Overall, was European colonialism a net positive or net negative for sub Sahara Africa? And why?

Overall, was European colonialism a net positive or net negative for sub Sahara Africa? And why?

define positive

>Net
I don't know about that, but it worked out great for me. Don't even have to suffer the burden of slave blood.

Depends on the way you view it.

Negative. The africans shouldve been left alone. Now theyre 1000 years behind the current times because of the oppression. Mali was the richest nation on earth before europeans stole all africas resources. Also cleopatra was black

We wuz kingz n shieeet

Negative, africans would he happier if they still lived in traditional tribal societies. They are unfit for technological civilization (just look at how badly they fit in western societies)

I don't know. What was Africa like before that?

Negative. It totally fucked the social and political hierarchy allowing for uneducated lunatics to seize power and perpetuate the colonial systems of wealth extraction that didn't actually result in a better quality of life (In fact, it probably worsened it). There was and still is very little real industrialization and manufacturing going on in Africa.

Also, a lot of the crises Africa experiences with constant famine is due to the population explosion brought about by colonialism introducing modern medicine to pre-modern societies.

It consisted of scattered tribes, slaver states, as well as a couple of large kingdoms and empires here and there.

The only reasonable answer is both, and that's a stretch but considering how broad the question is and how ultimately unproven in either direction it's the best you're going to get.

im quite sure that they were much happier when they weren't kidnapped and put into slavery

Negative, put different ethnic groups and tribes in the same country leading to unsteady states.

Slavery existed long long before the Europeans conquered Africa. In fact the overwhelming majority of black slaves was owned by other black people.

The main evil of European colonialism was removing diseases that kept their populations stable without giving them the means to increase their Malthusian limit.

not that guy, but the transatlantic trade wrecked the area in these ways:

People stopped doing productive things to capture slaves

People who could have done productive things were killed or enslaved AND REMOVED FROM THE CONTINENT. Under previous systems they would have become part of the labor force of their captor. Now they are removed from the economy.

As the normal economies of these areas declined due to the slave trade, they increasingly became more dependent on the slave trade, which caused conditions to slip further... i think you get the point

and how is this relevant to colonialism

That Europeans were already having a profound effect on the African continent before they even started colonization?

Positive for Africa, negative for the rest of the world.

Thats very minor side effect of colonialism, you do not probably realise that civilised nations outlawed slavery much sooner than New Worlders did.
In the end removing male part of black population would literally change jack shit, only outcome of that would be colonialism French style.
Bunch of Frenchies fucking niggresses.

Britain exploited her colonies economically more, but honestly its all various Africans fault they were unable to create accommodating market.
Something every other colony of Britain was able to do. Australia, Thirteen Colonies, India, Canada.. literally every other colony ever was able
to create sustainable economy that wouldnt fuck itself over.. You may say that Australia, Canada etc. had head start because they had influx
of knowledgeable workers (white ppl). But then how did India do it? They were also in constant state of tribalistic warring. Yet they were able
to seek education and after time over take certain positions in administration of colonialist powers, thus preventing the total cut off and break
down that happened in Africa, when great powers decided colonialism is not cool anymore (mainly because maintenance of African colonies
was much higher than its profit).
>Muh hurrr Whitey stole everything form Africa
oh you poor bastard, colonialism ended mainly because even sucking up all the resources they could find in Africa brought still negative numbers
if there was something to steal, eternal merchant anglo would never let it go

Overall colonialism in Africa brought positive net worth in all sectors across the field except societal and educational. But that I would attribute
to the lacking interest of populace. No need for whitey to go out of the way to educate some niggers, on the other hand nigger should seek
education in the fields himself. And dont bring apartheid into this, I am sick of that argument. (There are colonies in Africa that were almost
egalitarian and they are the same shit holes like the racist ones).

Net positive in my opinion.

European colonialism helped Africa join the World economic system. Now this may look useless but exporting raw materials is the way to start their road to economic development

>Australia, Thirteen Colonies, India, Canada.. literally every other colony ever was able to create sustainable economy that wouldnt fuck itself over

>British India
>Stable economy
>Didn't fuck itself over

To finish what I started:
Whats doing even more harm than anything else is charity of Western World.
Its the epitome of "Teach man to fish."
Giving hand outs to African starving populace does literally nothing else than letting them die bit later.
Charity organisations create tons of healthy money flow and jobs in western countries, but all they do in Africa is fuck their shit up.
By giving Burbanacar
>new clothes (from China)
>some food (from France)
>kitchen necessities (China)
>drugs and other medical supplies (Europe, America)
you prevent Africa growing any economical sector on its own. They have to pay for nothing, they have to grow nothing, they have to manufacture nothing.

If you have ever donated anything to any "Save Africa"-type charity, you have contributed more to the systematic genocide of blacks than Hitler.

British Raj is in considerably better condition nowdays than Africa.
And yes they were able to create economic centralised system that did its job back in 18th century, Africa doesnt have anything like that even today.

Thank god Chinese are turning Africa into China 2.0 though.

This is why it's impossible to have somewhat decent conversations on this goddamn board.
Keep your bad trolling attempts for yourself or go to /b/.

I'm the pure opposite of black btw

>British Raj is in considerably better condition nowdays than Africa.
Nowadays yes. At the time it got its independence India was one of the poorest nations on earth per capita wise.

Anyway, the British did do one good thing, that was to keep the bureaucracy Indian and allow for an educated class of Indians to develop on its own. It's this class of people that helped realize the idea of a united India.

Compare that to Africa where very little to nothing was invested in creating a sustainable local bureaucracy (That wasn't white at least). The fact that most African nations lacked an educated, capable middle/upper class is a huge reason why they struggle to develop.

Well it can also be contributed to the sudden retreat from Africa, when every doctor, governor, vendor etc. disappeared almost overnight when
the decolonisation of 1960~ came. Whereas in India it happened rather unwillingly and over much longer time period.

But it all comes down to necessity in the end. It wouldve also helped the "african nobility" if it often wasnt shamanistic type nobility.
Who as we know are not treated nicely by various christian expeditions.

We got Rhodesia out of it so it's a positive to me

>It wouldve also helped the "african nobility" if it often wasnt shamanistic type nobility. Who as we know are not treated nicely by various christian expeditions.

Which is a big reason why Africa is shit imo. If you get rid of authority, becoming said authority, then suddenly up and leave with no one credible or educated to take your place, then it falls on the most ruthless and power hungry to come in and take control.

Take Botswana for example. Probably doing better than any other African nation because its tribal leaders and monarchs went to the west to become educated before coming back to run what was once the poorest country in the world. Now it's arguably the safest, most stable place in Africa.

>on the other hand nigger should seek education in the fields himself.

I can tell you don't know much about Africa back then or know i regards to education.

A fuckton ton of colonies that had missionaries be burdened with the education had many African families give a lot of their money to be able to help there school function . African schools in those times were indegenized with many locals taking the role of teachers despite having no education because they couldn't receive training and said millionaires had little resources (nondenominational of missionary schools was very common in Africa). In South Africa when Blacks were given more economic freedom many of the Blacks who got rich and well off sent their kids to schools. Education wasn't a one way road in the colonies at all.

Because no ones buying egalitarianism anymore. It's a pipe dream that's more destructive than any religion.

If only they didn't interfere then it be normal for African women to go around topless and in some cases fully nude.

>I don't know. What was Africa like before that?

Undeveloped.

>you will never have a beautiful Himba woman offered to you as a gift

feels suffering man

Consider the following.
Note any colony in existence past, present, future.

Note how they are now.

Note any where else that colonies haven't been.

There is your answer.

Read "Things Fall Apart".

How is that even a question

Its tough but I would have to go with positive.
Its been a rough journey but thanks to all the things Europeans did to the African Continent, both good and bad, some African Nations have proven to grow relatively stable considering they were the last wave of colonial holdings to be liberated.
Egypt has had a rocky 10 years but its doing alright.
Kenya is fairly stable.
South Africa is aight
Ethiopia is ok
they had a season of survivor in Gabon so it cant be that bad.
Still the worst continent, but its getting better and i think Europeans kickstarted that.

Positive. They had single digits of their population at max experience slavery, colonialization unarguably increased standards of living.

The real question is if Western countries propping up their exploding population won't be an extremely negative result of colonialism. Tens or even hundreds of millions are going to starve in this century unless we, or they, do something about it soon.

If you separate the benefits of technology from the oppression and tyranny, then colonialism was a net negative.

However native tyranny was also a negative. In terms of scolding people for their moral choices, there is a more urgent need to scold liberals who ignorantly favor native tyrannies to any kind of foreign influence, even from democracies full of bleeding heart liberals like themselves.

There are pros and cons

Where can I get cute African girl pictures?

the internet

...

Positive its the only reason there is any technology above the early Bronze Age(Ethiopia) and Neolithic(Sub Saharan Africa) in the entire continent.
Africans starving is due to their incompetence, they have the most resource rich countries on earth yet cant feed their populations due to something called YOU MUST BUY FOOD TO LIVE, food aid is stupid because it kills the market for upcoming african agriculturalist and also feeds the population of Africa that should actually die BECAUSE THEY CANT FUCKING BUY FOOD.

Imagine neolithic black tribes trying to murder/torture you for fun all the time, with incredibly savage barbaric religious belief systems, also there is cannibalism. If you are a black woman you will get raped one day it is not a question of if but when , doesnt matter what age you are as even female infants will be gangraped in Pre-Slavery Africa. The tribes have no clue what diseases are and assume you are cursed if you have an illness and their cure is pure savagery like cutting off your skin then burning you alive because.......? Also if you get sick do not be surprised if your tribesmen start to eat you alive.

Depends which part you are talking about. The coastal developed areas such as the Kongo Kingdom, the coastal indian ocean sultanates and east africa probably would have been better off with slavery. West Africa is debatable, it was declining prior to colonisation due to the end of slavery. As for the rest, I would say that colonisation made them better off.

That is not true. At worst some tribe might be suspicious of a lone male and kill you in the belief they are acting in self-defense, but the savagery you describe wasn't the usual condition of things, it is often the result of war.

You seriously have no clue how black african tribes acted at all if you think things were ever peaceful.. The way african american gangs work is a glimpse into how black tribes worked out notice they can all kill eachother without a care in the world.

You have spent too much time on worldstarhiphop. 99% of blacks don't act like that and those that did back then would likely be killed by people who, while not naturally savage, could be just as savage if provoked.

When you see statistics like blacks are twice as likely to murder it is like 0.2% of blacks are murderers compared to 0.1% of whites.

What a load of bullcrap the constant bloodshed in every black area shows that they are naturally hyper aggressive and very violent thus back in their homeland it would be hell on earth for a normal person because they would be surrounded by black sadistic maniacs that want to gore them for fun.

You need to see what africans actually do infact read up on what happens in Haiti those guys are pure black africans so what they do is basically the same thing you would see in Sub Saharan Africa prior to slavery. Going not all blacks shows your Americacentric thinking you have no clue how brutal or savage blacks from Africa are(also why african migrants in Europe have high crime rates) considering that these Africans are genetically the exact same as the Black American ancestors this means what they do today is what their ancestors did in the past.

The only true black african states are the ones with the least handholding like CAR orr the Congo and these places are hellholes where women are systematically raped all the time, people are murdered all the time and nobody gives a shit about all the suffering in the country this is a glimpse into what african black life was really like,its wasnt no koomaya shit no bro it was nothing but violence, fucking and chaos.

In tribal cultures, violence from other humans was and is one of the leading causes of death. That's not limited to Africans, either.

Yes I know it was mainly disease, but the black african tribes still had a serious violent dysfunction problem which explains why black places in the world have such outrageous murder rates.

>1000 years behind because of colonialism
>the colonials significantly improved tech when they arrived
>it was less than 1000 years ago

Negative.

They'll be better of had they've got our technology from trade.

chokepointed the entire continent. egyptian civ single handedly BTFO'd an entire continent for millenia. stranglehold death. no other example as pure on such grand a scale as this

>muh oppression
>Decent conversation

Fuck off mane.

Well, instead of nogs murdering each others with firearms in European built cities, yiu had nogs murdering each others with spears in mudhut villages

Mali had streets of gold and Stronghai build space ships n shieeet!

No, because pol shitters bred like rabbits and are spilling their echo chamber retardation across this website
You have to go back

But They did.

The bait was good until the Cleopatra bit. Too obvious.

>Africans enslaved other Africans
>East Africans could be subject to the Arabian Slave Trade, which was just as bad as the European slave trade
>For most of the time that Africa was colonised, slavery was prohibited

LOL. No.
We wuz not kang and sheet

Colonization was a net negative

In 1900 the population of black, sub-saharan Africa was about 150 million

In 1500 the estimated black population of Africa was about 650 million

Diseases brought by the Europeans aided in the population decline

Only 10-12 million blacks were removed from Africa to the New World as slaves, most went to South America, less than 500,000 ended up in what would become the United States

The slave trade had very little to do with the problems that Africa would and continues to suffer from

The idea that the best and brightest that black Africa had to offer were shipped off as slaves is idiotic, those taken as slaves were already slaves, many having been taken in tribal warfare, many were the descendants of and were slaves themselves, the best were not shipped across the Atlantic, the already bottom of the barrel that Africa had to offer were loaded up and shipped out

After colonialism ended, most were not ready or able to govern themselves, many, most reverted to tribalism and the fighting/killing began and continues

Africa is still looked at as a whole rather than as a collection of failed nations, if Africans unified behind a common language and united as a single nation anything might be possible, however for the foreseeable future this outcome is unlikely

With the new colonization of Africa by China, a few leaders and hangers on are enriched, the majority fall further behind, becoming a catalyst for even more ethnic bloodshed

Future outcome for Africa, it will become much worse, and is unlikely to ever get better

gonna need some sources on that. Also why what diseases did Europeans bring that Arab merchants and slavers couldnt?

>if Africans unified behind a common language and united as a single nation anything might be possible

that kind of thinking is exactly what caused the post-colonial nightmare

why do people keep pretending that all "blacks" in Africa are the same just because they are in the New World?

>Also cleopatra was black

The colonization of Africa did different things, do different people in different places at different times.

The slave trade fucked over lots of peasants and people captured in warfare but enriched coastal nobles immensely.

The gradual encroachment of indirect rule by European powers created centers of trade where superior western technology and social practices modernized the countries; but of course the cost of becoming part of the world economy was that local labor became subject to far greater controls, taxation, and interference.

The introduction of direct rule fucked over the ruling class in many places, but in others they were integrated fairly easily into the new imperial governments. Again, the poor become subject to greater intervention and exploitation.

In terms of science and medicine the continent gains the benefits of western technological superiority; but also suffer from increased inequality when railroads, telegraph lines, and hospitals are focused on the coastal urban centers at the expense of taxes gathered in the underdeveloped interiors.

Medicine helps cure and treat diseases and ailments that plagued pre-industrial societies, but of course medical experimentation the use of disease as a weapon of war occurred.

Local conflicts and brutal practices of warfare, slavery, prostitution, and child mutilation were controlled and constrained; but naturally rebellion was oppressed and when World Wars broke out the soldiers drafted in Africa were expected to fight for European Imperial interests.

Think less of the process of colonialism as a net process of good or bad, and more as a process of moving Africa from a pre-modern mode of operation to a modern mode of operation and frame that within all of the same changes that this meant for Europe.

There's nothing sacred about indigenous culture or lifestyle that makes it's loss a tragedy- but likewise 'getting western civilization' isn't a zero sum benefit either.

The real ideological trap you risk falling into is either buying the liberal horseshit about

>muh indigenous cultures were so perfect and holistic in how they lived with nature, and people who aren't white can't do nuffin wrong, we wuz kangs n shiiiet.

or the reactionary cuckoldry of

>Muh perfect European culture, we dindu nuffin wrong. Muh racist pseudoscience, Muh white man's burden n shiiiet.

Take an approach that recognizes the faults of both Western Civilization and African Civilization and just see it as a process by which one supplanted the other.

It should be fairly clear why Africa is a shithole today when you consider how traumatic of a process this would be- especially when considering the brevity of the process and the even more jolting decolonization process.

Can we all agree that decolonization was a massive failure for everyone involved?

Going to need a source

>Positive its the only reason there is any technology above the early Bronze Age(Ethiopia) and Neolithic(Sub Saharan Africa) in the entire continent.

>implying Ethiopia isn't SSA just because they're mixed (not all of them are though, there are dozens of natives that aren't Habesha or Oromo
>implying SSA, especially the Nok and Bantu didn't have iron and steel before Europeans came in

How did this comment slip by?

>Haitians
>pure black

That's as funny as saying white Louisiana Creoles are pure white. Good joke user, 10/10

Positive in every single way. Keep in mind that decolonization was not an issue for many Asian colonies. The African, this was common knowledge back then, has a different mind than European. They could never sustain the level of sophistication of Europeans as a wholez

Before European contact
>slavery
>tribal warfare

After European contact
>slavery
Tribal warfare with guns

They now have written language, the wheel, and a bit of sense even though it ain't much.

Negative in every way even if you're some sort of /pol/cuck as long as you have a gram of brain you'd realize it'd be easier to integrate a population of a few million instead of 500 into the world community. Africa should have been left undisturbed but realistically they never stood a chance.

Africa wasn't Neolithic. Like do you even know of the Iron age at all?

Fuck
Lie the amount of stupid and ignorance in this thread is immense it would take me forever to write up on why some guys shitty historical knowledge and memes make no sense and are wrong.

It's like if you had to explain the American Civil War to some guy saying stupid bs and the guy starts talking and as you realize it's like "oh my God...I don't even think this guys knows what America is or he gets his info on American history from /int/, Veeky Forums, or /pol".

Do you go out and try to correct the guy who most likely would not care to inform himself because of his huge gaps in knowledge suggesting deliberate shunning engagements in excercises of ignorance or alternatively do you just to answer him and bet that he won't shit up other threads with inquirers like "Jews are Khazars"?

it's kind of hard to decolonize a swamp or a bunch of trees, but then again, they'll invent some new definition of colonialism such as cultural appropriation, that's impossible to meet, and because it's impossible to meet, they're always allowed to create new accusations against us

it kind of works like voodoo. colonialism and racism have no REAL world evidence, but it's caused invisibly and silently by ill intent spoken in secret.

oh wow, you mean niggers believed in invisible magical forces that ruin people before racism was invented, and they called it voodoo?

WOW

The fuck are you ranting on about?

Furthermore, Carthage should be destroyed.

kek. this board is full of idiots but every now and then there's a gold poster

Vodun is a religion m8, based on direct experience with the divine

/thread