Why to Blacks freak out about African colonization when actual large scale conquest of the continent only last around...

That image is so funny. Geographically speaking. Most of Europe had nothing to do with colonization of Africa. If you want to be technical, only Spain, France, the U.K., Germany, Italy, Portugal, Belgium and to a lesser extent Denmark and Sweden had anything to do Afric.

Thats a dogshit argument, thats all western Europe. Better argument, 99% of europeans had nothing to do with colonialism and saw zero benefit from it.

> saw zero benefits from it
Because they don't drink coffee and eat bananas, right?

>implying global modern day trade has anything to do with colonialism

From where do you think your iPhones comes from? They are mined in darkest parts of Africa.

They ate products from Africa back then too. Nobodies saying every Western European personally became rich off diamond minds in Africa but to imply 99% of Europeans saw absolutely zero benefits is false. Africans saw a lot of benefits too.

The Chinese make them for wages far beyond what they'd make if global trade didn't exist and they all had to be subsistence farmers.

Since when did the Ottomans control Sudan?

Yeah your right they didnt for 200 years till coffee was traded with independent nations. And even until like 50 years ago fresh nonindigenous fruit was pretty far out of the reach of the average european.

The top 1% of European society was almost the exclusive beneficiary for the vast majority of colonialism.

Normal 1800s villager hardly ate bananas or drank coffee you retard. Besides it's not even a proper bebefit. Name at least one thing that truly increased QoL for a normal citizeb in colonialist nations.

Because the moment a country does good for itself /pol/ magically discovers they were actually aryan all along.

Very few Africans benefited from colonialism, people speak of roads but never talk about the roads existing not to facilitate the ease of travel for average folk but rather to ease the movement of raw export materials.

Among those who benefitted it was normally the mixed race elite and the children of the biggest tribal or kingdom leaders.

However I must say in terms of presence, influence and power Europeans have influenced and indirectly control most of the African coast from Arguin to Madagascar and the Swahili Islands for many centuries.

Scramble for Africa was the crescendo rather than the beginning of colonial rule.

Africa was a money sink. The wealth of India + the Dominions propped Britain's thousands of hectares of desert and savanna up.

Tbf in Nigeria Igboland was profitable however the Hausaland was not and they combined the two. It was them and France having a pissing match but strategically speaking Europeans all exploited the most fertile and lucrative regions of the colonies they took at the cost of it's native peoples.

> what is sugar
> what is cotton
> what is tobacco
They all were grown by African slaves.

>Europeans
More lie Spaniards and Brits

Because now it's the "late game" and you are SUPER far behind with a huge gap to bridge.

>99% of europeans had nothing to do with colonialism and saw zero benefit from it.

Lol really user. You had access to colony resources for dirt cheap for manufacturing at home and the ability to SELL THAT SHIT to other Euros many of which never existed or very limited.

>Africa was a money sink. The wealth of India + the Dominions propped Britain's thousands of hectares of desert and savanna up.

Not really. Many colonies were in the black or broke even. Simply having the colony was a big boon.

People say it was massive money sink because no one bothers to check colony record or history and seeing the huge profits made in many places. MANY places were ruled extremely cheap for very little cost.

When was africas early game or mid game?

Near as I can tell they were never playing.

>roads existing not to facilitate the ease of travel for average folk but rather to ease the movement of raw export materials.
Why does that matter?
Are you claiming that Africans were barred from using the roads?

Because roads that serve resources are heavily very completely different from ones that serve the needs of a nation. Just like picking up slags is different from seeking out a marriage partner.

>destroyed their culture
It was a degenerate culture of war crimes and stupidity anyway.

>They are mined in darkest parts of Africa.
And Africans in power very eagerly help abusing their countrymen to get rich.

Have you seen how colony labour polices helped spread HIV?

Yes. Then again, I would attemot to eradicate such a culture too. Maybe save the few who are willing to be civilized.

>Look at this average joe, you can now work in my factory using imported goods

Again only the rich got any benefit from this. Hell the people in Europe that produced raw goods for sale would have lost out big time.

You think that they'd bring in goods that Euros can grow to Europe form the colonies? They brought shit that could not be obtained in Europe. Why else did you think they introduce cocoa to Western Africa or cotton growing being well known in Egypt and Sudan among other African colonies?

Why the fuck do you care how they culture are. They were there for thousands and thousands of year. Why do you want to inflict harm on people that have no influence on you because of some ideal of culture?

>it's only 80 years of genocide, rape and enslavement not 500 ugh just stop freaking out about it already gosh

WE WUZ SIX GORILLIONZ N SHEIT

>I should be angry that I live in a first world country
>my ancestors being tortured allowed me to not die soon after birth in Africa
Deliciously bizarre

>trillions
more like gorillions

Europeans didn't "gneocide and rape" any more than the africkangz did to themselves. In fact Europeans protected them more than they were before. No more cattle raids and wiping out entire tribes.

Because as a result of colonization, black people were pressed into slavery and shipped in cargo boats to the new world. Apparently being forced into chattel slavery isn't the most enjoyable thing, perhaps that has something to with why they're so uppit- uh, upset?

>they stole our wealth n sheit

Wake up, crybaby. We're talking about global politics, not how to best look like a tremendous faggot.

>Because as a result of colonization, black people were pressed into slavery and shipped in cargo boats to the new world.
Are you retarded? Niggers were enslaving other niggers and arabs were enslaving niggers before Europeans had colonies. It was European colonization which ended the slave trade.

>blacks were only enslaved when whites came

Wasnt a great introduction to the outside world

>how they culture are
I wouldn't, except their culture is destroying my country from the inside.

>slavery in africa was anywhere near as bad as slavery in the Americas

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Brazil

i will remind you that as a slave in Africa you enjoyed a fair degree of rights, being sent to Brazil was literally a death sentence

>perhaps that has something to with why they're so
No one alive today was enslaved. My ancestors were slaves, can I be "uppity" now?

What do you mean with Denmark and Sweden?

a slave is a slave friendo

>blacks bitching, moaning, and complaining because something unpleasant happened to people with similar melanin levels to their own hundreds of years ago
I think it's just a black things honestly

The cruelest irony is that the dregs of West Africa who got sold into slavery in North America were the lucky ones. As absolutely awful as the USA was for blacks for most of history, life as a post-emancipation black in America was still miles ahead of life as a black subject of the British or French empires. Or later, as a citizen of one of the basket case countries that sprouted up later. The difference is especially pronounced comparing them today.

Same goes for slaves shipped to Mexico actually.

>stole all the richness

>As absolutely awful as the USA was for blacks for most of history, life as a post-emancipation black in America was still miles ahead of life as a black subject of the British or French empires.

Not really. Being black in America was very extremely shit post emancipation so even if you lived in a society that is better, the bullshit you dealt with as a Black American was complete hell.

Hell it's like you clearly live in a better off nation but you are actively denied that, your government give no shit about you and treated like a second class citizen or worse and the whites are aggressive as hell instead of plain.

>Not really. Being black in America was very extremely shit post emancipation so even if you lived in a society that is better, the bullshit you dealt with as a Black American was complete hell.
If people minded their own business they didn't suffer any problems. They had the lives of peasants. Like alot of people back then.

I thought they had tiny colonies in Africa but I might be wrong.

That's the most delusional post I have ever read lol.

Not an argument.

Europeans never really colonized Africa, save for South Africa.

Africa always has been and still is full of Africans

No one can explain why.

Ethiopia still scores negro level IQ consistently contradicting its past of having civilization.

>Why do Jews freak out about the Nazis when they only ruled Germany for twelve years? You'd think the Nazis had killed 12 million Jews the way they talk about it
>Why do Ukrainians freak out about Stalin when the Holodomor only lasted one year? You'd think the Soviets had starved them for 10 years the way they talk about it
>Why do Armenians freak out about the genocide when it only lasted for eight years? You'd think the Turks invaded Russian Armenia and killed everyone there the way they talk about it

The length of time passed shouldn't exonerate the atrocities committed.

*Picked by african slaves

Only a small portion of present day Ethiopians are actually the posterity of the historic Ethiopians from the Bible, for example. In the 19th century Ethiopia expanded it's empire to include the borders and tribes it has today.

Because their cultures are similar to what our culture used to be like 60,000 B.C meaning they are primitive and need to go away.

>two genocides which weren't any different from anything else going on in that time period
>hurr durr whitey so eval
>We special

Spoilers: it's because IQ is limited by environment

They did colonize it idiot.. Settler colonies aren't the only type and white Europeans DID settler in colonies outside of South Africa just as a reminder.

Take the case of Vietnam, Thailand and Myanmar. All very similar in terrain and resources. One Indian influenced culture, one Chinese influence culture and one is a mix of influences. Similar populations too.

Burma was fucked by the British and Vietnam was fucked by a lot of people. Thailand was never colonized. You look at today and surprise surprise Thailand is more than twice as rich as Vietnam and 4 times as rich as Burma (in terms of $GDP/Capita) also has better education and sanitation and health. It also got a better railway system than even India (people always like to point to the rail as Britains biggest contribution to India as if it was not possible to get that without colonization).

So fuck anyone who says colonization was in any way good or non-destructive for the subjugated.

Here's the hyperbole lol.

>fluid definitions
One thing whites are good at are psyops through language manipulation. I'll give them that.

Or maybe that's jews?

India's railways are pretty good vs the other railways ion other countries. The key thing was that Indians were able to do that shit themselves out of their own will and pocket vs other areas where the natives had no say, no influence and no ability to develop it on their own due to certain policies on rail transport.

>...Soon various native states built their own rail systems and the network spread to the regions that became the modern-day states of Assam, Rajasthan and Andhra Pradesh. The route mileage of this network increased from 1,349 kilometres (838 mi) in 1860 to 25,495 kilometres (15,842 mi) in 1880 – mostly radiating inland from the three major port cities of Mumbai, Madras, and Calcutta. Most of the railway construction was done by Indian companies. The railway line from Lahore to Delhi was done B.S.D. Bedi and Sons (Baba Shib Dayal Bedi), this included the building of the Jamuna Bridge. By 1895, India had started building its own locomotives, and in 1896 sent engineers and locomotives to help build the Uganda Railway.

what are you trying to get at? My point still stands.

Sure, but couldn't you also point to how those countries navigated the Cold War?
>Thailand gets US support
>Vietnam gets (limited) USSR/CCP support
>Burma/Myanmar isolates itself
Doesn't seem unsurprising that US-backed Thailand has a better economy than isolationist Burma/Myanmar 2bh

>he didn't mention Malaysia or Singapore

I wonder why

African colonization is a meme born of deep seated white insecurity. Just like Columbus "discovered" America.

African "colonization" is mostly just Europeans arbitrarily staking claim to large swaths of wilderness on the African continent for some odd reason, and since they control western academia it made it into the "history" books as fact with an air legitimacy.

Go to most of these "colonies" and you won't see a single white person, or even any mulatto descendants of theirs.

What is the meaning of colonization?

Can a people be said to really have colonized a place if they managed to leave absolutely no genetic imprint. I don't think so.

Campaigns, and missions, and such, absolutely, but colonization.....no.

Singapore only got good past British rule because of good government policies. Of course Britain ACTUALLY had to invest in Singapore to make it a functional port instead of putting in the absolute bare minimum.

Malaysia was basically one big plantation, Mass importation of Indians and Chinese as labourers, weakening of Malay power to the point of being a puppet figure due to treaties, Britain basically abandoned it (big point you should notice the whole Britain backing out from SE Asia in WW2 really pissed the people there hard both for Malaysia and Singapore).

Rajashtan's railways (build by the maharanas) are better than any other part of the county. Again, it corroborates my point about how the so called benefits of colonization are just about the biggest myth that most ex-colonizers believe.

Valid point. I'm not saying all of it is down to colonization but it's a big factor. It has a lasting effect on foreign policy going forward too. India was very isolationist after British rule too. Opened up finally in the 90s. The effect of colonization on a nation's psyche is immense and usually leads to bad ideas like communism and isolationism.

>he didn't mention trade based economies when comparing agrarian economies
If you compare trade based regions of Africa they tend to do better than their agrarian counterparts too. Too bad we don't have any non-colonized examples of trading cultures to compare.

You don't need your people on the ground in large numbers to colonise it. You just need to own it/make it your bitch then own it. You don't need to leave a genetic imprint at all. How do you not get the most basic definition?

>Go to most of these "colonies" and you won't see a single white person, or even any mulatto descendants of theirs.

user really?

Ethiopia is in the Saharan section of Africa meaning you need to think to live since its a fucking desert.

What if there's basically nobody there, and you you send a small team of people to get locals to dig for some gold. Then they leave. Did they colonize it? No.

Colonize literally means to settle and populate.

White people have always been scared of most of Africa, because it is lethal to them.

Dude you don't need to settle and populate an area to colonize it. If you have claim over its resources and its people pay taxes to you you've colonized it. If you want to come up with your own definition of colonization go ahead but it literally means having economic and administrative control over an area.

Because blacks legitimately think they "wuz kangz n sheeiit" not only in Africa but worldwide, so the idea of Africa being colonized by "white boiz wid li'l dicks" shatters their fragile ego.

Google "black fragility".

Definition of colony
plural colonies
1
a : a body of people living in a new territory but retaining ties with the parent state a colony of settlers
b : the territory inhabited by such a body the 13 British colonies in America

This pretty much the definition of one. You don't need to settle it but as long as they pay taxes to you, are you subjects, you represent them in international matters, you control their policies and rule them they are your colony.

Kenya is not part of Britain but as a colony it is a subject of the British Empire.

Also Kenyan trade is dictated and controlled by Britain. Britain also can control the immigration policy to and form those colonies as well.

Because people are ignorant and don't care for nothing

>as a slave in Africa you enjoyed a fair degree of rights

>Because as a result of colonization, black people were pressed into slavery
I hope this is ironic

thailand is a colony of the US.

Read a book nigger, its true

Rights as we know them are not the norm in most of Africa, slave or not.

and portuguese and french and dutch

They did. However, by the time of the Scramble they had either been conquered, sold or otherwise abandoned.

>europeans buy products and give money
>africans buy junk and give slaves
>americans buy slaves and give products
yes, the europeans are clearly the evil ones here

Is that not Egypt?