would have wanted to trade. Sell weapons to tribes on the coast, who then go on terrible rampages much like the Maori did when we gave them muskets. Make deals with local rulers to set up natural resource extraction. Local rulers press their people to the breaking point just to acquire more European goods. The upper-class would do great, and the underclasses would be just as fucked.
We would have just done then what China is doing now. The Africans themselves would lead just as terrible lives. Their current condition is a historical contingency based on the underlying material conditions.
>>922668
>tfw Jared Diamond.
>>922672
Jared Diamond attempts to explain why their material and cultural inferiority arose. I just assert that given that inferiority at that point in time, the current day outcome is more or less inevitable,with maybe some difference at the margins.
>>922668
Lol wut Africans were using their u
Resources from the land and they had great material to trade for like Ivory, cloth, metal, art and certain crops.
>>921097
Colonization by the Europeans is just as much exploitave as it is helpful.
>>922974
True point.
The act of going into another country and creating an alliance or fucking it up indirectly is an act of self-preservation on a global scale.
Friends help you live plus its 1 less enemy.
Fucking up a country is again, 1 less enemy.
Either leave the whole place alone, or become the dominant majority.
>TFW Africa wasn't resettled instead of just exploited
>>921420
It is an interesting perspective, but not everyone engaged in colonizing in the 1920s would have agreed with him. Common murders, assaults, and thefts aside, imagine the headaches caused by twin abandonment and the poison ordeal to a typical district officer.
As to the former, healthy newborn twins were viewed as cursed by some natives, and abandonment of these babies was common practice before colonization. The mother could be charged with murder if the twins were found dead; indeed she would confess that she had abandoned them, but she might never understand why what she did was wrong in the eyes of colonial justice. What is a fair sentence under these circumstances?
As to the latter, sometimes a community would try to out a witch or a malcontent among them by consuming poison, with the view that only the "evil" one would die as a result. Then a district officer shows up to some village on tour, where everybody has died in one of these attempts except the guy who presumably handed the koolaid to his neighbors. What is his sentence? That survivor, were he condemned as a mass murderer, would walk to the gallows ignorant of his wrong, but possibly consoled that at least he was not the witch.
I read native court transcripts of two cases like these while doing research for my undergrad thesis. I cannot recall what the actual outcomes were, but the friction between colonial justice and african life suggests that, even if one was grossly unfair, the other was not without its own perils.
I may still have scans of these cases somewhere...
>>921479
>White man came and stole all the wealth from the land.
Not really, they certainly abused the people there but they didn't uproot all of the wealth and then leave.
If Africa wants to become a wealthy continent then they need to strike up industry. When the whites left the native populations dismantled the established order and society instead of building on it.
>>923255
>If Africa wants to become a wealthy continent then they need to strike up industry.
No, they need to stop relying on their natural resources. No doctors, no teachers, no anything, except peons with a mining pick.
>>921274
>those untreated disease sure are nice.
Like what? The only thing the native Americans had were Syphilis
>>921491
>White man almost causes Bison to go extinct
>>923427
>Natives drive Bison herds off cliffs
>>923456
Didn't drive them towards extinction
>>921097
No, it was not a good thing, and obviously so. Technology and ideas would have disseminated as it always has without Europeans benevolently exploiting the hell out of the continent.
"muh railroads"
The colonial government didn't interfere with the spread of technology related to increasing profits, the native elite of India were educated in Britain or in British style schools.
Concerning the arms industry, obviously they would suppress that.
Also concerning what is "good", had this technology never been developed the Indians would simply be stuck under Mughal tyranny instead of British tyranny, it doesn't matter if your tyrant is the same color as you and lives next door.
>>923604
The European nation wanted to swing their dicks around, so they took as much as they could of Africa to show who had the biggest dick.
Can someone help me find a book on this topic
I saw it once in a bookshop, but I don't remember its name
I think it was nonfiction, and the author discussed what happened if Africa had remained colonised and the US was decolonised like Africa has been IRL
Author might have been American
>>921097
It's still tribal
>>923024
That doesn't explain hoe Singapore and Hong Kong became decent little boy.
>>923255
The established order was utter shit.
There wa snothing to build on because what was let was the equivalent of getting a house where outside it looked "complete" but inside it was a mess. The entire structure was based around being an extraction and expletive and being ruled on the bare minimum.
>>923257
This.
Relying on resources for growth is way way way way way to unreliable.
>>924167
You might as well say ethnic strife instead of tribal.
it happening in Africa suddenly doesn't make it any more special.
