Is colonialism the reason western European countries are so wealthy today just like some anti-imperialist critics...

Not entirely so, after all, Europe has a lot of inherently beneficial features (good climate and geography for instance) for agriculture and varied resources for large scale manufacture but colonialism was a massive powerhouse for powers that have already accumulated more then a sufficient base of continental resources. Some European powers, such as France, still enjoy faux-colonialist benefits (like, in this example, raw natural resources in Northwest Africa) even after de-colonization.

Yeah look how successful they are today and how and how many other cultures are influenced by them and how much of their technology we still use.

I read that the British wasted money on India. Colonies certainly made it easier to acquire certan exotic products.

Switzerland didn't need to bother with colonialism, it was a teeny economic giant on it's own. And their economics were also, though indirectly, helped by massive colonial trade in Europe. Scandinavian prosperity is a post-war development. Norway and Sweden weren't exactly known for their prosperous economy (at least compared to British Empire, French or Germans) for most of their history.

All the eurangutan world is obese thanks to amerindian crops to bee hoon-est.
>Technology
Amerindian technology, even though they started the civilization race 15000 years after eurangutans settled on yuropland, had some more advanced features than middle-ages eurangutanland.

Incas were superior to europeans. History demonstrates it. Deal with it, chimpo.

...

only for the UK and France, the other western european countries didn't get much from colonies

Stuck inland not next to ocean retard.

Beliving in Jesus gives you more then just eternal life.

Well the British were prosperous because of the Indsutrial Revolution and urbanization which was the continuation of the Agricultural Revolution. Which I guess took place because it was already financial centre of Europe (because of Glorious Revolution).
It's a long chain of events that brings us to Netherlands. Did colonies make them rich? Or was it because of capitalism that emerged there in early modernism?

Not really. It helped a little, and hurt colonized countries some, but, more fundamentally, European hegemony was the result of European development, not the cause.

>this terrible bait

>Incas were superior to europeans

Indeed, they have cute indias to die for.

Eurangutans craving divine Inca blood... Not surprised to bee hoon-est.

Yes and no.

Yes because the creation of the Dutch East India Trading Company created the first opportunity for investors to gain profit from sharing the expenses of trading excursions in the 1650s. It cost a whole hell of a lot to trade resources back then (cost of ships, crews, protection, etc.) and the risk was huge, especially when trading in waters patrolled by pirates.

No because immense wealth could already be found at home, see Victorian Great Britain. Land-owning dynasties had been around since the 1000s; these same folks usually ended up in politics as well. Nowhere in the world is this more strong than in ~1830s-1900 England.

Well I mean it certainly didn't hurt us

the colonies were all money losers under an industrial capitalist economy. though it was the only way to secure the commodities needed to feed the homeland.

they only made financial sense when you have mercantilism.

That and because colonial exploitation effectively prevented other countries from growing.

Inca pussy is superior, history demonstrates it.

No, they had the power to colonize the world then but not now as we can clearly see. So in a way they were better off before colonialism.

I wonder if cuck-posters are actually this pathetic.

Proof causation instead of posting misleading pictures.

reminder that Europe is a joke
all their "classic" and "traditional" stuff are things they stole from other countries

Now show GDP per capita before 1820

>Britain
Most certainly
>France
Not really, they were rich even before colonialism.
>low countries
They were rich even before colonialism, but it surely did helped them. As well as trade with England.

>Reminder that East Asia is a joke
>All their "classic" and "traditional" stuff are things they stole from other countries

>cuck

Cockoldry is the best inca trait, bigot

no, industrialization made them rich

So basically the fruits of the Glorious Revolution. What about the Dutch then?

So you admit that colonialism isn't the only factor driving Western European prosperity?

By forcing other countries to focus only on natural resources, euros could focus on industry and education.
This stopped other countries ffom becoming industrial countries for a long time. An economy is like an ecosystem, not everybody can occupy the same niche.

If they didn't have the raw materials for industry at home before colonialism, how did they have the industry to build ships and equip armies to build and maintain colonies in other parts of the world?

It's him!

That's like asking how Google could possibly be a global corporation when it was started in some dude's garage. You start small, have some success, and then reinvest a portion of the loot into building bigger, better ships, which you used to conquer more land, which you then exploit to build even better ships, continue ad infinitum until you come across somebody bigger and meaner than you who does it to you instead.

youtube.com/watch?v=aS7XUGh2meI

Europe was part of a huge close knit trade network connected to the Mediterranean and surrounding areas, India and China were relatively isolated. Europe also had large swathes of grain producing land that became abundant during the middle ages due to innovations like crop rotation and the heavy plow. As a result Europe received technology and could implement it more than their competitors. Spain and Portugal had more resources than the Moors and could invest in large navies with specialized long distance ships to travel down the African coast.

In terms of volume the colonies wouldn't become relevant until the 18th century and even so only made up a minority of trade and mainly in luxuries. Most European wealth was due to manufacturing. The largest volumes of trade were with the old world, for example transporting timber and iron ore from Scandinavia and Russia which would be more relevant for the early industrial revolution.

>It's the "Incas are superior to Europeans" poster

Were there any countries, which were irrelevant shitholes before colonization, but then for some reason those places happened to become important and wealthy really quickly? If you can name at least one, then the answer is yes - it was one of a factors.

Well the British weren't that important in the 16th century but again their improvement in the next century could be atributed to the Glorious Revolution and personal union with Netherlands.

based atahualpa incarnate

nope, we're simply the best

Incas were superior to europeans though.

post me the stats and facts, no opinions/feelings

Simple.
Europeans settle on europe: 40000BC
Amerindians reached Canada: 25000BC; then after the deglaciation (10000 years later) populated the rest of the continent in 15000BC

European crops date from 10000BC.
Amerindian crops date from 6000BC.

Europeans getting the bronze from other culture in 3200BC.
Amerindians reached the bronze age in 500BC approximately.

Also as a great factor:
Horse domesticated in 3000BC approximately.

Knowing that the rests of all amerindian populations of 14000BC to 10000BC were pretty much paleolithical-tier and all lived as nomads, practiced some artistic manifestations as european paleo-populations. It's safe to assume they started again in the paleolithic and had to morph the environment of woods, jungles and coasts to their convenience, the same the europeans did with their environment for thousands of years before the Neolithic.

Then let's compare:
Europeans lurking around as nomads: 30000 years.
Amerindians lurking around as nomads: 9000 years.

Europeans reaching the bronze age from other cultures after the Neolithic stage: 6800 years.
Amerindians reaching the bronze age by themselves without the influence of a culture thousands of years ahead of development: 5500 years.

Let's check also how many years have humans modifyed the horse population and environment: 37000 years.
Let's check how many years have amerindians affected the camelids of South-America, when the spaniards came: 16500 years. They had less than half the time, yet they already domesticated diverse species for food and whool. Llamas can carry up to 50 Kg.

So, it's safe to affirm. Incas were superior to europeans. Their higher development rate was excellent compare to europeans.

And I didn't mention the disadvantages such as continental isolation (north-south and east-west), Niño fenomena that destroys coastal villages, less cultures to trade with, and no naval technology, iron, horses, wheel, and writting from north-african nor anatolian cultures.

this makes no sense at all?
civilization is measured by the rate at which one develops?

And yet they were conquered...

The British prosperity enabled them to expand and accumulate even more potential prosperity thanks to the resources in the colonies. But it wasn't just capitalism either, rather the whole historic chain of events and politics that reached climax in early capitalist manufacture. In simple terms with you, emerging capitalism made the already good base for growth rich, and colonialism made them stinking rich on top of that. Not one way OR another. Without colonies they'd still be rich, but nowhere nearly rich and influential (especially historically) without them.
I never said it was the only one. I mean you have to be truly infantile to think in such simplistic terms. But that doesn't mean it wasn't a major, for some countries, to this day, the largest contributing factor (ie. France).

It's pretty simple, if there is one civilization based on an ethnic group superior to another, Incas were superior to europeans due to their higher development with bigger disadvantages.
Literally the same as superior mycenaean compared to savage dorians. Also, natives beat the Inca, eurangutans just kept backstabbing each other like they did on their mainland, even their own kind were backstabbed hehehe

History demonstrates Inca superiority. Get over it, bonobos.

>higher development with bigger disadvantages.
The weren't at all higher developed? They didn''t even used Iron for heaven's sake.

bigger disadvantages?
like what? Not being able to start trading with any other civ? Are you saying inca's were the only living people in south-america at that time?

This will be my last (you). start handling the fact that Europeans are superior.

>And I didn't mention the disadvantages such as continental isolation (north-south and east-west), Niño fenomena that destroys coastal villages, less cultures to trade with, and no naval technology, iron, horses, wheel, and writting from north-african nor anatolian cultures.
All of them stealed by eurangutans from other cultures.
>iron
3300BC bronze discovered on middle east
1200BC on anatolia then aegean zone
Literally 2000 years using bronze, and eurangutans didn't discovered any of them.

200BC amerindian bronze age
1500BC northwest amerindians using iron before eurangutan contact
1700 years and there were already tribes using iron.

Incas were superior to europeans. Deal with it, chimpo.

[citation needed]

>Europeans settle on europe: 40000BC
>"""""""""""Europeans"""""""""""""
God damn. This is some retarded bullshit.

>Amerindians reached Canada: 25000BC
dubious, but at this time the people living in Europe and the people living in Beringia were on the same technological level, so your point is completely irrelevant.

>technological level
Knowing that the rests of all amerindian populations of 14000BC to 10000BC were pretty much paleolithical-tier and all lived as nomads, practiced some artistic manifestations as european paleo-populations. It's safe to assume they started again in the paleolithic and had to morph the environment of woods, jungles and coasts to their convenience, the same the europeans did with their environment for thousands of years before the Neolithic.

>Humans colonised the environment west of the Urals, hunting reindeer especially,[59] but were faced with adaptive challenges; winter temperatures averaged from −20 to −30 °C (−4 to −22 °F) while fuel and shelter were scarce. They travelled on foot and relied on hunting highly mobile herds for food. These challenges were overcome through technological innovations: production of tailored clothing from the pelts of fur-bearing animals; construction of shelters with hearths using bones as fuel; and digging of “ice cellars” into the permafrost for storing meat and bones.

>dubious
This chimp rejects archeological evidence...

Incas were superior to europeans. History demonstrates it. Get over it, monkey.

>safe to assume they started again in the paleolithic
after what?

After migrating. Archeological evidence of paleolithical "technology" can be found all over America before the Neolithic phase.
Nomad populations conserve minimum knowledge that can be preserved but morphed over time by oral tradition. Migrating nomads don't conserve such tradition the same as the others as the migration itself isolates them from the cultural influence.

Thus, History demonstrates Inca superiority. Get over it, monkey.

Spain is a shitheap so not exactly.