Was colonialism helpful or harmful??

Was colonialism helpful or harmful??

To whom?

Helpful to colonizers. Harmful to those being colonized.

A mix. Helpful in that it resulted in some infrastructure being developed in the regions, as well as increased literacy and overall standard of living to those affected. Harmful in that many colonized people were abused, and much of the otherwise capital remains in foreign hands.

of course it was helpful, the strong took what they needed the weak suffered becuase.... well their weak (dumb dumbs)

helpful but ultimately something demanding supercession. The benefits of colonialism are also the benefits of decolonisation.

this

Didn't make that much of a difference either way, except inasmuch as it made socialism more popular in poor countries which was of course tremendously negative

Colonialism by Europeans was always a good thing

undoubttedly this

if it werent for europe, the world wouldnt be civilized like it is today (expect for the places inhabited by subhumans)

Don't try to force a dichotomy, it was both good and bad.
Good because the Europeans introduced advanced technologies, institutions, and ideals.
Bad because of sometimes appalling treatment of the natives, the clusterfuck that is Africa and the Middle East, and paving the way for globalism to destroy ancient cultures and turn every temple into a McDonald's.

Japan was never colonized and it isn't in the stone age. A country doesn't need to be colonized to take on the positive influences of foreigners.

/thread

It completely fucked up Africa and the Middle East.

...

Those were already fucked up

Africa didn't have anything to be fucked up.

in what way? be specific I'd like to hear your extensive knowledge on this subject

Why do you think they were conquered in the first place?
They were centuries behind the Europeans,

woah! I didn't know USA existed from ~400-1400 BC

actual /thread

Helpful.

so certain societies being behind Europe in terms of technology or government structure means they are "fucked up" and colonizing them is okay?

Not in the case of Middle East, yes in the case of Africa.

The Islamic empires of the middle east were generally short lived and prone to fracture always the people of the Levant we're people under foreign imperial rule. First the Arabs conquer with Muhammads successors conquering Iraq and Syria. The ummayed caliphate lasts ~200 years the borders constantly change due to rebellion and it ends with a political assassination by Persian nobles who then assume power. The Abbasid caliphate exands across north Africa and into Europe, but they quickly lose control and andulusia and morroco end up as independent states. They lose Cairo to a military "junta" that imports rulers from circassia. Then comes the Mongols and the Turks. Etc.

>Japan was never colonized and it isn't in the stone age
really makes you think huh

Pre-colonial Africa was far better than post-colonial. It didn't look like Europe but it was self sufficient and they had systems of organization that worked for them.

That is more or less comparable to early middle ages europe desu. Still preferable to the current situation.

Except it continues until ww1 when the ottoman empire is divided and Arabs are put back into power.

Helpful. The Martian shits are just ungrateful for everything the home world has done for them. A few trade agreements no more onerous than many on Earth is a small price to pay for building their infrastructure from the ground up, but of course they had to chimp out about it. And don't even get me started on the Belter we wuzzers

If your not a strong man, prepare for hard times...
Weak men make hard times, so of course colonization was justified.

strong men create prosperous times which create weak men. Same thing happened with colonialism.