Any good books on the legacy of colonialism and white exploitation of africa?

any good books on the legacy of colonialism and white exploitation of africa?

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.org/details/fiveyearswithcon00wardrich
gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k104521w
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

none actually, now that you mention it. odd.

There are none that go against the (((academic))) anti imperialist narrative

pol ... easy on the propaganda

heart of darkness by conrad

poisonwood bible

the bell curve

things fall apart

ah, the good old times.

Cry, the Beloved Country

It's a bit fantastical and about American slavery, but The Underground Railroad

The Crime of the Congo by A. Conan Doyle
King Leopold's Ghost for the same but with less genuine contemporary outrage.
Mukiwa and Bitter Harvest for Rhodesia
The Devil Came on Horseback
Dancing in the Glory of Monsters
Shake Hands with the Devil
Petals of Blood

Ian Smith makes a great argument for it in Bitter Harvest, and Anthony Bourdain, in his africa episodes, often hears from blacks that they wish the whites were back.

the crocodile that ate the sun

lmao fpbp

my dick exploiting coal black jungle women

There was a novel by a french writer that portraits Africa as this mysticla place and uses it as a background to tell his stories.
I remember there was a thread about that book some time ago. The OP was an african man who has read the book, liked it and recommended to his friend.His friend disapprove of the book due to a dislike fro white people.

That's all the information i can give. If anyone knows what's the name of that book, i'll greatly appreciate if you tell me.

This.

As I said in that thread, this was a whole genre that used "darkest Africa" as a setting for weird tales / Arabesques

Hard Choices by HRC

I read this in undergrad but it was so long ago idk if it's good or if it's (((good)))

(((Hochschild)))

The Troubled Heart of Africa by Robert Edgarton.

Covers Congolese history from first white contact until the early 2000s.

frantz fanon wretched of the earth

Yeah man but i need the name of that book

>exploitation
>he doesn't know colonisation has been a net benefit to the thrid world till today

Do you want books on actual history or just to impress your anti-west friends with confirmative lit by people just as blue pilled as you?

Start with "Empire" by Ferguson. It's still normie tier but will show you the deeper roots and effects on both sites as well as the financial burdon it was especially on the british Empire.

Maybe Half of a Yellow Sun by Chimamanda Beyonce Adichie just watch the movie it's really good, starring Thandie Newton

Africa is currently being colonized and exploited by China.

Uhuru by Robert Roark

>implying chattel slavery is not exploitation
>implying whites needed to enslave massive populations in order to be a benefit to the 'thrid world'
>criticizing western social institutions and actions in the past makes somebody 'anti-west' or some sort of 'self-flagellator' in the words of ferguson
there are certainly some intelligent right-wingers on this board, but this is embarrassing. go back to /pol/. and surely there are some better right-wing historians than ferguson?

I implied non of this. Cruelty did happen, but it wasn't the main motivation of at least the biggest (the british) colonialism. After small military gain the main goal was christianisation and medical help to the savages which either canibalized themselves or burned their wifes to get rid of useless women. Modern education leaves children and future adult in the believe that whites only colonized for their own benefit and sadistic taste. Both isn't true, on the contrary the british outlawed as the first and only social group slavery and have been a big part to the end of the african one (despite the arabs continuing it till today). Were ever they have gone, they made slavery illegal. Thanks to their massiv navy, they could make sure of that.

DId they fuck up on the road of good intentions also outlawing anciet traditions due to their europeans tastes? Sure. But making it seem as if exploitation was their goal is absolutely silly, considering the massive amounts of money those things sucked away, making britain go into debt. GB had to cut of the colonies to win the war.

All of those people coloniesed had an massive advantance to neighboors which weren't. Till today the former profit from infrasturcture, betetr immigration to former colonisers as well as constinuous cultural and therefore scientific advancment.

Your pic shows a form of punishment, similar to those comtamporary used also on europeans. Women wore thing slike that for trash talking.

>right-wing historians
>ferguson
Are you retarded? He isn't right wing. The last part of his big is mainly about how silly the concept of race is and how those "realists" try to claim that race matters. He's the equivalent of Diamond. Just because he isn't full butthurt social justice, he also isn't /pol/s. That's why I said, he's normie tier.

Additionally Ferguson also was against Trump and Brexit. But you probably didn't read shit from him, just made the assumption because of my comment. Let me guess, you tend to only read things in line with your ideology, never giving yourself the posibility to see behind your own world view.

"the great betrayal"

Why don't you criticize non-western institutions and compare it to the historic context instead of judging by our modern standards? As bad as colonialism has been, it still gave more good than bad to the colonized people with a small exception of merchaneries going around purely for profit, which isn't more fault of colonialism than occidental social rules are at fault for islamists trashing christmas markets with trucks.

Progress is relativ. Some time in the past even slavery was a progressive way of dealing with conqueres people. It was still bad, but better than just to get butchered. All this shittalking europeans past completely neglects why so many europeans wanted to help those "noble savages".

>Cruelty did happen, but it wasn't the main motivation of at least the biggest (the british) colonialism
>the main goal was christianisation and medical help to the savages
i have no idea how can be so deluded that you don't realize that profit and expansion were the main motivations of colonialism. clearly there were some ideological undercurrents, but it was centrally about expanding the economic and military prowess of empire by gaining materials, slaves, and so on. i don't understand how you could even begin to refute that.
Christianizing africans was a method of ideological control. it was illegal for many years in colonial america for blacks to practice african traditions (or often even get together in groups). baptist and methodists in southern colonial america gradually INCORPORATED slavery into religion. stop idealizing christianity, my man.
>canibalized themselves
we call them 'themselves' because they were forced to undergo a goddamn ethnogensis. they had hardly any allegiance due to skin color until we killed and enslaved very many of them.
>the british outlawed as the first and only social group slavery and have been a big part to the end of the african one
clearly the west has done positive things, but does that excuse the literal enslavement and murder of millions of people? was that necessary to end slavery? If you recognized the nuance in my post, you would realize that i didn't imply that the west did not benefit africa in any way. but it's patently true that it was done in a way that was deeply immoral and evil. the bengali famine killed 10 million fucking people because of economic exploitation. you are fucking delusional and you need to get out of your echo chamber.

>As bad as colonialism has been, it still gave more good than bad to the colonized people
Yeah tell that to the Hereros

I wish I could call this my diary desu but I can't

>profit and expansion were the main motivations of colonialism.
You mean the net burden on the Empire and the securing of the waters around while even beeing begged to do so by former slaves to ensure the outlawed trade will cease?

>i don't understand how you could even begin to refute that
Because it's simply not true. Reading objective lit on that matter would clear your view. To make it clear, I'm a Slav. We never had anything to do with slavery, besides beeing slaves to the Ottomans. I don't argue for any side.

>Christianizing africans was a method of ideological control
No, even as an atheist myself I can clearly see that those people, simple preachers with families (whcih died to tousands in the tropics) did what they did due to their own will to help them. Read up on how many christians dies to spread gods word without any evil intentions.

>they had hardly any allegiance due to skin color until we killed and enslaved very many of them
You just outed yourself as historically illiterate. "Blacks" enslaved THEMSELVES for millenias before the white man even seen one of them, primary to the arabs. Stop screetching and start reading.

>but does that excuse the literal enslavement and murder of millions of people?
The west was the one to end slavery after beeing just shortly part of it. While other races still profit from it. So why do we act as if the west is at fault and to blame for the institution which it outlawed shortly after facing its true nature?

>was that necessary to end slavery?
Yes, because only the white man had the global power to ensure his will will be followed (she again the british navy).

>but it's patently true that it was done in a way that was deeply immoral and evil
No, that's what you see looking through your CURRENT-glasses. Again, slavery once was social progress and was colonialism for the coloniesed.

>the bengali famine killed 10 million fucking people because of economic exploitation
So did the Holodomir and still people think claiming Communism did nothing wrong. The topic is to deep to show you were you'Re wrong. Just read Babies first book on Colonialism aka Ferguson and come back.

>supported war in iraq
>"Ferguson was an advisor to John McCain's U.S. presidential campaign in 2008, supported Mitt Romney in 2012"
are you retarded? do you call everyone you disagree with retarded? his work as well as his political support for these candidates has clear right-of-center connotations.
> you tend to only read things in line with your ideology, never giving yourself the possibility to see behind your own world view
i don't read shitty infantile airport historiography like you do. plenty of historians have explored the positive effects of colonialism in a way that doesn't cater to people who don't actually study history.
and please stop saying blue pill/red pill on this board. we should have some sort of standards. i'm a lefty but i don't use the word 'woke'.
>Why don't you criticize non-western institutions
because the west carried out colonialism on the largest scale. others were apart of it, but you can't refute that the west was the main perpetrator, can you?
>compare it to the historic context instead of judging by our modern standards?
jesus christ. it's as if all politicized historiography is null because of the 'historic context' it is located in. to answer your question, i feel like not wanting black people to be chattel slaves may be a modern view, but it's also one i feel is ethical and just.
you're conflating historical presentism with historical analysis. if i took your line of thought then there would be absolutely no way of making moral claims about the past.

Impressions d'Afrique