What do you know about colonialism? What were it's benefits and harms, both for Africa and for Europe?

...

I thought that hunter gather types were generally pretty healthy - though the parts of africa that had herding and farming would have been shit as the rest of the world

I thought the Germans killed a bunch of niggers in Namibia?

You might notice next that the poster is written in German

Yeah, but they kind of deserved it. The same thing happened, only less bad, in Tanzania. The revolts and the Hottentot Election that followed caused the Germans to change their colonial outlook in its entirety, a bunch of ministers got fired, colonial governors lost their previous autonomy and things improved to the point where the colonies were better off under the Germans than they were under the British. Tanzania, for example, was set to end slavery in 1920. Due to WWI, it didn't end until 1923 despite the British having near full control for 8 years. Tanzania and Togo also had literacy rates that wouldn't be found in any other African colony until well after decolonization. Iirc, Tanzania is still the most literate country in Sub-Saharan Africa today.

tl;dr
It was REALLY REALLY bad there for the span of 2 years or so. Then it got a lot better very quickly.

>Der Franzose
Kek frogs suffered from jungle fever even back then.

Africa essentially won the lotery. Whites gave them such things as modern medicine and sanitation, which they would never have come up with themselves. Europe was the one who was more harmed in the end, because now they have to deal with African population boom.

>It was still pretty far behind everyone else.

It wasn't in danger of surpassing teh West but it was far from behind EVERYONE else. Slavery is still legal in Saudi Arabia and widely practised "illegally" across the Muslim world, that's just Muslims Musling. Ethiopia was doing just fine, and was set to become the first African state to industrialise.

>the Derg

A direct consequence of the Italian invasion, all colonised countries ended up with a Marxist national resistance because the Marxists were the only ones who supported the idea of African national liberation.

>A direct consequence of the Italian invasion, all colonised countries ended up with a Marxist national resistance

So now invaded equals colonised? Italian Ethiopia lasted five years and they never had strong control; it was just a military occupation, roughly the same way the US occupied Iraq. The Solomonic regime was quickly restored after the war. Sure, Ethiopia had to play by the European Westphalian order and had to cooperate with the West, but they were never colonised in any meaningful sense.

Very funny image t.b.h lad

Africa was in a pretty bad state. How does past Thailand compare?

Why are the women as tall as the men?

The French are midgets is why

>Yeah, but they kind of deserved it.

A massive genocide? Really?

Read about it in book and reports or hell the colonial laws of the colony.
Don't come to Veeky Forums for this shit.

>Go kill crazy against Germans and the Northern Basters with your pals the Rehoboth Basters with the intent to exterminate them
>Surprised when they kill you back in return
Yea, really.

>Tanzania is still the most literate country in Sub-Saharan Africa today.

Bullshit.

>iirc

Hysteria over racism taints our understanding of colonialism. The "civilizing mission" is of course bullshit, countries like Thailand and Japan didn't need colonialism to adopt the west's technology.

HOWEVER

There was relatively no harm, African kings were just as brutal and oppressive as the colonial overlords, if not more so. This fact makes the left shit themselves in rage so don't say it out loud.

and that only takes 3 seconds to google it up.

Also Germany never formerly abolished slavery in German East Africa and actually regulated the then extant slavery business.

>African kings were just as brutal and oppressive as the colonial overlords, if not more so

Ehh ruler by ruler basis since many were fair and just and others were brutes just like in Europe or Asia. However stripping of sovereignty and the very fucked up laws made by colonial authorizes set up dangerous precedents down the line that affected many people.

>Also Germany never formerly abolished slavery in German East Africa
Not that user, but he's right and they did abolish slavery. The decree was issued in 1913 and was set to take effect in 1920. Slaves were also freed at birth by 1912. Also, what you're referring to was not slavery, but peonage. There's a huge distinction there.

t. Person who has both Sunseri's and Deutsch's books sitting right in front of him and wrote his bachelor's thesis on Labor Reform in German East Africa

Also, before you come in here raging like a sperg: I have two sources for my claims: One is the book German Colonization: Past, Present, and Future by Dr. Heinrich Schnee. The other is located in the March 18th 1914 issue of the Deutch Ost-Afrika Zeitung, available for free online through the University of Frankfurt, assuming you can read German.

But Schnee was a Colonial revisionist.

True, but when it came to laws and decrees he's a reliable source considering he was the one who enforced and issued them. Also I gave you another source so don't hand wave away the claim because you don't like Schnee.

Slave ransoming was a still a thing though.

Sort of, not really. There were a whole 140,000 forced laborers at the end of German records. These were generally on work contracts and thus were not slaves in the common nomenclature, but debt peons. They couldn't be freed through emancipation writs for this reason. They also had more rights than the average citizen to boot thanks to the 1908 degree that limited work days to 8 hours, work weeks to 5 days and contracts to 180 days so they could have subsistence planting and harvesting seasons off. By 1912 true slavery was all but abolished with mostly only debt peons remaining.

>stripping of sovereignty
This is largely meaningless if you are a commoner with no political power. Sovereignty meant one warlord wanting independence from another so they can oppress the population the way they prefer.

>fucked up laws
Impaling "witches" wasn't fucked up? Belgium basically re-enstated slavery and it likely continued in different forms under the radar, but at least ostensibly it was banned in the 19th century.

note: I am not arguing that colonialism was benevolent, just that there is no compelling evidence either way so it is spurious to declare was clearly more evil by a wide margin. Your motivations are obvious, they are moral too, who wouldn't want to disprove evil racists? However it is simply not true and this is Veeky Forums on Veeky Forums so it is kind of my job to criticize that.

Le eternal Anglo

Hunters are healthy... if they survive childhood (most didn't) and if they avoid being murdered (the number one cause of death among non-sedentary people). Settlement doesn't just bring a new diet, it also brings laws and some attempt to monopolise force, which protects most people from the violence of the minority much more effectively than they could protect themselves.

>>fucked up laws

I'm talking more like laws that hurt the economic development of the people actually.

>How does past Thailand compare?

Not well, it had enjoyed a period of high culture during the early middle ages but by the time Europeans started poking around the region, it was a weak and poverty stricken state. It's rulers navigated the new political realities superbly, laying the foundation of Thailand's modern prosperity by playing the colonial powers (especially France and Britain) against one another. Japan of course modernised twice, firstly under their own steam and then again after the Americans "opened" Japan's ports to the outside world again after the disastrous period of the Shogunate.

Yeah except the Germans were invaders. Resisting invasion does not justify the invader to act even more brutally.

Not really. The Germans occupied predominantly uninhabited areas and even if they hadn't that wouldn't excuse what was done to the northern basters.

It was pretty meh for both sides in my opinion. Africans got murdered in droves but their standards of living shot up where Europeans invested in infrastructure. Europeans got resources but lost much more decolonizing and fighting over the colonies.

The biggest problem in Africa today is lack of stability and a growing population bomb that is built on Western aid, which will eventually not be able to sustain the population.

>this is common knowledge
Anytime someone says this it means they have nothing to back their shit up

The US turned Iraq into a shitshow

Kill yourself G*rm holy shit

>can't debate objective historical fact
>lel kys kraut
The irony is that krauts are the only group besides the herero/namaqua that give a shit

>I demand evidence for things that are common knowledge

Sorry but I can't reply to you until you demonstrate that communication via writing on teh internet is possible.

source?

No such thing as "uninhabited areas" since the paleolithic, and since the Germans took the land best suited for farming it's safe to say they were not "uninhabited" in any sense. But okay, I guess if niggers started moving to "uninhabited" areas in your country you'd consider it totally unjustified to attempt to remove them with force? And I'm not talking about immigration, but niggers who bring their own government with them, and who claim these "uninhabited" areas as part of their own nigger republic.

Literally any map of German Southwest Africa. Theres a great one available in The Devils Handwriting. The Germans were situated mostly along the Northern Coast with some mining colonies further south and one major city. The herero and Namaqua were situated along the northern and central interior with the Rehoboth basters in the central interior. The Northern basters, which the Germans admired lived on the northern coast into Portuguese Angola. They lived mostly separately because of the necessity that was the Namib desert

One major city in the interior*

Not to mention the German Colonial League held that, in regards to legal matters, the testimony of seven Africans was equivalent to that of a colonist and demanded that.

They weren't the government but if a huge influential group of industrialist, bankers and politicians that have huge power says this shit that not even Islam can compare to (since the 2 women equal 1 man testimony is up in the air and not definite but adhered by many) that shit.

Europeans were peaceful colonizers and civilizationers who built hospistals, roads, schools, etc

But the americans and the soviets dismantled our empires by creating fake revolts like in Ukraine, and in the arabic countries.

Like I want sources like a book and from what I've read the lands the Germans gave protectorate status was land acquired through fraudulent means

Reality(pic realted) > >Your pic

>laws that hurt the economic development of the people
Like isolationism? Native governments were also tyrannical and interfered with economic growth.

There were attempts to industrialize colonies, they mostly failed due to geography and economics.

gktoday.in/india-cotton-textile-industry-main_14/#First_Cotton_Mill_of_India

An example might be tropical Thailand and the more temperate urbanized Japan. Both largely uncolonized, both modernized, but only Japan was really ideally situated for industry.

It feels good to blame all your problems on colonialism, but believe it or not in some cases it is not true.

Any more memes?

Could you even support the populations?

I gave you a source which is a book in that post. The Devils Handwriting by Steinmetz.

I'm assuming you're talking about African colonialism?

Colonialism started off in the missionary circles in England and France. Their goal was to bring christianity to Africa and abolish slavery, since slavery was still widely practiced on the continent. The early explorers, like Livingstone, were
missionaries.

The scramble for Africa mostly happened because European rival nations thought their rivals were trying to one-up them. With the exception of Leopold, no european leader at the time wanted to colonize Africa.

In the end, colonialism was not profitable for Europe, with the exception of the Congo Free State, which wasn't really a colony. The effect on the lives of the natives was mostly positive, once again with the exception of the Free State which was borderline genocidal.

Colonisation of Africa was to a large extent a moneysink that benefited mostly a small elite, the military and muh national pride.

Finland was a subject country itself and never had colonies and today it's one of the wealthier countries in Europe, along with the other Nordic countries that had very little in terms of colonies many of which never really took off anyway. And Germany which had a pretty small colonial empire to begin with and then lost it all continued to take off as the economic power house of Europe anyway.

It essentially made Africa a giant mechanical robot hyena. This is common fucking knowledge though.

You can't really say positive or negative really because there was always a big catch to everything really.

-Infrastructure was limited to the areas that could bring profits or had settler populations and many had forced labour in their construction. Long term investment was only done if there was an immediate gain from it
-Education was spread out but it was heavily underfunded and burdened on underfunded missionaries. On top of that many commissionaires had good intent on delivering a good education but others were pawns of the state. On top of that the outreach of the education was limited
-Laws were established in the colonies but didn't serve the natives that well and in many put them at a huge disadvantage to settlers alongside of enacting laws that hurt in thel ogn run like not allowing private land ownership or d
-many people got rich but the local businesses got little investment or assistance because it was better to let them lag behind to encourage trade dependency inn the colony to the motherland and the colonies were a drain on the motherland.
-Many were introduced into the world market but this involved scrupulous means to do so instead of a better and fair means that benefitted the locals. The plantation system has heavily fucked up the soils in many areas due to unsustainable practices with many areas being unable to grow anything else but it did work when the soil was good (although many times forcing population to grow only cash crops for profit led to a hit in food production that led to greater vulnerability to famine)

The effects of all these things (this isn't the full extent) have an effect today which although helped often became an issue down the line. It's basically like having an abusive dad, there's times when he's good but damn when he's gone bad it's really not fun to say the least and when you have an abusive dad that kinda rubs off on you to various degrees.

I'm pretty sure colonization is just expensive as hell and isn't sustainable.

Isn't one of the reasons that the Roman Empire fell precisely because of imperial expansion?

Why should they have given them assistance? They weren't giving assistance to London's poor, the last thing they were going to do is give assistance to someone 1000s of miles away.

>the plantation system has heavily fucked up the soils in many areas
How significant is this really? The green revolution was happening about the same time as decolonization. I doubt that the precise moment Mugabe evicted white farmers the soil fertility suddenly dropped to zero.

>It's available for free online I believe.
where?

do you have any sources to indicate what was taken from the colonies, in what amount and what the estimate would be in modern currency

tip: books aren't sources, they might include sources, but otherwise it's pure fiction

you don't blame the referee when the player came up and bit someones ear off

>both for Africa and for Europe?
Yeah because rest of the world never got colonized. For fucks sake stop the afrocentrism.

>Infrastructure was limited to the areas that could bring profits
This is the most retarded argument ever. That's how infrastructure gets built anywhere.

How dare whitey not build elaborate cities in the middle of the Congo rainforest!