Was colonialism bad ?

>Replying to a thread we have had a million times before.

Literally making Veeky Forums worse.

So you'd be fine with China invading your country, exploiting its resources, and killing a shitload of people, just as long as they built a couple schools and hospitals?
You think colonialism is required to build said schools and hospitals?

>like a literal chimp
Chimps don't have agriculture and metal-working or build cities.

tibetans seem to appreciate it.

China is a shithole, so nope
But if some superior alien civilization invaded us and upgraded our way of life in exchange of us letting them exploit some ressources we're too dumb to even know how to use, I wouldnt see that as the worst thing ever

Make sure you sign up so you and your whole town can be the first ones massacred or forced to work in some mines, then, since it's for the greater good.

>You think colonialism is required to build said schools and hospitals?

Where were all the African schools and hospitals pre-colonization?

There were already a few places of learning, but it's completely missing the point.

Schools and hospitals can be built and resources gotten through trade without needing forced labor, genocide, or destroying countries.

Can the mudhut of the village dedicated to human sacrifice count as a hospital?

to be fair, isn't that how europeans treated each other during the same period? Why isn't that worthy of the same posthumous ethnic rentseeking?

When did any of the European conquer one another and genocide each other (other than Nazi Germany)?

Open a european history book and throw a dart, lmao

Yes we should have genocided the maghrebis.

When did Britain annex all of France and genocide the natives?

I'm not talking about fucking over Ireland or some ethnic minorities, I mean actively seeking to conquer and rule all the other European powers.

bad for Africa? yes, resources exploitation and cutting off hands for missing rubber quotas generally isn't the greatest way to govern.

bad for Europe? hell no Africa was the engine the fueled the continent's conquest of the world and was the main sources for material to keep them fighting through the world wars.

Yes, that is true today, but that very likely wouldn't have happened then without the massive incentive for people first to go there and exploit the area and people to make a profit. The good development goes hand in hand with the bad, people wouldn't have been going to build hospitals without violent repression and building of infrastructure for resource extraction taking place first. The Scramble for Africa and its subsequent development happened because it was a chance to open new markets and integrate them, forcefully, into the global capitalist order.

When did whiteys genocide all the nigs again?
Yeah, never
Africa would be a paradize like Australia had that happened
You have to remember it's not the climate that makes Africa a hellish shithole (look at Straya), it's black people

No.

Samefag

>he honestly thinks genocide didn't happen in colonial Africa
>laughing Namibs and Congolese

>US WHITEYS WUZ BRINGIN DEM CIVILIZATION N SHEEET DEY WUZ GOOD BOYS WHO DINDU KILL NO ONE

...

>Replying to a thread we have had a million times before.

Literally making Veeky Forums worse.

So far, yes. It's absolutely possible that colonialism will have long-term positive implications on African countries, but these gains haven't yet been materialized.

Africa today is worse-off than it would be if it had not been colonized. The introduction of Western values and technology was important, but didn't need to happen through conquest. Look at China, look at Japan, look at Thailand -- indigenous systems of government were not destroyed, so Westernization happened peacefully.

Colonization does not happen for the benefit of the colonized. The "white man's burden" was largely lip service to reconcile wars of conquest with Christian pacifism. Even in the 19th century, most people recognized this.

Why do retards keep posting this kind of screen like it's a proof of anything?
It takes 5 secs on paint to remove a (you) and 8 secs to add one

Do you also spam that in threads about WW2, the US revolution or Napoleon?
Stay butthurt, nignog

Why do retards keep assuming everyone who disagrees with them is a samefag

>Bad
Spook bro

The Congress of Vienna put any massive European conquest on pause; the various powers in Europe were roughly equal in might so they focused on maintaining the balance of power to prevent another massive conflict which would have highly uncertain results. Africa and other parts of the world certainly weren't equal in might to Europe and victory was a virtual certainty, so the conflicts got diverted to there, beginning with the conquest of non-European peoples. It's not a surprise that WWI happened not too long after the entire world was divided up among the Western powers.

>Contemporary flags on that map
Delete this thread.

Doesn't contradict what I said. Europeans already had the concept of "balance of powers" and so on and generally didn't have any aims of conquering other colonial powers. Yet somehow colonialism, conquest, and genocide is the only possible way they could have interacted with weaker nations.

*supposedly the only possible way

No

>Congolese
Literally one crazy guy's fault.
>Namibia
Because unsuccessful rebellions worked out well for Europeans

>Nignog

Thanks for confirming that you're some /pol/tard. Can't you make retarded threads like this on your own board? Or better yet just read the archive. There is a thread about this every day.

archived.moe/his/

Anyway whatever. Considering the popularity of threads like this I'm doing a fairly futile thing. Either I'm complaining to a bunch of /pol/ shit-stirrers intent on fucking up a once fairly interesting and insightful board or the resident population of Veeky Forums actually enjoy committing suicide by repeatedly making and commenting in threads about the same repetitive shit.

So you've gone from "there were no genocides" to "ok yeah, well those don't really count for arbitrary reasons". Let's see where you move the goalposts next time.

define development

Inventing the wheel

But they probably did have aims of conquest, it was just put on pause. Look at the fear of Russia and Germany among the British and the rivalries. Balance of powers doesn't mean that you don't have an intention, somewhere down the line, of beating your rivals once you've gained the strength to do so; it's just not realistic in the short term.

That was my first post ITT

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrying_of_the_North

Something that started centuries before colonialism and has nothing to do with one colonial power completely conquering and exploiting another.

Ethiopia was conquered by Italy

Wut?
That was basically Western France colonizing and exploiting England
In the time of Richard I, centuries after the conquest, England was still used by Anjou as a source of resources and manpower in a very similar way to how 19th century colonies were

Is English not your first language?
I'm talking about colonial powers specifically not conquering or annexing one another, what you linked happened centuries and centuries before that period. Neither medieval France nor England were colonial powers.

the one and only answer

Yes but ending it was even worse

For like 4 years

t. Luigi di Fetuccini
m8 Italy couldn't conquer Ethiopia even with illegal WW1 chemical warfare tactics

Africa colonization is a great example in favor of the prime directive

>what is 1936-1941
Lad...

Ending it was always gonna be fucking messy as hell and you'd have to be a total idiot to believe otherwise.

Not nearly as bad as they make it sound.

>Westernization

Modernization you mean.

Wrong

Because not only did they live in jungles and shit deserts which were bad for adapting a civilization, but they virtually had no outside contact with europeans until much later on. Ethiopians were just as dumb and they were the only African country to not be cucked

that's not "conquering" that was occupation lad

right!

>ask about Europeans conquering one another and genociding each other
>gets a reply
>umm that was pre colonialism

Yes and no. The dominance and inherent aggression of pursuing colonial policy and denying self-rule is clearly immoral. It can't be denied though that by a lot of measures, colonial masters created better societies than those who replaced them in many cases.

it depends

>this fucking thread again

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

No population. The continent only had 90 million as late as 1880 while Europe had 400 million.

been through this dozens of times, here is my bagirmi cavalry pic that I like to post in these threads and a brief explanation that is hopefully free from both /pol/'s and reddit's taint

>Was colonialism bad ?
oppressive colonial governments were unjust (though no more unjust than native tyrannies and it is kind of naive to expect anything else in those times), technology is good but colonialism wasn't required to spread it around (in b4 civilization was a mistake meme)

>How comes sub-saharan Africa never developped?
geographically unfavorable position and civil wars and instability during the cold war, some of which dragged on into the 90s and early 00s

Kek

westernization

So whites whites developed? They just borrowed the wheel

None of that needed to arrive through conquest. Look at Japan.

No, it's naive to suggest this

...

there was a neat cavalry festival in Nigeria(?) recently

post more pics user i'm intrigued

Japan modernized though.
still culturally very Japanese.

They did it on their own terms though

>colonialism wasn't required
You think we gonna do this for free?
Sheeiiit, even back then niggers still being gibsmedat.

>trade
and what good developed resources did they have to trade other than muscle and blood?