Rome colonizes Europe for hundreds of years

Still smarter, african blacks are too braindead to even challenge roman armies unlike germanics.

How did they afford all this shit anyway?

>rome
>colonizing

There’s a difference between colonizing and conquerring, user.

It managed to turn it around much quicker because the entire world is interconnected nowadays, and with things far more efficient than mule drawn carriages?
Like you do realize how stupidly simplistic that is?
You take away half of modern innovation and you’ll have an Africa that doesn’t rebound for hundreds of years too, you can also take away the vital trade of resources African nations engage in to help develop their economy and infrastructure
It is literally public knowledge that the US military goes to Africa and builds infrastructure in exchange for the govt to receive shipments of raw materials from those nations

>march into a country
>slaughter all who resist
>assume control
>proceed to settle own people in conquered lands
Seems like colonialism to me

This.

I'm actually a white dude who grew up in Africa. It staggers my mind how willfully ignorant people are about Africa. They believe it to be nothing more than mudhuts and savagery.

There's a hell of a lot more to Africa than people want to think and your point about it being past the worst is correct. There's still a ways to go but you're seeing tremendous economic improvements across the continent.

>>makes minimal effort to develop infrastructure, educate natives, or develop institutions

Europe alone gave them tens of billions of Euros in development money. Since decolonization. Look at the regions with highest growth: they either have lots of Asians and/or White people or they have rare Earth elements exploited by companies belonging to Asians and Whites.

So they still can't get their shit together after 200 years while surrounded by technologically advanced countries that aren't trying to kill them like what Europeans had to deal with.
Hmm

Ah yes the Romans from Italy who also colonized Italy.
You do realize coloniae doesn’t mean the same thing the English word Colony means right? It’s literally a class of Roman city

What use are diamonds to a pre-industrial society?

The same thing gold was useful for before the discovery of electronics you gigantic social autist.
Gemstones are pretty and shiny, they have inherent value to whites

>Africa ""redpill"" which is just reasserting the same surface-level generalizations most normies automatically make about Africa in the first place
>capitalizing "whites"
hellooooo /pol/

How are we defining 'going to shit'? Economic failure? Political turmoil? Wars? True, these things happened in both cases. But your average European or Asian, whilst not being too well versed in the history of the 'post-Roman' period, regularly sees images of violence and instability in Africa on their tv screen. People have a stronger reaction because it's more apparent to us, especially since our standard of living is so vastly different to theirs in many cases. Plus, as and say, wealthy nations still have an enormous influence in Africa, for better or for worse. The interconnectedness of our economies and political systems compared to the Roman period makes any comparison pointless.

>subvert their religious institutions to adopt Roman equivalents
>Roman lords now own the land and enslaved local peoples
>making up your own loose arguments to try to batter down, but fail anyways

Hardness, utility wise they're good for tooling. Subjective wise, gems have been used by civilized peoples(read:Eurasians) as currency and ornamentation:proof that the Earth itself can be bent to human desired form.

>Roman citizens settling Sabine or Gallic or Germanic lands
>not colonists

>religious babble/nonsense
Doesn’t have anything to do with the Roman definition of Coloniae.
Face it amerishart, just because two words look similar doesn’t mean they are. Coloniae is a single city. A modern Colony is an entire entity often containing many cities

You don't know what you're talking about.
There were Roman colonies all over the conquered provinces and the Roman method of control, using the local elites, garrisons at key points and control of the economy is synonymous with colonialism.

>It’s literally a class of Roman city
So? The only difference between the Roman coloniae and European colonies are the scale. A colonia had control of the surrounding countryside, retreating into semantics doesn't make you right.

>retreat to semantics
No nigga it’s literally the definition of the word shit doesn’t just change for the sake of your comparison.

>Gallic land
>gallic tribes rarely if ever had land ownership laws
Sounds like Roman clay to me

lmao there you go again, whining about the etymology of a word nobody else was talking about lmao this is a new level of autism! And yes, they were even colonizing the religion by adapting local gods names to be associated with their own. They associated Odin with Mercury, so they obv weren't very good at it.

Saying two things are the same and producing two different things isn’t really semantic. Don’t use words you don’t know the definition of, as Coloniae were quite simply fortified cities. Central Italy and northern Sicily had been colonized by Greeks hundreds of years before the Romans took over their cities and called them Coloniae I promise

Alright, let's just say they're synonymous. Now can we continue the discussion without bickering about the definition of a single word from a dead language that changed over time?

Colony is English, Coloniae is not.
The definitions of neither changed, they are not synonymous.
Were some Coloniae acting as modern “colonies”? Sure, but debatable.
Were Coloniae all or mostly synonymous with modern colonies? No.
The vast majority of Coloniae were conquered cities and in the Mediterranean area, which was very well populated before the Romans came in.

>The vast majority of Coloniae were conquered cities and in the Mediterranean area, which was very well populated before the Romans came in.
Undoubtedly, but in the Late Republican Era more and more overseas settlements were founded by the likes of Pompey, Caesar and Augustus. Sometimes these colonies were near or even part of the indigenous cities of the area, something the Athenians had been doing, to "guard against rebellion."
I believe that settlements like this can be truthfully called "colonial" because they were an important part of the system the Romans used to control the provinces without the direct use of military force.

> The Spaniards discover Las Americas
> Some begin to mistreat the natives
> The Queen of Spain quickly pronounces herself and says that they should treat them well
> 3 centuries pass
> Spain builds bridges, universities, roads, buildings, cathedrals, cities ...
> After independence everything is forgotten thanks to the shit freemasons
> Today nobody remembers Spain and everyone masturbates with shit-ruthless empires like the German and the British

That’s 100% fair but to refer to the terms as synonymous inplies complete interchangeability and while I would agree these administrative centers were colonial in nature you have to be careful from confusing them with the vast majority of Coloniae which were not founded in this specific function.
Colony implies a large central governmental authority in charge of it in my opinion.
While Romans definitely had a central government authority present in many regions, not every Coloniae and in fact the vast majority would never be more than tax dots on their maps.

Setting aside the original Italian colonies, coloniae where a lot more than just places you could tax your citizens. They were important economic and cultural hubs from which the surrounding countryside could be "Romanised." The many temples and theatres that historians have found in Roman coloniae is evidence of this.
>Colony implies a large central governmental authority in charge of it in my opinion.
In my opinion a colony is just an area of land claimed by an extra regional power. The amount of control they exercise over it varies, for example, see the Louisiana Territory or the early days of the American colonies, vast areas that were only marginally under the control of Europeans.

So what you’re saying is
We need to go back to Africa
And reconquer it

Yes but build more infrastructure

Got it
Hop to it boys, get your shorts and sunscreen, we’re liberating Rhodesia!
Someone tell /k/

I think the Chinese are beating you to it, my friend

That's one of two options, yes

>reconquer Africa
>occupy it for 200 years this time
>make full effort to build it up economically and culturally
>leave and this time leave it with sensible state boundaries alongside ethnolinguistic and religious lines

OR

>just invest in it and allow current trends to continue

>minimal effort to develop infrastructure, educate natives, or develop institutions
You're joking right?
oldafricamagazine.com/first-european-schools-in-kenya/
That's not to mention the nonstop flow of charity to Africa ever since decolonization.
I don't think black people are dumb, but don't be a fucking faggot and play the "its all white people's fault" card

>if I move these goalposts fast enough he'll never score!

>White people think they're better than black people
>HAH!....fools
>It is actually black people who are better than white people!
kys OP

>implying I'm saying anything of that sort

>that pic

diamonds are only pretty if cut and polished, and aside form use in drill bits are useless for any tools, good chunk of flint would be far more useful for a hunter gatherer

African animals are hardly docile

Many parts of of Africa had iron working

the Ethiopians built Stone churches, the Nubians built pyramids (smaller the egyptian ones) and their are stone ruins in Zimbabwe
as for sawn lumber there was a tribe that made frame and plank boats on lake Malawi, you need sawed pieces of wood for that so they must have had that,

I once read about west African dugout canoes having sails but I could not find more info on it

Also Thomas Dixon was neither an anthropologist or a historian, he is very much not an authority on African history

P.S. I posted this in spaces lines to separate my thoughts, will be posting pictures and proof of the things posted

>>makes minimal effort to develop infrastructure, educate natives, or develop institutions
>>makes every attempt to extract resources, sell products, recruit soldiers and not much else
Except this is complete bullshit from top to bottom.

Eithiopian church

Zimbabwe stone ruins

Nubian pyramids

Iron throwing kinfe from modern day sudan