Was colonialism a positive force in Africa? why or why not?

>Spain
>No gold

Their economy is so shit because they literally gave up once they got gold from South America.

Learn something new every day. Shame that most of my days the new things I learn are genocide.

Arguably yes; however, during and after WWI the bringers of civilization fucked parts of Africa and the decolonization left a vacuum of power struggles

Africans would arguably be better off living in primitive tribes then they are now, so no

It wasn't as it caused the nigger population to explode.

Also that image is retarded. Like Africa is somehow drained of resources or something. Even to this day niggers can't even farm their own lands properly. They should really just let them all starve till the population can live of the land without needing to farm like they used to.

> (OP)
do people actually think all of africa was tribal?
there were actual kingdoms and 'civilization' which doesn't just mean western way of life

what happened to Madagascar

I just use tribal so i don't get spammed by "le WE WUZ" memeisters

Colonies everywhere existed to export raw materials and import manufactured goods. People were forced to abandon subsistence farming to work on plantations. Some of these like cotton plantations literally degraded the soil so it couldn't be used for farming food even after decolonisation. Pretty much the reason why in Africa and India, there were more famines after colonization began than before.

>degraded the soil so it couldn't be used for farming food even after decolonisation
Sure thing.
modernghana.com/news/215004/what-experts-say-about-agriculture-underdevelopment-in-afric.html
africaw.com/the-african-farmer-problems-facing-agriculture
howwemadeitinafrica.com/agriculture-africa-potential-versus-reality/57635/

Of course. It's not like knowledge and skill moves from civilization to another on its own. Only conquest and subsequent exploitation can achieve that.

>implying colonialism didn’t increase famines because the craftsmen weren’t making profits
>implying colonialism didn’t make areas past carry capacity which didn’t previously happen because in India for example the Hindus kept on getting massacred for not kowtowing at the right angle

>muslims kept killing so many yindoos that the land couldn't exceed carrying capacity.
yes. Rulers would kill their own subjects and destroy their states without any major uprising.

>carry capacity
India isn't even near its carrying capacity now you malthusian idiot

am i supposed to be surprised that places that can't afford fertilizer or tractors have low agricultural output? the solution to this is FDI and GMOs not hoping that the population of a continent with a TFR > 3 is going to decrease

also none of those links disprove what i said

Nearly every academic historian regards it as a negative. Why would you trust idiots on Veeky Forums more than them? inb4 all academics are globalists

>also none of those links disprove what i said
Nice damage control. You claim the soil is so degraded it can't be used when every goddamn article you can find on talks about untapped potential. Never mind the fact that white people seem to have had no problems farming these "degraded soils" for that last 100 years. Go make up shit somewhere else.

I'm sure you'll find a decent amount of historians that can be a lot more nuanced than "hurdur colonialism was bad".

>was colonialism a positive force in africa
No.
>but it brought them technology and education
That wasn't Europe's primary intent, just a byproduct and later an excuse.
>but Africa wouldn't be civilized with Europe colonizing them
There were other methods of modernizing without direct European control, just look at Japan. True, Africa and Japan are apples and oranges, but it just serves to prove the point that colonization isn't necessary to modernize.

lol you think i actually meant all the soil in africa was degraded? source for white people and what are they farming? soil composition won't affect cash crops like cotton and tobacco. answer the rest of the post retard.

yet they nearly all conclude that it was bad

>there were actual kingdoms and 'civilization' which doesn't just mean western way of life

I was always under the impression that the kingdoms in Africa were mostly just confederations of tribes like the Iroquois confederacy

>There were other methods of modernizing without direct European control, just look at Japan. True, Africa and Japan are apples and oranges, but it just serves to prove the point that colonization isn't necessary to modernize.

why is africa taking so long to modernize then? Japan was able to it in like 40 years without any foreign help.

because africa is a big ass continent with a wide variety of different political groups, ethnicities and languages while japan was a tiny ass island with a homogeneous population, a single political system?

homogenous population, high literacy rates, centralized government, one language, and african government are based on colonial institutions that are prone to mismanagement and corruption.

10 seconds in paint

When your country's average IQ os about 30 points below the average, modernisation becomes a tad difficult.

tyranny bad
technology good

I then have to wonder why that superior IQ didn't allow the English to build a civilization in 3000 BC, but instead had them build one 3500 years later after having the idea brought to them.

argumentum ad verecundiam

It was good for Europe and Europeans because they ruled over them and controlled them. It was bad for Africans because they became subjects to foreigners. Asking if it was a "positive force" is relative to who received the benefit.

>Even to this day niggers can't even farm their own lands properly.
Ayy lmao.
I always love when /pol/tards believe africans didn't know what agriculture was until the epic white farmers from Zimbabwe came and showed them which side of the plant to put into the ground or something.
>without any foreign help.
Guys got US support, if only to counter commies.
But ill give you that, the fags are industrious, and better than africans at this.

Its not more likely to be correct because they are historians. Its more likely to be correct because there is consensus among people that actually study the topic compared to random people on the internet.

The French did them over real good

>India suffers devastating famines with preindustrial agriculture
>India doesn't suffer devastating famines with industrial agriculture

helmet should be more beige

>India doesn't suffer devastating famines with industrial agriculture
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943

>famines in pre british india are local and tax relief and grain distribution doesn't turn towns and farms destitute.
>famines in british india do both
really makes you think.

Well, shit, everyone is fucked without modern agriculture.
Larger countries just amp up that problem.
Think China or the US would fare better?

>
Axum, Niger River Civilizations, Ghana and Mali would like to disagree with you.

Great Zimbabwe is also another one, and do not forget the Swahili Coast in general benefited from trade

>kowotow
>Muslim
Holy shit you know absolutely nothing about the politics of the region before le ebil angl*s moved in

Kingdoms in Africa were mostly tributary vassals under a strong chieftain. Confederations existed, but they were the exception to the rule.

>farming is as simple as putting a seed in the ground
>nevermind factors like soil conditions, water, pests, ambient heat, sunlight, fertilizer
So why are people still starving to death?

Notice how they don’t depict negros because everyone knows they’re a blight

But why the ocean not flow into the hole

In a way Europeans ended up indirectly creating a lot of these tribes themselves by expanding the slave trade as much as they did. The quick and massive increase in the business shifted the power away from more formal state building, and more towards "warlording." For many years running a band of raiders from a small base that would pick at the interior for slaves was more viable and profitable than running a sprawling state that would try to manage the same thing on top of regulating taxes and other forms of trade. The raiding itself also didn't help much as it starting removing manpower from a lot of societies that were already sparsely populated in the first place. Before the slaves never left the market so to speak. Slavery just caused manpower to shift between different areas of the region. Slaves also usually weren't slaves for life and one usually couldn't be born into it either. But conducting mass slave trading with Europeans and Arabs removed the "recyclability" factor that had been a staple of the trade prior. Without out it depopulation became an actual problem for the first time and a lot of societies started to break down as a result. Groups of people who might have gone on to form more cohesive states, had this route marred by either turning towards quick profit or becoming victims of those who had turned to quick profit.

I never said they were some hidden agricultural geniuses.
But they know how to farm.
Subsidence style, poorly, but they have some neat tricks.

And given what absolutely retarded ideas i've heard from the /pol/tard critics in such threads(like slash-and-burning jungles(!) ) i'll take their ideas on how to farm in Africa every day over autists on cambogian basket-weaving forums.

>Examples of preindustrial agriculture

>every famine was due to pre industrial agriculture
>colonialism is literally incapable of doing wrong.

>British Raj
>preindustrial

ayy, they still run those trams in calcutta.

>Industrialization is a binary state

This is exactly why people shouldn't toss around the term "Stone Age" when they don't mean it. It leads to stupid misconceptions like this. The Bantu were both agriculturalists and users of iron tools and weaponry. By the 1800s only a few groups like the San were hunter gatherers. Most everyone else were farmers and/or pastoralists. However, just because you know how to farm and have a society built around farming, doesn't mean you know how to farm on the scale of industrial farming and even less that you have a society that can properly maintain such a venture.

t. anglo
Mudslime rulers weren't autistic enough to kill off their subjects because they were busy shipping raw cotton to mills in england.

It's like asking the guy at the bar for medical advice vs asking your doctor. Sure, the guy at the bar could be a pathology hobbyist. He could know all the answers. The doctor can be an idiot. But you still trust *a doctor* to give good advice over *a man in the bar*.

People on Veeky Forums think if they "refute" an authority, they've not only refuted everyone who takes that position, they've also proven themselves as more valid an authority then that authority.

This is narcissism.

>tribal, unindustrialized illiterate feuding slaver shitholes which didn't even invent the wheel
vs
>wealthy, industrialized, prosperous free nations where all races live together in segregated harmony
vs
>tribal, partially industrialized illiterate feuding slaver shitholes with 20% more civil wars

Gee, I wonder

>segregated harmony

>muh wheels
literally only independently invented a handful of times. Most everyone who used wheels got them via dispersal of the technology.

wheels dont work on uneven ground covered in jungle or desert genious

did you know that africa has alot of plains?

>entire Europe
Yes, the Balkans are swimming in stolen colonial wealth. Haven't you heard of Croat West-Eastern Indonesia?

>cant think outside the parameters of egalitarianism
lol

Funny how eastern europeans want to be a part of the club when its about European success, but are real quick to distance themselves from "westerners" when anything bad comes up.

Why blame the U.S. for Colonialism on the same level of European powers? We didn't even have a single colony. In fact the only time the U.S. fucked with Africa was to create a free, democratic black state. Fucking Euros and their collective guilt.

I don't know why we keep having this thread when the question has already been settled, but here we go again.

nber.org/papers/w18162

"In this paper, we construct a new database on the European share of the population during colonization and examine its association with the level of economic development today. We find: (1) a strong and uniformly positive relationship between colonial European settlement and development, (2) a stronger relationship between colonial European settlement and economic development today than between development today and the proportion of the population of European descent today; and (3) no evidence that the positive relationship between colonial European settlement and economic development diminishes or becomes negative at very low levels of colonial European settlement, contradicting a large literature that focuses on the enduring adverse effects of small European settlements creating extractive institutions. The most plausible explanation of our findings is that any adverse effect of extractive institutions associated with minority European settlement was more than offset by other things the European settlers brought with them, such as human capital and technology."

Its one of the main things that made me realize that world has literally been shaped by Europe.

New Veeky Forums server:
discord.gg/sf9tYGd

What exactly are you talking about? Because if you're talking about western culture, then eastern Europe is a part of that, through a common intellectual tradition. If you're talking about colonialism, then it's obviously not part of the colonial powers (except Russia, I guess), since it did not partake in colonization. What exactly is difficult to understand here?

Fixed that Africa for you

>Created artificial nation-states with weak institutions dependent upon the metropole for support, exacerbated ethnic divisions by favoring certain groups over other in governance, left few accessible education institutions, limited infrastructure for exporting resources, and so on and so on.

I mean there were a few shiny new buildings and some limited road networks connecting cities but not much else given they couldn't even be bothered to create a native educated workforce substantial enough to take over for Europeans.

stop believing in the german imperialism meme, when they got the chance they were as bad as everyone else

>colonialism is undertaken for the benefit of the colonized
If Europeans didn't think they could profit off colonization, they wouldn't have done it.

>Niggers still too stupid to fix this when we left

Really makes you think

Why bother? It's not like the colonies will look at the dominions and think "gibs me dat."

>Romans roll into Britain and build aqueducts, advanced roads, urban culture, etc.
>they leave and it all goes to shit
I guess the Britons were just too stupid huh

only economically speking yes

>artificial nation-states

All nations are artificial.

>institutions dependent upon the metropole for support

Many non-colonial nations have or had this as well

>exacerbated ethnic divisions by favoring certain groups over other in governance

Again, a common thing in many non-colonial natiosn

>few accessible education institutions

All nations started with inaccessibe education

>all the wealth on Eastern Europe, which didn't colonize at all
>no wealth on Spain, Portugal and Britian whatsoever, the biggest colonial powers

It had mixed effects, though obviously very negative for the local population in certain areas like German West Africa and the Belgian Congo. The slave trade was far more destructive than the actual colonial period.

The idea of Europeans scooping up and carrying away the wealth of Africa is a massive meme though.

Yes, they were. That's why the Anglo-Saxons now own Britain, and Eireniggers still have their loos clogged by 800 dead babies

Most of Africa has a tribal social structure, even amongst the kingdoms their society was based around tribal kinship and their social behaviors never went beyond that.

this wasn't a genocide, faggot. This was a very poorly-executed rebellion. We don't call the American Civil War a "genocide" either.

Lol Ireland has a higher GDP per capita and a higher HDI than Britain despite being brutalized and exploited by it for centuries

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shark_Island_Concentration_Camp
Countering rebellion usually doesn't require the use of concentration camps for non-combatants. Germany killed some African children Hans. Get over it.

fixed

Its the only reason why SSA has any technology beyond the neolithic age.

"brutalized and exploited"

Literally every aspect of Irish prosperity comes from elsewhere. The Scandinavians gave you cities and trade, the English gave you industry and infrastructure, law and order, banks and loans, a lingua franca and culture, and the Americans flooded you and your diaspora with cash and IMF loans that the Irish have come to depend upon. Meanwhile the biggest thing the Irish have accomplished by themselves is covering up massive human trafficking and infanticide at the hands of fucking nuns. Celts are subhuman and the Irish are no exception.

T A X H A V E N
A
X
H
A
V
E
N

oh boy, you white people will believe anything so long as it allows you to keep your rose-tinted picture of your nation's history.

>Africa was to create a free, democratic black state.
I can't believe Americans are still falling for their government propaganda to this day.