European imperialism

Native Americans dying off was mostly an accident, but one for which Europeans are still responsible. Still hardly anything worth feeling guilty over considering considering the intent of the Europeans hardly mattered at all.

Africa was already carved up, I'm not even sure what you're suggesting here. That there was some kind of African Union and all the tribes existed in harmony before the evil white man arrived? Never mind that Africa had always had contact with various European and Asian civilizations, the northern part of the continent anyway. And in any case why should the Europeans have spared Africa from conquest? They did not even spare each other. Why would Africans be exempt? You see a continent with vast riches divided up into tribal territories, all of them pathetically weak in comparison to yours. Ripe for conquest. And if you do not seize the chance one of your rivals in Europe will, and with the added riches of those lands they might pose a threat to you in the future.

This whole notion of condemning Europe for its ruthless exploitation of the world only reveals a double standard. It's fine for Europe to wage endless wars within its own borders, but to turn that aggression on the world is somehow worse. It also reveals a subtle contempt for the rest of the world. An assumption that they are too weak and inept to have ever stood a chance against Europeans, that because of their obvious superiority Europeans should have gone easy on them. It is a lazy, arrogant kind of pity that I find disgusting.

If anything we non europeans could learn so much from them desu, Its competition and they're the winners, only this time we have to make sure that we win, and do the same thing as they did to us, Im looking forward to asian century

Intra-european wars are no better or worse than other regional conflicts, but European exploitation of non-Europeans effectively crippled them far longer than other conquests have, and is still continued under the guise of intervention, that was the gist of my OP. I don't find it a double standard because it's one thing to conquer a people once and another to continuously justify knocking them down ad continuum until they develop in a way the west likes. Not every country can be south korea or china.

Just ask yourself how many more decades it will be until the middle east stabilizes. I am of the belief that intervention is only prolonging strife and warfare. Imagine if the dark ages were needlessly extended because it was convenient for other powers.

>chinese dynasties fell but new dynasties got them back on track relatively quickly
isn't that exactly what's happened? The commies are the new dynasty.

Hard to pin-point. Could be the Boer concentration camps. Or basically anything Belgium ever did.

You could loosely view them as the new dynasty but the transition was slow and painful, compared to other dynasty changes.
Despite being terrible, the scale was limited. Think in terms of dis-utilitarian, the greatest harm to the greatest amount of people, including future generations, if they still exist.

Why so ?

>dark ages
So you're just memeing?

>Hong Kong after decades of European imperialism
Developed and rich

>Singapore after decades of European imperialism
Developed and Rich

>Qatar after decades of European imperialism
Developed and rich

>Africa after decades of European imperialism
A poor shithole

Really makes you think.

>small strategic ports with good administration are more succesful than a huge empty continent with harsh terrain and no infrastructure
who would have thought?

>inb4 muh qatar isnt a port
it's a tiny state with a lot of oil and the means to exploit it, your arguments are retarded

There's nothing wrong with it. Strong countries conquer weak ones. Sometimes, those strong countries turn into weak ones. Sometimes weak countries band together to be, combined, strong. It's an eternal process, and forces countries to keep seeking to be stronger.

This. The recent mass immigration and cuckholding of white countries feels like the beginnings of divine punishment for colonialism.

>Hong Kong rich
After crackers stole a fuckload of money from China and introduced the beginnings of globalization, now China isn't 100% self sustained in resources and economics.

Fuck you and die.

>it's white guilt apologist not immigrants or minorities doing this
wew even need white people to fight for them on their own issues

shut up Brazil
you're always whining

>Killing off north americans
Horrible. Large part of it was unavoidable though.
>carving up Africa
It's nothing.
>milking India dry
Nothing special about india.
Preposterous.
>playing war in the middle east
The middle east is somehow too sacred for war?
>and turning China into opium addicts
Genuinely fucked up.

>Was this the most fucked up thing to ever happen?

Definitly
Europeans conquering and civilizing brown subhumans was 1,000 times worse than, for exemple, Mongols conquering and raping half of Asia without providing anything good in exchange

that's really spineless what you are doing

But if you follow that principle all the way back, the west has gotta give all their shit back to the French, who have to give their shit back to the Romans and some Islamic places who both have to give their shit back to the Greeks.

Obv, the timeline isn't 100% factual but the point is, you follow that dumbass hurr durr argument and all you'll end up with is a buncha niggers in africa who own all the things because it all started there.

Make a proper argument or
Get. Out.

nobody owes anything to the africans, and I mean anything
>niggers in africa who own all the things because it all started there
nobody outside of the cucked west actually believes that BS lol

This. It always comes down to wanting all the positives in this age while completely demonizing the process that brought these palaces into the fold of modern civilization. Even the African-American descendants of slaves are far better off than their African counterparts. It was mutually beneficial in the long term. The resources pillaged fromeven the most heavily exploited areas allowed Western nations to develop technology that those same regions benefit from now.

You can't eat your cake and have it too.

Don't forget dumb and violent

Awww the classic "at least you're not starving in Africa dying of aids" argument.

his rite you now

Nuclear stand-off between India and Pakistan maybe. Smart money's on them for the first nuclear exchange.

ITT: brown people writing blogs because they're mad our ancestors enriched your grandmothers

I think it stands. Find me one African who would exchange a past of slavery for a life in an America. Find one African-American would scrub their past and lose residency in America. Only a delusional person would choose proud heritage over life in arguably the greatest nation the world has ever produced.

African who wouldnt*

>would you rather stay with your homeland and be exploited for generations, or would you rather come with us and be exploited for generations?
Well when you put it like that...

Exploitation in a region where you have no hope and poverty means youre just a dreg an the only people who champion you are soft-hearted foreigners who wouldn't risk coming to your home if pressed. Or live in America as a second class citizen but on a curve of progression. Hmmm, despair vs "whitey is mean"

I never noticed that the image has NatSoc imagery. It wasn't my intention to use that.

The point is that both choices are terrible and forced upon by external forces, so to call the exchange "mutually beneficial" or to say the victims should be glad since "it could have been worse" is disingenuous and frames it in a way that absolves the perpetrator of responsibility.

Had Africa fallen into chaos on its own, that would be a different story.

Back in the days there was no morality only might. If you have might, you fuck shit up, if you don't your shit gets fucked up. If you have sticks and rocks and end up against men in steel, you'll get your shit fucked up big time.

"Compassion" and "morality" was only expected amongst more brotherly peoples.

Hey guys, remember when the Mongol conquest didn't result in anything good?

but the Alt Right are the biggest crybabies for that EXACT reason they claim genocide and cuckoldry

show me one black person crying about a current day genocide

>muh freedom of religion
kys

>comparing geopolitical replacement with wars

based retard

Is Veeky Forums one of the boards with the lowest IQ avg? I think it is.

Black people whine constantly, they think that their failure as a race is due to "racism" and as such spend their days complaining.

How do you feel about Alexander? Rome's rise? I'm not saying these were good people at all, but you can't discount the good things that happened because of their conquest. It greases wheels and unites efforts and resources. It's something we can see large scale benefits of now because we aren't living in that time anymore.

>How do you feel about Alexander? Rome's rise?
They both greatly benefited humanity.

Unlike the conquests of that steppenigger Genghis, who destroyed everything in his wake and actually caused many areas of the globe to regress, and is undergoing an undeserved revisionist reevaluation by white historians who want to prove how totally not eurocentric and progressive they are.

I understand your skepticism of revisionist history- that's not what I mean. I don't mean to directly say the Mongols are on the same level as those civilizations, but empire has some specific benefits that you can see pretty much across the board. I simply wanted to emphasize that both of these issues consist of a more powerful military force subjugating and in some cases genociding peoples over entire continents, with differing degrees of success. Genghis fucked up his succession, the #1 problem with any of these super muscular conqueror leaders, so some places didn't get any of that benefit, while others that survived were less like what you reference. I'd compare his conquest more to Alexander, in that a huge swath of hostile territory was ceded to a bunch of people with competing views who are known to kill each other in political succession.

Genghis was an ignorant, illiterate nigger who went from place to place reducing cities to dust to rape women and steal their valuables.

Alexander was one of the most educated people living at the time, taught by Aristotle himself, and had a vision of uniting the civilized world under the Hellenic banner.

You can't compare the two.

I'm not, and you're absolutely missing the point. What I argued was that the Mongol holdings that remained stable, mainly China, still had the benefit of empire, and there were positives to the Mongol conquests, which if you'll remember is what you initially denied. As I've said before, their character is not great in either case even if you want to start playing character politics- but again that's just sidestepping the actual question.

Well yes, and there were also many positive things about the genocides committed by nazi germany.

The point is to weigh the positive against the negative and draw a conclusion about the overall impact.

Germany didn't get far enough to see any benefits, and the recourse of the rest of the world destroyed any potential benefit. I don't mean to get into silly analogies though.

No Japanese Imperialism was worse.