Is imperialism that bad?I am asking this because they,(the empires: English, Spanish,Portuguese,German,etc.),they had colonies and "evolved" their colonies, made them better (New Zealand,Brazil, Africa, etc.)
They had colonies and "evolved" their colonies, made them better (New Zealand,Brazil, Africa, etc.)
Okay, they had many opponents oppressed them, but, eating on the Aztecs, they sarcrified people every day, TAKING THE HEART.
So,is imperialism that cancer that people say it is?
yes.
No, but if you remove that people would have to accept that Africa is the way it is mostly because of africans.
Nevermind that even if we accept imperialism = supreme evil by the beginning of the 16th century europe was already far more advanced and rich than africa.
>Spain
The only thing they brought was smallpox, corruption and negroes.
Imperialism being bad or good is stupid.
Imperialism was a thing and that's a fact.
There was no way for it not to happen with the technology gap.
Basically any argument for it being 'bad' is simply
>they should have keep their hands to themselves and been good boys
As if that ever happens ever in history.
Any time anyone has an advantage, they use it.
a better question would be
>Could Imperialism ever not have happened?
>>Could Imperialism ever not have happened?
depends on what way you look at it.
Imperialism got a big boost when the BEIC became successful way too fast.
You had stuff like the VoC losing to the travancore kingdom and generally being alright traders in India.
>Could Imperialism ever not have happened?
Good question.
No.
t. indio tira flechas
>Is imperialism bad?
Yes.
The assumption that the colonists made the natives lives better is dangerous, more often than not, It will have made their lives worse
those indios tira flechas are the only reason your language is relevant Manolo
Imperialism is only beneficial when it serves to replace the local population with your own, otherwise it's generally a bad system that only encourages exploitation and wastefulness
Yes because then people learned about Europe and moved here.
>Still no cape to cairo railway
>Africa is the way it is mostly because of africans.
>Not taking into account the sahara desert blocking sub-saharan africa off from the eurasian trade networks for all human history until colonisation, leaving them centuries behind
>Not taking into account the geography and tsetse flies hampering intra-african development
>what is the Horn of Africa
>what is west Africa
But the outcome was the place being better
a region with such a low amount of coastlines and few seeways to other countries in comparison to landmass that it lacks the geographical circumstances that are necessary to allow for easy cultural interchange, trade and thus technical and cultural progress.
mediterranians on the other hand were driven forward through easier exchange of knowledge and technology, when everyone could simply complementary buy what he failed to develope by themselves.
imperialists tried to force civilazations into a direction they wanted without giving a shit about the cultural circumstances.
they did a lot of damage through economical manipulations, which has thrown many countries into a state where being technologically inferior savages would offer a better live.
Yeah, but not for the natives themselves. Took a long time until they also had some of the benefits the metropolis had.
and even then, it's still pretty much a priviledge in many places
How can you speak for them? That fact that people all over Africa immigrate to the west disagrees.
under that assumption imperialism still exists rampantly
Thing is you can judge the success of something like imperialism, communism, capitalism, etc by how much it made life better for the average man in the streets. And most of the time, people were living better before they were colonialized then during the process of Decolonialization.
Just because the process of pulling out was done poorly and led to widespread conflict and death, doesn't mean the decision to invade these areas in the first place was correct.
they immigrate to the west because additionally to cargill being a shitty monopol-capitalist (also thanks to imperialists for getting negro farmers into a viscous cycle of dependency), they have to deal with terrorists, climate change, desease etc
and therefore pinochet made chile a better country than before during his reign?
averages alone can be pretty misleading.
Nah, because his economic gains were concentrated inequally, I'm talking random dude on the street. And living in fear of being thrown off a helicopter isn't really an improvement imo
>le Africa is hell on earth meme
You realize western propaganda has an agenda making Africa seem like a place of constant starvation and misery, right? The people there live, laugh and love like anywhere else even if they don't have as much material wealth as the west.
>western propaganda
for what purpose though
the white man's burden is a pretty pervasive meme.
Same reason why calcutta is supposed to be some blighted city struck by god but generally has better cost of living than cities like mumbai or delhi.
>living hell
people leave their country for much less though.
you have to keep in mind, the people who run away are just the ones that can actually aford the travel (even if it is under inhuman circumstances)
it's less of a white man's burden, but more about what said.
keep in mind that you cant just say that only one of those factors alone is responsible
t.indio tira flechas
economically it is in the long run