Are Europeans only successful because of imperialism and exploitation?

africa still has a fuck ton of resources

You act sarcastic yet OP's pic seems to imply the most of the supposed wealth lies in Central and Eastern Europe. These are the areas that had quite literally nothing to do with Africa.

there wasn't much in Africa worth taking tbqh. The place is relatively worthless and conquering shit there was a prestige project. Now South Asia and the Americas, that's where the money was at.

West Ukraine.

Ukraine is a second world country, mate.

China is raiding the continent and the "infrastructure" is roads and other technology to make it easier. Iirc even Zambia or Mugabe's higher ups admitted they preferred England to China.

Literally poorer than Namibia if you exclude the city of Kiev itself.

So did europe. Problem is the investments is just for the use of the investers.

What do you mean by raiding?

No, imperialism and exploitation was possible due to their success.

Taking the resources while giving little in return.

It depends how you define the whole concept. Technically speaking Ukraine is a second world country but it's hardly rich.

But now it was negotiated. They accepted this.

Dumb leftist meme. Colonies that were outside the Indies were extremely unlikely to even break even, let alone remain profitable. Protecting British colonies in North America were a huge drain for instance, that was the whole reason a more serious attempt at taxation was levied in the first place.
Sole exception was the Spanish and their gold operations, which, not sure if you've noticed, didn't work out that well for them.

>being unfair is okay if the poor country's corrupt leaders sell their people out like this

>South Korea not first world
>literal parts of the USSR are not second world

This map is retarded.

Tribes had more power in colonial Europe than people give them credit for. It's just that the tribes were so diverse and opposed to one another that people tend to forget.

Ukraine is considered second world because it was part of the Eastern Bloc. It's definitely not rich though.

...

human capital is a resource my friend

>the unique experiences of Belgian Congo defines the whole

But it's been traded for rather than extracted from colonies.

>no gold pictured in Spain or Portugal

The Eternal Iberian strikes again

One raped the other is having rough sex but with consent. This makes all the difference.

>middles east is guilt free

Of course. The Balkans, The visegrad 4, the former soviet union are all rich off African wealth despite never have taken any african wealth. Meanwhile the Middle East which plundered plenty of African wealth never adversely effected Africa. This is liberal logic in a nutshell.

>implying we didn't do this and try to civilize them as well

China just cares about the bottom line

read: and

they didnt just get rich, without yugoslavia being in the nonaligned half of africa wouldnt have the most basic infrastructure, no electricity or phone lines definitely

>South Korea
>Third World
Was this made in 1960 or something?

I was being sarcastic when I said those places were rich. But yeah, yugoslavia did help African nations in the non-aligned movement.

>Are Europeans only successful because of imperialism and exploitation?
No, but they are more successful for it.

Nah, there are quite a bit of useful resources there. The Duch got really rich on African diamonds, Belgians got rubber from Congo, French extracted iron from Algeria, Egyptian cotton was a valuable resource for the British, there's a shitload of wood in the Congo basin etc.

But yeah, the real money was in the Americas and in Southeast Asia.

>he thinks third world meant poor countries

And India.

In both the original sense and the meme sense, South Korea is not a Third World country. As it developed, it has been always allied with the US since independence. It did extensive purges of communist sympathizers like other "First World" countries. This lasting alignment is why China is currently so butthurt about the deployment of THAAD.

No.
It is almost impossible to argue the wealth of the White man is predicated on the misery and exploitation of Africans.
Africans took European slaves too you know, a lot of them.
Of the European's who took slaves, there is no real correlation between the numbers taken and the wealth of their society, Portuguese Brazil enslaved more than an order of magnitude more than the USA yet Portugal is Portugal and the USA the USA.

Even considering the USA, the south wasn't prosperous was it? It was the most economically lethargic region. Do people honestly think Isaac Newton was able to write Principia or James Watt able to improve the Steam Engine because a few million Africans were forced to pick cotton and grow sugar a world away?
Africa still, with regards to mineral wealth, has untapped and unsurpassed abundances so the notion that it's been excavated but for 4 nuggets is ridiculous.
That being said a lot of what Europe did to Africa was obscene and one could easily argue that the Congo would be a richer place and Belgium a poorer one if Leopold had a heart.

snopes.com/limpopo-brothers-crocodile-assault/

It's from the SA equivalent of The Onion.

>Africa shown to be plundered more than South America or the East Indias
Why are Africans so fucking full of themselves?

Savages deserved it desu

Half that eastern wealth kept the African colonies afloat, as well

I don't think you should limit the analysis to slavery, you also have to consider mineral wealth, which is not renewable, once it's gone it's gone.

When Africans were taking European slaves it was so long ago it predated any kind of sophisticated mining efforts. By contrast the Romans and every later conquerors took tonnes of mineral wealth out of Africa.

Also the US got rich mainly by manufacturing stuff for Europe during the wars. Europe dumped the accumulated wealth of hundreds of years of imperialism into US factories.

West Africa had cocoa and other stuff for cosmetics like shea butter.
Mining
Peanuts, lots of cash crop farming. Lots of plantations.
Salt too.
Nice ports for shipping since you need to make stops around the continent.

As time went in the African colonies started to pull in some good cash and if they kept it that income would grow even higher as more mineral and oil wealth is made as cash crops expansion grows.

Even then a colony bring profitable is completely missing the point. They aren't supposed to be profitable.

[Citations needed]

China pays for what it buys. Europe just took. Or did you forget the difference between colonies and trade?

Why don't the Africans demand more in return then?

As far as I can tell, the Chinese are paying for what they buy. That's a little something called TRADE.

Or did I trigger you, /pol/?

as opposed to yuros taking the resources and giving nothing in return

>When Africans were taking European slaves it was so long ago it predated any kind of sophisticated mining efforts.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_slave_trade
>The slave trade ceased on the Barbary coast in the 19th and 20th centuries or when European governments passed laws granting emancipation to slaves. (The Cambridge World History of Slavery: Volume 3)

So... you're already wrong. Regardless, I didn't limit my analysis to slavery. Africa still has vast mineral deposits, you're crazy if you think colonial Europeans put a dent in the continent's reserves. Honestly human extraction is the greatest crime anyway, it maimed African society more than the extraction of un-utilized minerals.
How much do you think colonial Europeans were actually able to extract?
You're renewable argument is flawed too, one of the staple commodities of the Congo Free State was rubber, was the brutal way in which it was obtained OK because the supply can regenerate quickly?

Finland is technically third world

>invade my land
>make me work
>put a quota that I have to meet
>I can't do it
>chops my hand off
>they call me the savage

Poland should have went through with the plan to colonize Madagascar though.

Except the trade is still being enabled by colonialism.

The problem is that its insistence on trade, technology and scientific knowledge made the West more powerful than other cultures which meant that the worst impulses in man could be used against other men more effectively.

No, European colonialism began before the industrial revolution

'''african''' mineral wealth is so fuckhuge you could exploit it for 20 generations it wouldnt get dented

off course by ''''''african''''''' i mean the specific deposits of ore and mineral wealth thats distributed trough the whole continent in varied degrees so its all esentialy relative cause there might be more of it here than there, and its all different countries with different peoples and cultures and socio-political and economic realities and so on, but whatever

what you people dont seem to get is that the african slave trade was a thing

it suited everyone

the ''africans'' most of all

the people that made themselves the 'first hand' in that buisness(you know, first hand, second hand, third hand, some of you must have some experience selling shit so you know what i mean) gained wealth that would today be equivalent to billions in export, it was a global trade, slaves were africas main export for centuries next to shit like ivory and lumber, technology and basic logistics didnt progress to the point actualy extracting mineral resources out of any part of africa was financialy viable till way past the mid 1800eds, by which time the slave trade was dyng down or being legaly abolished, which was a function of colonial political hegemony (off course they still used slave and forced labor whenever it served them, remember its planet earth were talking about), and some of the last local 'establishments' that got shut down in force by the likes of the french and the british(lets ignore the belgians for a moment) were centuries old slaver institutions, places where the ruler sat on a throne of human bones and official state wizards butchered slaves by the hundreds on state holidays

all of you have been either educated wrong, or informed wrong, or you just dont have enough living experience in your years as yet - were talking humans here, humans, humanity, right?, there is no such thing as good in ''humanity'', only highly refined evil

remember that

People say this but in return I ask WHY did Europeans colonize in the first place? Because they wanted to and they could. If Africa was more successful and advanced than Europe, they would have colonized too they just weren't able to. Same with South America, if they could sail to Europe or Africa and colonize what makes anyone think that they wouldn't?

Hmm yes, good goyjin, defend China, yessss

Funny enough polish ",colonization" amounted to the legal purchase of land. Hardly violent.

>sat on a throne of human bones
>official state wizards butchered slaves by the hundreds on state holidays
BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD
SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE

technicaly, europeans colonised africa because technological capacity and economic necesity of industrialised systems coincided, and as far as the civilised world was concerned africa was a unregulated freeforall at that point

note that the whole entire period of full fledged colonialism in africa didnt even last one century, before that there were just small 'colonies' literaly just trade towns, forts and harbors here and there, build where the local native rulers allowed the euros to set up camp for a rent

Its an old map

Wtf is this shitty post?

No those colonies can't dictate their own trade policy at all.

No?? What could europe possibly have benefit from colonialism today? All the coffee beans some brits took from africa ages ago? Get over it, obongo

>'''african''' mineral wealth is so fuckhuge you could exploit it for 20 generations it wouldnt get dented

No it isn't. You know how long 20 generations is? 30-34 years (average period of a generation) which times 20 is 600 years you dumb nigger, no shit lasts that long for resoruce extraction. On top of that there has to be fucking viability in extracting the minerals because it costs money to actually take it out. Some years a mineral/oil has high prices then BAM it's hits a low or a huge mining deposit is in a pristine part of nature. On top of that there are no resources that can last a super long time considering how that never happened anywhere else in the world. There's tons of depleted/drained resource sites allover the world and inside Africa as well (One big Southern African kingdom decliend when it's biggest mines depleted and trade took a hit).

Idiots's always sperg on about Africa's mineral wealth but they don't know shit about it.

>off course by ''''''african''''''' i mean the specific deposits of ore and mineral wealth thats distributed trough the whole continent in varied degrees so its all esentialy relative cause there might be more of it here than there, and its all different countries with different peoples and cultures and socio-political and economic realities and so on, but whatever

Lol many areas have jackshit, unviable, or risky (will the prices stay high enough to justify extraction?) mineral resources. Mineral based colonies are the minority in Africa. Like I said before people EXTREMELY over estimate Africa's mineral wealth because they are batshit ignorant of other non-african mineral wealth.

No whitey genetics is why they are successful if they were dumber on average then euros would stil be backwater savages in the European forest.

>The place is relatively worthless
For starters Africa is humongous lots or land and lots of resources, its such a shame a massive landmass like this was wasted on blacks if only Europe and Africa swapped positions then we could really have seen some crazy things for Euros since their landarea would be greater.

>The place is relatively worthless
wew lad

>what you people dont seem to get is that the african slave trade was a thing
>it suited everyone
>the ''africans'' most of all

No it fucked them hard because it was the only thing they could offer because the other stuff they had to trade either slot value or got swamped with cheaper/low quality mass produced European goods brought in. Many places ended up having to resort to heavy slavery because their rivals engaged in it to obtain goods and weaponry so they had to do it or risk getting raided and getting enslaved.

Fuck sakes there were indigenous people and entities that were against the slave trade ramping up so hard and slaves who manged to return back to AFrica writign abotu their ordeal

some of the last local 'establishments' that got shut down in force by the likes of the french and the british(lets ignore the belgians for a moment) were centuries old slaver institutions, places where the ruler sat on a throne of human bones and official state wizards butchered slaves by the hundreds on state holidays

Cutback on the hyperbole man. They did exist but they were in the minority like Dahomey and more recent. Slavery in the scale of the Atlantic trade resulted in large scale violence they weren't as violent originally.On top of that you CANNOT ignore the Congo Free State (seeing as you said ignore the Belgians you seem pretty ignorant on the topic) because that's just intellectual fraudulent just ignoring the easiest to mention case.

The colonial powers engaged in forced labour and borderline slavery in everything name in a ton of colonies The Free State wasn't exceptional because many other places engaged in similar shit. Portuguese Africa for an even longer time period was like that, France used forced labour to build a railway that killed a tone of people in CAR and enforced corvée in FrenchAfrica, Germany actually enslaved the survivors of the genocide. Belgian pretty much broke villages/families apart to extract young men as labour

Then Euros woudl be in the same position pleb.

>only

I'd like to see you dig up a portion of the earth's crust like that, crybaby.

US economy was built on slaves which came from which continent?

>Are Europeans only successful because of imperialism and exploitation?
The premise itself literally makes no sense. It's an inherent contradiction. How exactly did they exploit other societies if they weren't successful to begin with?

we have a history of interventionism in the western hemisphere since the Monroe Doctrine in the 1820s and throughout the imperial era. We've had a pretty strong-arm approach with south american economies for a long time. We also have an invasion of the Philippines, and multiple invasions of Cuba and Mexico under our belt during this time period.

this
and this

US economy was built on trade and industrialization. Read some books.

>US economy was built on slaves

The South's economy was built on slavery. The South was also a poor shit hole due to this. The country's economy was built on industry and trade. Like the other user said, read a book sometime.

>All of Africa is nothing but a plundered worthless wasteland
Does the artist have any idea how ignorant and racist this image is?

Ireland

Philippines and Cuba were both due to basing rights, not resource extraction. Cuba was independent within a few years, Philippines had self government within abut three decades and independence one decade later. The profit the USA extracted from its ventures in Central America and the Caribbean have been massively exaggerated; this too was mostly a political and military venture rather than an economic one.

Let's put it into context. The entire United Fruit Company, which controlled over 80% of the US fruit market during the so called Banana Wars, was worth roughly $3 billion in today's dollars. The cost of the infrastructure the Americans built in Haiti alone cost more than that. Not even getting into all the infrastructure built in Nicaragua, the Dominican REPUBLIC, etc. and the cost of actual military operations.

To be fair though, the US's intervention in the Philippine war of independence killed a lot of innocent people.

It still industrialized after USSR, far from third world.

Namibia and Angola are both richer than West Ukraine and are considered 3rd world.

>No, European colonialism began before the industrial revolution
For America maybe. The other parts of the world were after.

How did they manage to exploit the natives in the first place if the natives were supposedly equal and the europeans are only successful because of the exploitation?

Also
>Spain and Portugal get no gold
>south american isn't looted as well

What are they have there, gold? Diamonds? Any meaningful manufacturing?

Arabs practiced both of those things centuries before euros and they're not nearly as well-off.

Angola makes oil.

i don't feel as though I could live with myself if she and I were in the same room and didn't stick my dick inside her.

> makes
More like extracting it from mother Earth using Western technologies, and then selling it to the developed countries. No, it's still 3rd world despite having some free moneys.

What about Namibia? Are any whiteys left there?