Colonialism

Why is colonialsm and imperialism thougth to be so much worse than any other conquest?

> Why is colonialsm and imperialism thougth to be so much worse than any other conquest?

Qualitatively, no, it isn't that much worse. However, when "quantity" is accounted for, all the little indignities are sufficient to add up to a giant horror story - the processes of colonialism and imperialism as we are familiar with in a Modern Era context enabled the rise of not only one, but multiple empires - Britain, France, Spain, Portugal.

It's not the individual acts carried out by colonialist powers, it's the sheer quantity of it - think of all the atrocities of the Mongols, except carried out be multiple empires. By the end of the 19th Century, there hardly were any indepedent non-European states left.

because it was largely used to funnel resources out of the colonies to enrich people not living there.
Everyone masturbates over roads and railways but they weren't used to connect population centres but for resource extraction. Former empires would always settle and assimilate into the local society but colonialism always maintained that distance while harping on about moral superiority.

There were hardly any independent European nations left too. Most of different ethnicities and nstions were absorbed into the imperialist powers. This is also why it really grinds my gears when people talk about EUROPEAN cololnial atrocities, as if the Polish, Slovak, Hungarian or Finnish etc. were complicit in them.

Mordern ideas of racism and how you should act with your fellow man. It's heavily looked down upon because of the disregard of the rights of another and the uprooting of their culture and territory etc. it gradually became more looked down upon especially in the US with civil rights movements and also people learning about atrocities like the Belgian Congo or some of the most cruel acts against others which occurred in colonies like unit 731 in Manchukuo. People began to think how wrong it was the exploit people and strip them of the right to a sovereign nation. At least that's how I think.

because it involves blacks and blacks complain, pressured on by the media. Meanwhile almost noone knows about the rwandan genocide

>Everyone masturbates over roads and railways but they weren't used to connect population centres but for resource extraction
That makes no sense. First of all, population centers are needed to handle those resources. For example coastal cities where resources are shipped off from or geographic impasses where transportation is simple. Second off, population centers naturally form around opportunities.

In history there is always the people who fucks and the people who are fucked.
Colonialism and imperialism is hated by a lot of people because imagine that someone goes into your, country plunder it, kill your family to does it that's what happened some people plundering other nations, look out how Africa is now, is a crap, if someone don't go there and plundered the continent i think it wouldn't be so bad nowadays

Because leftists hate strength and power.

Moral reasoning, colonialism is just human nature conquering weaker tribes and taking their resources away from them to benefit your own tribe.

Africa was beyond shit before colonialism, the only reason there are metallic buildings in Africa is due to colonialism. Even modern Nigeria is better than any african kingdom before colonialism.

The gap between Africa and the rest of the world and the gap now is much much wider user.

>Meanwhile almost noone knows about the rwandan genocide

Are you retarded, like legit retarded?

>This
Balkans are made fucked up today due to the competing Imperial powers that sought regional sovereignty.

That's because the rest of the world got way better, while Africa only improved a little. Without colonialism, most of Africa wouldn't have improved, at all.

Because it's what we in modern times think is the worse due to proximity in time. Does the normal person care about what happened 500 years ago in India? No.

>That's because the rest of the world got way better, while Africa only improved a little. Without colonialism, most of Africa wouldn't have improved, at all.

You make it seem like being colonized is the only way to develop user.

That was the age of Akbar the Great, which is praised in India so many would know about it there.

Because the people who suffered under it and their progeny are still alive, the effects of it are still pretty blatant and persist (Irish as a language nearly died, other places got the cultures heavily damaged and negative beliefs about many peoples pretty much permanently affixed), it's documented and studied even if people try to brush it over or governments dispose the records and kept others secret illegally

This. A good 60% of the world was cut up between the UK, Russia and France.

Not him but I've literally never heard a normie even mention it in passing.

>Meanwhile almost noone knows about the rwandan genocide
False

Conquest.
>YOUR LAND IS MINE.
>HAHAHAHA
>BUT IF YOU WANT TO JOIN OUR EMPIRE, FEEL FREE.
>years later:Conquered cunts are involved in the life and decision making of their parent empire. Even consider themselves part of that Empire.

Colonialism and Imperialism.
2 versions
Version 1
>YOUR LAND IS MINE
>Wipe out natives.
>Plant your own people.
Version 2
>YOUR LAND IS MINE
>YOU ARE OUR SLAVES/SECOND CLASS CITIZENS
>YOU CANNOT BE CONSIDERED ONE OF US.
>Years later: They're still doing the same shit and are increasingly getting pissed off.

Colonial Empires aren't real Empires desu. They're just states with pet lands which it uses to either leech resources out of or have captive markets. Real empires include all their subjects in the state-building.

Although arguably the Spanish Empire was a real empire despite being a colonial empire. As far as they were concerned they were creating a new, bigger, spain, and included natives in the process so long as they were 1) subjects of the king and 2) catholic.

Because most cases there's no need to?

This. Frenchman for example were Roman citizens, but the Algerians were never French.

>Colonial Empires aren't real Empires desu

Eat shit.

You mean Gauls became Roman citizens. "French" as a thing started from Charlemagne.

European empires were kind of hypocritical, in the sense that they wanted to be nationalistic and imperial at the same time.

"Gaul" is a Germanic word meaning "(Romanised) Foreigner". The people of the province were Gallic or Celtic, not "Gauls".

You must be so young. It's all anyone spoke about 20 years ago.

Mostly what people said was "Wow we should really do something!". But sadly / happily for Rwanda, they don't have any oil so the world just left them to sort their shit out by themselves. Like how ten years earlier, everyone was all "Oh wow we should really do something to help those Bosniaks! Buuuuut.... they don't have any oil, so maybe just fuck 'em?"

Because the left uses it to explain why other cultures are less advanced than European civilization. They say that colonialism so damaged these cultures that it stunted them permanently.

In some cases this is actually true, but the only one I can really think of is China, where they really did get fucked by the imperial powers. Russia to some extent as well, although that story goes way back to the early Prussians.

No, rather I believe he means that while African colonization was certainly brutal, it nevertheless introduced many Southern and Central Africans to the technology and governmental structures necessary to increase quality of life and socio economic development to unheard of levels in this region, if these benefits can actually be seen as a net gain considering the damage that colonization of Africa brought to the ethnic, monarchical, and tribal structures that previously governed the region.

>rwa

>Like how ten years earlier,

Not really. The U.S./NATO intervened and brought it to an end.

Still hated for it to this day by nationalist Serbs and their crackpot pan-Slavic brethren.

>t.infant

The US intervened to drive the Serbs out of Kosovo, the Bosnian war raged for ten years without anyone doing anything.

It's fairly recent and it's the last "ancient" thing that happened before the world war, after that everyone started investing in memetics and colonialism was the easiest thing to harp on.

Colonialism and Imperialism had these big ideas attached to them. Educating the people outside of the industrial revolution, bringing them medicine, culture, industry, and God. It is similar to the crusade for democracy that has been ongoing for a few decades in the west-high ideals betrayed by reality. When western civilization saw the reality of colonialism, like in the Rape of the Congo, there was a backlash against the ideology. It will be replaced with the next high minded idea people betray in the west.

Your mistake is in thinking that national policy has to be conducted with morals in mind

It only needs to appear as if it does to the general public. The reality of it can never be fully idealistic.

>it nevertheless introduced many Southern and Central Africans to the technology and governmental structures necessary to increase quality of life and socio economic development to unheard of levels in this region, if these benefits can actually be seen as a net gain considering the damage that colonization of Africa brought to the ethnic, monarchical, and tribal structures that previously governed the region.

The benefits were actually very scarce. You can't really say you brought government structure to a place when they had no ability to partake or be a part of it in anyway whether as a politician, member of the government or a voter. Independence was pretty much them just actually getting a government they can actually be a part of rather then an order from top "word of God". The tech that was brought in being very limited and restricted from the locals.

I'm not talking about morality though.

It's something with very practical implications, in fact it doomed the european empires.
In empires, conquered peoples tend to adopt the conqueror's ideas way of life eventually. In this case, nationalism, which kills the empire.

It infantalises entire nations. It's the political equivalent of helicopter parents, except it's not even your parents, it's someone you've never heard of.

Botswana has a decent governed over a much much shorter period of finding it's footing with democracy because it went from native traditional rule into a democratic government that it changed into and the range it traditionally ruled over matches the one it currently has. It went from a progression from one into the other of it's own accord as compared to other parts of Africa in the scramble actually had more of a control over itself as an entity even when it became a British protectorate (and due to it's lack of wealth it stayed once).

it's not thought of as worse than any other genocide, just happens to be the biggest indiscriminate genocide in the history of humanity on a global scale

They love a tyrant the same color as them like Mugabe but an Anglo-Saxon governor who sends the sons of nawabs and Indian merchants to be educated at Cambridge and Oxford and have all the opportunities in life of an English gentleman is apparently a devil with horns.

thinks it is great when resources are funneled 20 miles away to a palace but apparently it is a heinous crime to reinvest it in a new industry making great strides and progress that happens to be 5000 miles away.

What is the key difference here? It is so obvious I need not spell it out.

Leftists are actually pretty disgusing human beings once you get under their skin. They suffer from the same in-group mentality as the most brainwashed neurotic Klansman yet are so deep into their sense of moral superiority they never question these feelings. They will never be happy with people merely judging others by the content of their character, they have to keep pushing and demandin special privileges for themselves.

In the U.S., there was a very serious intent to liberate places like Cuba and the Philippines on an ideological basis that can be traced back to Jefferson's vision of an empire of liberty to rend exploited colonies out of the hands of Europe. Intervention was justified on the basis of self-determination and a civilizing mission, however that vision was easily corrupted by economic and self-serving interests. Very little local reinvestment or broad economic development went into Cuba and the place became a wealthy tourist destination on top of being a tobacco farm that controlled by a few wealthy interests controlling the Cuban government. The United States federal government became mostly concerned with using these places to project American naval power, which could strengthen it militarily against the UK and other powers as well a protect overseas trade. Most Americans didn't really care about what happened in these places, because at that time it was what would be considered a developing nation, so people were mostly self concerned. There wasn't a strong middle class with their primary needs met to become ideologically concerned with people abroad.

Even if they were, the communications complexity of administering and developing a colony at that time would have left it ripe for opportunists to exploit. Oversight in our own country is hard enough today, despite a bureaucracy strengthened by years of centralization, advancements in telecommunications and strengthening of public oversight by the media. Can you imagine how hard it would be back then to make a concerted effort to civilize these places overseas? You'd have to set up departments mired by your own country's politics to oversee the development of a foreign land, relying on slow communications technology necessitating a certain degree of autonomy for the military, political and business interests you rely on, all tempted to use that lack of oversight for their own gain.

Lol what a clown.

All colonialism doesn't amount to a quarter of the deaths the Mongols managed in one man's lifetime

I don't know why cunts like exist and blame the demise of European colonial empires on MUH LEFTIES when there's a huge number of anticolonial revolts pulled off by nationalist, religious, various kinds of old-guard, and even emigre entities.

Because they were done by white people.

I think the hilarious thing is that he thinks that the colonised would take that shit for any longer or be that submissive because even then there's a limit. Especially with contact with the outside world.

Like no one wants to live in a system like that because its fucking shit and it fucks with you in head and in spirit. How the fuck are you supposed to be loyal to an entity that treats you like garbage even if you fought for them, How are you supposed to live in a system where you are honest to god treated like an Npc in an rpg or some other game.

White people are the ONLY race on the entire planet, in the history of this planet, to develop and instill guilt or remorse over the negative aspects of the world of their ancestors, and so colonialism gets inflated above the crimes of all other races. That's really all there is to it.

Like living in a system where you have to jump throw hoops just to be "integrated" and be treated as an equal citizen when some illiterate fuck from the mainland can come in and gets the shit that you had to earn and isn't even guaranteed and cemented for you or your descendants for free? Why should I have to earn my proof of humanity and still get treated poorly and viewed as a threat to the colony when that guy gets it right out the fucking door for being European? Fuck that shit no wonder people hated it.

Read up until the whole muh lefties part.