Was colonialism a benefit for Africa?

It destroyed the continent. Only stormfags downplay and minimize what happened.

That's revisionist as shit lmao.

So did the africans who saw hopitals, churches, schools and infrastructure sprout which they never would have seen otherwise.

How so?

These days the term 'revisionist' is generally just a codeword for 'this conflicts with the dogma I was taught'

which they didn't get to use since it was only for the white elites
And once they left, there was no proper manpower to run these things (dude engineers and doctors lmao)

yeah the european powers were building hopsitals for the local white elite in tumbuktu, alright

>And once they left, there was no proper manpower to run these things (dude engineers and doctors lmao)
There are hundreds of european financed, built and manned hospitals in Africa. There are still hundreds more being built purely out of European money, from donations to foundations and the EU itself.

Because he's clearly downplaying or willfully ignoring the countless strife in the continent that colonial meddling has caused not to mention the violence that used. That poster has a very superficial understanding of the period.

>en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_and_Namaqua_genocide

Also, pre-colonial west africa wasn't just tribal shit like that poster seems to think. What is Ashanti? I'm on my phone, I'll have to write an academic answer later from computer

>as with every massive upheaval, there were winners and there were losers
kekity. Someone make memes with this text next to pics of corpses and shit.

No.

Nothing new in Africa. The tribal conflicts have existed for millenias.
The scale of it is surely greater, but historically european-led or inspired genocides are not even the majority of those in Africa. This particular one is not even a tenth of the Biafran war's death toll.

The legacy of colonialism was depleted resources, racial tensions, civil war and general instability, and integration into the modern world. Hard to say desu

>depleted resources
Which were useless to Africans
>racial tensions, civil war and general instability
Already common before colonialism.
>integration to the modern world
Not quite yet. And whether it is a good thing for africa is hard to say.

>Europeans set up an artificial state
>It later enter a civil war from inner strife
>Europeans intervene on both sides
Seems like something european-led

...

Ask not what this board can do for you, but what you can do for this board.

They actually used a lot of them.

for what

Just plain ol' /pol/faggering

Yeah they did.

They got places available to them to immigrate to to start a new life with free shit given to them as incentive if they wanted to go to the colonies which many did and became successful with.

They got resources and luxuries they had no access to otherwise for dirt cheap and new food ingredients. They had jobs that were propelled by the influx of resources and money from the global trade. The policies of the colonies prevented the colonies from having any ability to compete with European industry at all so those European workers companies had less competition to work against as well as due to how the colony system was set up they had guaranteed markets in the colonies since if Kenya needs steel they'd have to get it form the UK.

Just imagine how American became the manufacturing power post ww2 but much stronger and for a longer period.

>There are hundreds of european financed, built and manned hospitals in Africa

They were super limited back then because they could barely get any whites to go to them because surprise surprise no one wants to go to a shithole that barely has anything going for it no matter the salary. As well as fund said medical institutes them to up to par standards (because hospital are expensive as fuck and many cases the admins had to beg to get stuff alongside medical staff shortages because lol Blacks can't get a decent education and my earlier point). Many missionairies were dumped (often they were the healthcare) the burden of healthcare like they did education and they were sorely ill-equipped and funded to deal with those so sometime they had to resue needles.

In modern times hospitals are still very limed because the money needed to purchase hospital equipment is extremely expensive which they can't afford and 2nd hand stuff break pretty fast (and since they need to be repaired to need trained technicians for that which are pretty scarce in many places) so often the medical tech they do have is sparse s fuck or everyone in the nation has to share the one say external beam radiotherapy machine and if it breaks then....no external beam radiotherapy machine. Not to mention the limited number of medically qualified staff members puts a dent in the doctors per patent ratio.

This is also not mentioning how the EU and European nations dump expired medicine into poorer countries.

>This particular one is not even a tenth of the Biafran war's death toll.

kek read the % of the two groups killed and the fucked up shit post genocide they had to deal with as pseudo slaves.

More like youtube drama.

This is in regard tot he Namibian genocide.

Good enough?

the colonials took almost every measure to make sure the didnt benefit at all from there labor so no

It had less of a negative impact than the postcolonial efforts of multinationals and various effects to suppress regional growth via indirect/nonviolent methods.

Such as?

How did Ethiopia not get conquered by any European powers?

REDDIT! SPOTTED!

/pol/ containment thread

It could have been a benefit, were it the case that there was some form of communication or accords between the colonial powers and indigenous populations.

The abrasiveness of the actual relationships between the groups in reality hindered long-term national development and fostered in-fighting.

Mountainous and since it was the only Christian power on the continent left post-Islam, it wasn't subject to arms embargos

Hardly, faggot. Colonialism is anti-white.

Does it matter? What's done is done, what should be talked about is how to make Africa not a shithole in the present.

Well on one hand they got tons of infrastructure built for them and medicine and such but obviously it wasn't totally altruistic and was meant to expedite the extraction of wealth and resources
There is no other hand because Belgians cut it off

For areas colonized by UK/France/Portugal yes

For areas colonized by Germany/Belgium fuck no

...

Should be on the banner desu.

Not what I meant, although I suppose I walked right into that one.

What I meant was that some tribes got the guns, and other tribes got the bullets.

JonTron is that you?

i got that refrance

Why is it that no one ever blames Turkey for the Yugoslav wars, or China and Russia for Vietnam? Why does the chain of cause and effect always stop with the West.

I know it's certainly a benefit for Veeky Forums that it's currently being colonized by communists

Tbh the later stage of the Belgian Congo (1902-1952) was actually the best period in terms of average standard of living for the entire population. Ever since it's devolved into war, corruption, and mismanagement.

Because they can only talk about it in the west w/o getting shot against a wall.

Actually about on APR. The Belgian Congo was a complete mess management and rule wise as well.

>Why is it that no one ever blames Turkey for the Yugoslav wars
because turkey did close to nothing?
> or China and Russia for Vietnam?
vietnam was in their sphere of influence, interfering with there without any actual reason was an unfair move from an objective perspective.

Italian/French Somalian are proud of that.

>because turkey did close to nothing?
Turkey (in its previous incarnation as the Ottoman empire) set up the situation in the Balkans with their colonial activities in the area. If the British are responsible for the situation in their former colony Nigeria, why shouldn't Turkey be responsible for everything that happens in its former colonies?

>vietnam was in their sphere of influence,
firstly, by no stretch of the imagination could Vietnam be said to be within Russia's sphere of influence. Secondly, if we accept that 'sphere of influence' is a thing (it isn't), does that mean that the US was perfectly within its rights to overthrow governments in Latin America?

...

Turkey isn't white though so the White Man's Burden doesn't apply to them.

>Was colonialism a benefit for Africa?
Yes. Next question.

>why shouldn't Turkey be responsible for everything that happens in its former colonies?
because everything bad is white people's fault

Turkey did next to nothing, because Yugoslavia was a botched nation-state where the actual warfare was between former Austrian subjects and Serbs