Shouldve we have ended colonialism in Africa?

Shouldve we have ended colonialism in Africa?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=gLOvdgXSy_Q
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Would've ended sooner or later. Might as well end it when you haven't invested too much in it and the losses splitting are very minimal.

Probably should have tried a bit harder to leave behind functional governments.

Then again, the entire point of the colonies was to make money, and fixing up countries doesn't make you money, so it makes sense the Europeans would just leave when the colonies became unprofitable.

They should have genocided every sub-saharan and expanded industry incrementally.

Genocide is actually a really great idea if it manages to succeed. Its only bad if the victim survives long enough for the pendulum to swing and leave you with a bunch of whiners.

It should never have happened in the first place.

it should have been done slowly and incrementally over time to ensure that every nation created had good borders, a functioning government and good education

I think it should've. If colonialism didn't happen the Africans would look like they would be living in the Stone Age.

>Probably should have tried a bit harder to leave behind functional governments.

OOOoooo the financial drain that woudl be. Not to mention the whole "prevent special interests" form corrupting the colonial government.

edgy

Nice quads but Africa was not in the Stone Age at all.

Yeah I know but let me put it this way. The Africans would be WAY behind the Europeans if they weren't colonized.

Technologically speaking

>Nice quads but Africa was not in the Stone Age at all.

He never said they were.

There were many groups interested in modernizing and seeking it out.

We don't know how a non Colonized Africa would have developed but the desire for development and modernization did exist on the continent.

They were Iron Age at a very broad level but many used metals that weren't iron in their lives.

Shouldn't have tried to interfere with them after they gained independence.

Money, influence and resources.
Also the threat of others entrenching themselves in areas you used to own.

Let's not circumcise the mosquito

Yup. Especially Rhodesia.

it's a White Guilt episode

Track the spread of European colonialism, with particular regard to where it accompanied Protestant missionary movements. You'll find the spread of humanism, the spread of democracy, and raising of standards of health, hygiene, and quality of life, and the decrease of tribal/ethnic conflicts.

What?

what lol democracy didn't even exist for most colonies lifespan and the ones that did were super limited. Some just got democracy at independence.

> the decrease of tribal/ethnic conflicts.

They still existed though a lot and colonial;l government often encouraged it or supported by a "divided they fall" policy that works very well.

But that isn't true. Africa had guns, planned agriculture, and functioning city states along its Western coast before the slave trade caused everything to go to shit.

Nation states built on centuries of tradition >>>>>>>>> Post-Colonial fuckfests.

Absolutely. Instead of making the savage a civilized man, colonialism made the civilized man a savage.

This, imagine where the world would be today if the Europeans joined together and unleashed their murderous drive on the Africans instead of each other.

>and raising of standards of health, hygiene, and quality of life
That's bad because African pastoral economies couldn't support and feed that many people locally. One of the reasons that Rhodesia was so much more successful than other African countries was due to local farmers, both black and white, being able to make enough food to support the population boom that improved health and living standards would bring about.

...That's really what stone age means

>what lol democracy didn't even exist for most colonies lifespan and the ones that did were super limited. Some just got democracy at independence.
Had the natives preferred they could go back to senseless slaughter and worshipping fucking trees. Europeans left a legacy of democracy in Africa. It may not have been perfect, but the fact that dictators in Africa even make a show of having elections is proof of this fact.

>They still existed though a lot
You obviously can't read can you?

White Rhodesian actually output a high amount comparatively due to government favoritism that allowed them to get the prime land and funding in subsidies.

Other parts of Africa the colonial parts didn't really do much to assist in upping yields of food crops for various reasons.

Another reason Africa is so shit and stagnant today is due to the huge amounts of food aid that's sent from Western countries, which not only just goes into the hands of African warlords anyway, but also causes the value of any food produced locally to fall to shit, meaning that any excess produce harvested by substance farmers is totally worthless and that food that could otherwise be sold to help feed a growing proletarian laboring class just goes to waste instead.

Raising a standard of living and lowering infant mortality rates is never a bad thing. The other African colonies should have latched on to agriculture and economic methods being taught to them.

It's not even a white people thing either. Look at Botswana, or Tutsi-led Rwanda. All it takes for a successful African nation is the right ideas and/or the right heads making decisions.
>AKA not dumb fucks who discard all the good ideas because they're "Eurocentric"

Nice atuism bud but

>Had the natives preferred they could go back to senseless slaughter and worshipping fucking trees.

That happens allover the world, conflict in Europe was also pretty brutal in that period. Africa wasn't exceptional

>Europeans left a legacy of democracy in Africa

No. Africans had no say in the Colin government, no people working within it or taking potions of power in the state apparatus and oppression was used as the main method to support colonial rule. There was never a legacy of democracy because in colonial Africa it never existed let alone indigenous self-rule and agency

>but the fact that dictators in Africa even make a show of having elections is proof of this fact.

Because that was what the main form of rule that people desired.

>You obviously can't read can you?

ethnic conflicts still occurred and colonial conflicts flared up as well on top of the various violent fights that occurred when a colon was expanding or cementing it's influence in an area.

Colonialism was a net benefit for Africans, maybe with the exception of Congo Free State which was just all around shit.

>The other African colonies should have latched on to agriculture and economic methods being taught to them.

That never happened though in colonial Africa
For agriculture various colonial govs had different views on it.

>don't care. This place is shit so any money is good
>DO NOT GROW CASH CROPS THERE ARE FOR OUR SETTLERS TO GROW. WE PROHIBIT YOU
>REE GROW CASH CROPS *sperg attack*

3rd happened when a colony was desperate for money so it made EVERYONE grow cash crops which meant starvation due to forced growing of cash crops means no food.

2nd happens when settler population were a thing so they want to grow cash crops to get lots of money and want natives barred so they can secure more of the market and beg for the colonial government to appease their every need like forced labour.

1st happened as said before "This place is poor so any money is good" so African were able to engage in choosing what they can grow and enable them to grow cash crops, food crops or in many cases growth both.

Congo Free State wasn't a exception. The whole point of the hypocrisy of the condemnation of the Congo Free State was that many of the states rebuking Leopold engaged in the very same thing in their own lands.

>Raising a standard of living and lowering infant mortality rates is never a bad thing
It is when you consider that more people living longer = more mouths to feed, which may I remind you that equatorial Africa is notoriously difficult to farm.

>The other African colonies should have latched on to agriculture and economic methods being taught to them

The only things that were taught to them by European colonizers was how to either grow cash crops or extract raw resources to sell overseas.9/10 times European colonizers didn't give a shit about the colonies self sufficiency, which Is part of the reason why they'd become so incredibly expensive to maintain in the later half of the 20th century. It never crossed their mind that they'd ever be forced to let go of their colonial possessions so they never thought "Hey, these spooks need to learn how to sustain their own economies without buying from us".
>All it takes for a successful African nation is the right ideas and/or the right heads making decisions.
Agreed, but you also have to realize that Africa for the longest time has had no real "bureaucratic" class that wasn't white because there was no need to teach them. Education in schools was limited so as to make them more efficient laborers and little else. Any African nation that's currently moderately successful had or created soon after an educated bureaucracy by the time of decolonization.

>AKA not dumb fucks who discard all the good ideas because they're "Eurocentric"

I never got the point of people and this strawman.

>It is when you consider that more people living longer = more mouths to feed, which may I remind you that equatorial Africa is notoriously difficult to farm.

It can still be farmable but that requires investment to make it so and that isn't really a thing that was viable back then or now really due to high economic and environmental costs.

In regards to your second colonial government really failed in getting the populace to be a part of the cash economy due to bad policy. Kenyait was thought that they had to force natives to enter it because "they could not comprehend it" but the reason they didn't enter it was because there was nothing to buy with cash so engaging in farming was the superior choice. Later on when Indian merchants who were selling goods entered the picture people willingly entered the cash economy both laborers and farmers because they have to pay money to get that merchants goods among other stuff and later on.

For the bureaucracy the best a native could get was some low level clerk job in places that a educational bone was thrown to some luck kid. In British East Africa, Indians filled the bureaucracy role as well as getting really rich due to the unintended polices of the government.

When I mean farm able that may be a stretch. Would probably still require heavy inputs, a restricted poll of viable crops and high economic and environmental costs.

Congo-Brazzaville has peat bog the size of England with billions of tonnes of peatland. The only reason it's safe is because development in that area is small compared to others areas being eroded and it's a huge reservoir of CO2.

I was thinking more of things like the Tsetse fly, which historically made the use of draft animals (an extremely important agricultural development in most societies) quite literally impossible throughout much of the continent. As such agricultural practices never really developed beyond slash and burn farming.

Couple that with African Jungles being a breeding ground for all manner of horrific diseases and you're talking a nightmare scenario with limited room for optimized farming practices.

The people that say this are the people that don't understand the effects of colonialism. essentially the colonial economy works by digging up everything and stealing anything that was remotely valuable and taking it back to the mother country, where the rich aristocrats would use it to increase their status leaving the colony completely shit out of luck.

>to leave behind functional governments
1. A nation that has minerals does not need a functioning educational system or working system that benefits everybody. It needs labour, cheap labour to get that stuff out of the earth. Educated population stands in its way, so no wonder it didn't work.
2. Not to mention it is the only colonized continent, that mostly did not have any recent prior government in a major sense. Asia had major empires with huge administrative branches, South and North America were basically built by cultures that had a recent administrative history. In Africa it was mostly tribes and local kingdoms packed into states and nations. If you look at the most stable countries in Africa, like Maghreb, they did well for the most party, because they had a fairly recent administrative structure prior to colonization to which they could go back to, just that it wasn't western its sense. Most of their post-colonial internal conflicts stem from groups trying to formulate either counter Western or westernized systems into these nations (looking at Marocco, Libya, Egypt).
Now, while the colonial governments built on the other people not being fully enganged in any governmental structure made these systems very succesful but it also led to the people never fully incorporate governmental structures into their culture. Not to mention, that a lot of these people didn't really want one, as they see and saw it as a western ideology foreign to theirs and imperialistic. So they stayed with their culture, while westernized parts of their people tried to cling onto the government idea in way that gave them power. The problem is, that them being natives, they have a different push for legitimization which led and leads to much more strong incentive to actually control their people other than foreign rulers had to.

> essentially the colonial economy works by digging up everything and stealing anything that was remotely valuable and taking it back to the mother country, where the rich aristocrats would use it to increase their status leaving the colony completely shit out of luck
If you take out the resource argument, you are basically left with any kingdom, where the idea is to to have a small group of people ruling over people working for their own benefit.

so what if that were true?

>Agreed, but you also have to realize that Africa for the longest time has had no real "bureaucratic" class that wasn't white because there was no need to teach them. Education in schools was limited so as to make them more efficient laborers and little else. Any African nation that's currently moderately successful had or created soon after an educated bureaucracy by the time of decolonization.

I've read about plenty of Blacks during the colonial era who studied abroad in Europe and returned to their homeland. In fact this happened from all European colonies. Enough of those people should have existed to run a relatively stable goverment.

>Living in the stone age
Cultural evolutionism and determinism coming through

No, the wealth of a kingdom is used to make the kingdom better. The wealth of the colonies was used to make the mother country better.

Even if that was true... so what? How is the current situation any better?

>No, the wealth of a kingdom is used to make the kingdom better. The wealth of the colonies was used to make the mother country better.

Literally does not address the fact that an adequate amount colonial subjects studied in Europe and should have been capable of applying that knowledge after independence.

no, because now they are being colonised by the chinese

Yes it does... All of the infrastructute in the colonies was built as efficiently possible to drain all of the economic resources, the country would need to scrap most of it and rebuild from the ground up which is no easy task when your finances are non-existent.

Add to that the careless way in which the Europeans drew the national borders leading to a number of lasting conflicts as a result of cultural feuds and you have a country guaranteed to go nowhere

>All of the infrastructute in the colonies was built as efficiently possible to drain all of the economic resources, the country would need to scrap most of it and rebuild from the ground up which is no easy task when your finances are non-existent.

COUGH COUGH *BULLSHIT* COUGH

Europeans didn't fuck up the cable lines

youtube.com/watch?v=gLOvdgXSy_Q

What the fuck are you talking about

WHAT ARE YOU SAYING STORMFAGGIT?

>The Europeans drew national boarders
So why didn't they redraw the boarders after their independence? Was it, that natives in power were forcing the people within those states to remain within these lines that led to the conflict? As most of the administrationals native were educated for this purpose, they could've done it, but they didn't. Largely because they were selfish and didn't want a functioning, ethnically homogenous state, but because they wanted power. Ethnic minorities also don't have to become a problem, looking at Morocco, which quite well deals with ethnic minorities.

it had none of that... they literally didn't have guns until we and the arabs gave them to them to trade for slaves...

/pol/ GTFO

They pretty much were.
Besides maybe Ethiopia and 1-2 tribes, the whole place was pretty much a desolate wasteland full of niggers.
If colonialism would of gone its course most of Africa would of been modernized

>yes whites are evil now you get payback for colonialism! b-but multiculturalism is actually good! Although it is payback for colonialism! Good goyim!

You're legitimately retarded, all I was pointing out is that the colonial economic model was incredibly disadvantageous for those living in the colony.

It's also kind of half the reason America is an independent nation.

>leaves Africa with functioning mines, farms and industry

You fail at economics forever

>Make an actual valid point, that has been brought up in the scientific debate of developmental social-studies
>/POL/
You gotta be kidding me

Why the hell would you even want to redraw borders when you need resources to make your state solvent?

1. There is no need for resources to make a state solvent. Look at the tiger states, which are largely non-based on resource.
2. A redrawn boarder does not mean that you will lose all the resources on your territory.
3. Since post-colonialism, massive credits have been given out to countries that need them. If you actually want to make your state solvent, you can try to rely on that. The problem with most of these subsidies is, that they flow into a system, that will take most of the subsidies and use them for enlarging the wealth of the ruling class, rather than funding education or infrastructure. There is a reason, most western help-organization went from sending money directly to building infrastructure themselves, simply because the money wouldn't go the way it should.
4. If you rather have ethnic conflicts, that tear down the structure of your nation, rather than giving up resources for internal peace which is a necessity for a functioning state, it is your fault, that these conflicts remain.
Regarding the fact, that the people in office are largely native, it's not the reason of western countries, these nations don't change these things.

Some of these arguments have been brought forward by sociologist Dieter Goetze on the topic of developmental ideology, if you want to read it up.

>As most of the administrationals native were educated for this purpose, they could've done it, but they didn't.

They were educated to run a colony, not a nation. That's the whole entire point.
>Largely because they were selfish and didn't want a functioning, ethnically homogenous state,

Maybe that's because it didn't benefit their former colonizers to have 100+ different tiny nations in Africa that you have to individually interact with.

Also remember that they gained independance during the Cold War, which was a major reason you see people like Idi Amin and Bokassa came to power with support of either the Soviets or their former colonizers because they were strongmen who'd build up their countries military's to act as potential military allies instead of using those people who actually cared enough to attempt to make the lives of the people better.

>it had none of that
What is Benin, Dahomey, Kilwa, Ashantiland etc.
> they literally didn't have guns until we and the arabs gave them to them
That happened long before colonialism did, which is the point of the thread.

>functioning
Lmao no, they relied on importing finished goods from Europe if they wanted anything semi-decent. There's no such thing as a Congolese car company for a reason.

Fucking retard. You start out exporting

>They were educated to run a colony, not a nation.
The administration of a colony and a nation are not too far away. There is a reason most of Indian administration stayed the same way after independance. And again, same thing with Asia, where most of the nations broke aways after World War II on the brink of the Cold War.
>Maybe that's because it didn't benefit their former colonizers to have 100+ different tiny nations in Africa that you have to individually interact with
The same way it didn't really help most Western countries to have multiple nations establishing in Eastern Europe after World War I, but in the end, Britain, France and the US bargained on establishing multiple smaller states. Again, ethnical diversity does not necesarily lead to internal clash, if handled well. But it wasn't.

Exporting raw materials does not a stable economy make. The key to creating wealth in any economy is to have home industry that creates finished goods that people desire. Otherwise your ability to sustain a Western lifestyle in Africa is nonexistent.

Of course exporting itself isn't bad, but unless you're already a fuckhuge economic powerhouse than it provides a fraction of the return in the profits.

You need to start out exporting you stupid shit. You don't start out with pre-made luxury goods development.

>The administration of a colony and a nation are not too far away
It depends, but that's not true in most cases. A colony runs on the assumption that it will always have the mother country interacting in its market in some form, as well as paying for a lot of the overhead costs in terms of shipping and distributing goods to and from the home country. Many African colonies were actually overtime more of a drain on investment and that helped fuel the rush to decolonize post WWII.

And like I said, exporting pays a fraction of the dividend that you'd otherwise make, essentially ensuring that these African laborers get fuck all of what the goods they're harvesting are actually worth. They never had a chance to compete in the first place.

>is this bad at economics

Explain how I'm wrong than.

so what, the colonies were a net loss, the only colonies which managed to actually become something were those where the native population was replaced (USA, Canacucks, aussies and the kiwis etc)

it's the same shit with what happened in the middle east, there's no point fiddling around when every time a dictator is toppled something worse comes out, so there's no point in trying to help africa if they're going to just fall deeper afterwards

here is the trick, he can't

are you fucking high, the colonies in indonesia were the fucking reason the dutch and the portuguese were able to dominate the markets

It should never have happened. It'd spare me the bullshit from SJWs and stormfags

Not really . They had Iron you trucking mongoloid and Ironsmithing was the reason the Bantu expansion existed and many African societies did make use of a wide variety of metals like gold, copper iron and steel.

>A redrawn boarder does not mean that you will lose all the resources on your territory.

If nigeria lost Biafra it would lsoe all it's oil.

Ethioia fought to hold on to Eritrea becuase it was it's sole access to the Red Sea amongst other issues.

Sudan wanted South Sudan and committed judicatories to hold onto the oil.

Relying on exporting resources is unstable also. Once the price takes a dive your nation budget takes a huge hit and diversifying takes longer. Also other nations can fuck with resource prices on top of other things fucking up trade.

Civilian governments should have been given about as much autonomy as they had in real life, maybe Portugal, Rhodesia and South Africa should have been placed under more pressure to give equal rights to blacks.

The transfer of power to the military should have been more gradual with European troops leaving ~20 years later than they did so national armies could be developed, maybe 30 years in some places to protect them until the cold war ended, though a strict timetable might be a political necessity. This would also deter military coups.

Cooperation between different countries was also important to cut off supply routes to Africa's interior.

The problem is Europe didn't want to get dragged into war in Africa, except for fascist Portugal of course, but their goals were counterproductive. It was easy to use liberals to push for both autonomy and military withdrawal as opposed to providing support for the newly independent countries. Even though socialist governments were abound in Europe they still viewed themselves as a big bad wolf like they were in the past, the idea that Europe might be the lesser evil was seen as a kind of blasphemy or some conspiracy to prolong colonialism, not a cold hard reality. As a result millions died in pointless wars and 100s of millions suffered in poverty at a time when new technology could have allowed them far greater standards of living.

>fascist Portugal

t. revisionist historian

>Genocide is actually a really great idea if it manages to succeed. Its only bad if the victim survives long enough for the pendulum to swing and leave you with a bunch of whiners.
Face it some people will always be left. I mean what the Americans did with the natives was very thorough and they're still here today.

No we should have created a giant wall around the Congo Rainforest and dump every single nigger in Africa into it, with all that vast space they can have fun being niggers still the suns blows up inside that wall, who knows what insane myths they would make up about that wall.

user you do realize colonies are literally the property of their home country right?

>Another reason Africa is so shit and stagnant today is due to the huge amounts
niggers

Literally any race in Africa would make it a more livable place, Africa is the most hellish continent on earth because it has the most psychotic and feral and mankind dwelling within it.

You literally cant explain it, blacks always make hellholes where they exist even out of Africa.

It literally borderline Facism.

>Civilian governments should have been given about as much autonomy as they had in real life,

what do you mean by this?

Except historically there have been black countries that were both stable and relatively prosperous.

Those don't count because >arbitrary reason.

Yes negro lands are stable but the natives are stil unhinged deranged wild animals that make living in them absolute hell. Prosperous is a meme since Africa is a resource load, the Japs had fucking nothing yet still managed to succeed.

Who hurt you Jimmy?

>Yes negro lands are stable but the natives are stil unhinged deranged wild animals that make living in them absolute hell
The casualties in wars that took place in Western Africa pre-slave trade were absolutely minuscule compared to those of Europe at around the same time. Not only that, but cities like Timbuktu, Kilwa, Mogadishu etc. were large enough to attract people from all over the Islamic world
>Prosperous is a meme since Africa is a resource load, the Japs had fucking nothing yet still managed to succeed
Except it wasn't. Owning a slave (which in much of Africa was basically like owning a house servant) for example was a fairly common practice even in rural farming communities. It was not anarchy, people could rely on being effectively governed.

Japan was lucky in that it was on the other side of the world, almost totally isolated from the majority of Europe. It's circumstances compared to that of much of Africa are hardly comparable.

>The casualties in wars that took place in Western Africa pre-slave trade were absolutely minuscule compared to those of Europe at around the same time.
Rwanda genocide almost reached 1 million kills and THAT WAS WITH ONLY CUTLASSES.

The total number of black americans killed by other niggers since the ending of Segregation is probably in the millions by now seeing as how each nigger infested city racks up over 200 murders a year.

I dont care about East African niggers I care about the Bantu subhumans we took into the New World and are currently fucking up everything.
>Japan was lucky in that it was on the other side of the world
Japan has constant wars with Korea and lots of in fighting it was hardly ever in Peace until the Tokugawa Shogunate.

>Rwanda genocide almost reached 1 million kills and THAT WAS WITH ONLY CUTLASSES.
... We're talking about pre-colonial Africa. Everyone knows modern Africa is violent
>
The total number of black americans killed by other niggers since the ending of Segregation is probably in the millions by now seeing as how each nigger infested city racks up over 200 murders a year.

Again, we're talking about Africa, not America.
>I dont care about East African niggers I care about the Bantu subhumans we took into the New World and are currently fucking up everything.

The Bantu are one of many African ethnic groups and certainly not one of the only ones that were taken to the new world. Likewise, the Bantu expanded across the southern half of the continent is because they were under threat by their larger and more advanced neighbors to the north.

>Japan has constant wars with Korea and lots of in fighting it was hardly ever in Peace until the Tokugawa Shogunate.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with colonialism which is why Africa is the way it is now.

> Japan has constant wars with Korea and lots of in fighting it was hardly ever in Peace until the Tokugawa Shogunate.
Sure, but Japan was for centuries able to largely control the terms of its engagement with the West rather than being conquered.

>african nation states
source?

the slave trade happened before colonialism

>le ebin stone age meme

With the exception of a few hunter gatherer races, Africa was on average either pastoralist or agriculturalist Bronze/Iron Age.

>literally every race

Aboriginal Australians, Papua New Guineas, Polynesians (in some areas), half of the indigenous populations in the Americas, Negritos/Melanesians, etc

You really think all of these people could live in Africa and do better? You're mentally retarded.