Why do people say this image is debunked?
>>17963723idk why do they?
Colonies weren't even profitable, so it's wrong.
How many ICBMs did the Africans build with their rare metals?
>>17963723The poorest African today is richer and has better living standards than the richest pre colonial African states.
Vae Victis
>>17963735>they just established these colonies all over the world and sent tens of thousands of men to their deaths defending them and harvesting materials to ship back to the metropole, for no reason
>>17963735Profitability can’t be judged only by state budgets. Colonization massively enriched private companies, elites, and individuals through resource extraction (sugar, rubber, gold, cotton, slaves, etc.). Even when official accounts showed losses, capital, raw materials, and human labor were transferred at great scale.>>17963756That’s like asking why a robbed house didn’t buy new furniture. Africa’s resources were extracted under systems designed to prevent local industry and autonomy. Colonization and Cold War interventions ensured they couldn’t develop the tech base for things like ICBMs.>>17963764That’s true of almost everyone worldwide, thanks to global technological progress, not colonialism. The real question is: how much further ahead could Africa be without centuries of extraction, slavery, and imposed underdevelopment?
>>17963787Africans never even invented the wheel, nigger
>>17963785they were profitable for individuals, they were drains for the nations doing them. more land = more gooder was a hangover idea from previous ages. when it takes ridiculous amounts of energy and capital to transport those goods to the home nation you lose out on any gains from exploiting the natives.
>>17963789You are the dumbest motherfucker on planet Earth for falling for this narrative
>>17963787>how much further ahead could Africa be without centuries of extraction, slavery, and imposed underdevelopment?Not any further for most with maybe an exception to Egypt and Madagascar, everyone else wasn't developing. Ethiopia and Liberia should be the most powerful nations on the continent, yet Liberia is poor and Ethiopia has a real risk of balkanizing. The fact there are colonized countries with better HdI and development than those two means colonialisms influence is grossly overstated.
>>17963794>he said wheellessly
>>17963723White countries are rich because whites are more intelligent. That said, basic economics still applies. Africa accounts for less than 1% of global trade. Rich countries got rich by trading with other rich countries. Trade benefits both parties. A bunch of resources in the ground won't make Africa rich and turning resources into tradable commodities requires capital which Africa doesn't have. Leftists and other economic illiterates think Africa would be richer if we didn't trade with them, which is obviously absurd.
>>17963801>Africa accounts for less than 1% of global trade.Well North Africa is shafted in this regard because Europe is a power and trade vacuum for the Mediterranean preventing local hegemony Sub Saharan Africa is also fucked because no one single country is able to control enough coastline to take advantage of it and everyone else is inland Saying it's because of intelligence is in and of itself just an intellectually bankrupt position to take, because even if it were actually true, it couldn't possibly be the sole factor above geopolitical and environmental in this regard and there's nothing useful or insightful about simply dismissing these causes.
>Eurooe is rich because of Africa>Norway>Ireland >Finland>Austria>Denmark>Switzerland >Iceland>Netherlands >Sweden>Estonia>Germany (Which was in ruins in 1945 without colonies).Hell even even eastern Europe like Poland and Slovenia has pretty high living standards now, and they suffered from communist occupation almost for as long as most African states were colonized.
>>17963812>lists countries with no domestic manufacturing capabilities or significant holdings of natural resourcesYes anon, you're proving OP right and missing the point, well done.
>>17963787>The real question is: how much further ahead could Africa be without centuries of extraction, slavery, and imposed underdevelopment?Are you talking about native African slavery or the Atlantic and Indian Ocean slave Trades?
>>17963807IQ closely correlates with GDP and predicts GDP better than any other factor.
>>17963827You have it backwards, GDP predicts IQ, not the other way around, because IQ is not in fact a fixed number and does in fact rise for a given population specifically do to economic factors and better standard of living (see Flynn Effect)
>>17963824Without Atlantic and Indian Slave trades. If Africa were allowed to practice slavery on their own, it would've over time developed into a more complex Feudal-like Caste system.
>>17963723Because America became a superpower a century prior to meddling in Latin America in any direct way. In fact, the only time they did so prior to the 20th century was to preserve Mexico against French invasion.>AfricaIn reality it brought absolutely 0 value to anyone except a handful of richfags and merchants latched onto the King's asshole. The average European did not benefit from their inbred rulers owning a sugar cane plantation on another continent.>>17963735Colonies are only truly profitable in terms of land and development. Placing all of your chips on building wealth by trading raw goods and materials is how you end up a decrepit shithole like Spain. America didn't get rich because they found resources to exploit. They got rich because they used those resources to actually build something.>>17963789Retarded /pol/tranny
>>17963830Africa did practice slavery on their own. Over 90% of the slaves in Africa remained in Africa. Less than 10% of the slaves in Africa were exported on both the Atlantic and Indian Ocean Slave Trades.
>>17963829Better standard of living prevents the fall of IQ due to malnutrition and other factors. After these negative effects have been countered, it apparently does not help any further.
>>17963829>You have it backwards, GDP predicts IQ,Probably not since the Gulf oil states didn't see a boom in national IQ.
>>17963723>Why do people say this image is debunked?Because the west has collectively invested many times more money into africa than it has ever gotten back.
>>17963723Capitalism is the best system for development. The Europeans used it to quickly elevate themselves out of the Dark Ages (The Muslims being horrible fighters also helped). Sub-Saharan Africa and the New World just couldn't compete. Africa because the environment sucks and the New World because they started way too late. By the time Tenochtitlan was founded, the Great Pyramid was about 3900 years old.
>>17963891bot
>>17963895>botretard
>17963897>actually googled his response and then posted it in the threadbot + retarded
>>17963899Well now that your stupid OP image has been debunked you are, as expected, having a meltdown about it.
>>17963813Yeah and they're still wealthy because whites are superior to niggers
>>17963723https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_diseaseNauru's heavy reliance on phosphate mining, combined with a lack of taxes and large government expenses, caused issues after the depletion of much of its reserves. The country came close to bankruptcy in 2000, and the unemployment rate rose to 90% in 2004. Nauru was for a time the world's RICHEST country (GDP per capita), but has since fallen in ranking to 117th place (World Bank, 2022).
>>17963787>The real question is: how much further ahead could Africa be without centuries of extraction, slavery, and imposed underdevelopment?They'de be exactly where they are today a giant shithole.Just look at ethiopia it was never colonized still a giant shithole.
>>17963723Because Spain had a shitton of colonies.
>>17963723>african in a mud hut with a pile of gold>african in a mud hut without a pile of gold
its correct if the things taken from africa and south america are violent criminal monkey people that hold back western civilization
>>17963787>how much further ahead could Africa be without centuries of extraction, slavery, and imposed underdevelopment?As further ahead as Ethiopia in all likelihood. A good analogy for the development of a society is to compare it to a nuclear fusion reactor instead of a nuclear fission reactor as it's often done, or to a helicopter instead of a plane.
>>17963723Because there are obviously not piles of giant rocks over North America and Europe (which can be checked by anyone living in those areas or every existant footage and satellite imagery), and Latin America and Africa don't look like that either (which can be confirmed in the aforementioned manner and also by logic, ocean water would fill the two continents if they were excavated like that). The problem with democracy is that our futures are decided by idiots who believe everything they see on the internet.
>>17963787>robberyWhere was the deed to the land?What do you mean anyway? Who was robbing Africa in 1500?
>>17963723Because it has been. Most of the world moved on from colonialism, modern technology and industrialization is the main source of wealth nowadays. Europeans taking some diamonds and ivory 70 years ago does not explain why Africa has failed to develop when the asian tigers developed their economies in just 30 years.
>>17963794You're right, he's retarded. BLACK Africans never invented the wheel. Do not lump in MENA chads with those early hominid leftovers.
Because it has been debunked. We have given Africa trillions in aid for decades and it has accomplished nothing. It is obvious Africa's problems don't all stem from something that happened 100 years go.
>>17963723Colonialism in Africa was pretty much the same as soviet union, just with even more segregation.And thinking about it, it lasted about as long.
>>17963812Norway and Denmark benefitted directly from slave trade and still to this day reap the profits in the form of their world-class maritime industries that one day made obscene profits in slave trade. Although colonial economies were typically more protectionist and the resources would be directed towards the domestic economies, you can't say other European countries didn't benefit from France or Britain's colonial empires either. Even if the biggest profits would stay in French and British hands, the growth of these industrial economies also meant prosperity for other Western nations in the form of exports. Britain and France flooded foreign markets with newer and cheaper consumer goods, capital goods and also developed infrastructure. Even in LATAM and Africa. But certainly at a higher rate in Europe. Germany owe their industrialisation not only to their excellent education and research institutions or government policy, but also to the British machinery they imported and then imitated. Even though you only mentioned Africa, Denmark made good profits off the West Indies while the Dutch were very present both in the West and the East. And they also traded slaves.The whole developed world also benefited from cheap commodities exported from Latin America, all of which were based in extractive production systems that held the region back for centuries. Extractive institutions implemented by the colonisers and then supported by foreign capital. It's disingenuous to say Europe became rich because of colonial exploitation. But European countries certainly benefitted from it.>slav shitholesEU welfare toddlers. It isn't hard to rebuild when your bills are covered by Germany and France. Some of the less corrupt African countries could also improve under such conditions.
>>17964060You are extremely dishonest when it comes to the slave trade. Those who benefited the most from the Atlantic and Indian oceans slave trades were the African enslavers and traders, to the point where the economies of many west African kingdoms collapsed once the UK banned the Atlantic slave trade. And why have you made no mention of how both Europeans and non-Europeans benefited greatly from the different slave trades where Europeans were the slaves being traded? Several million Europeans ended up in northern Africa and western/central Asia over the centuries due to this, why didn't you mention this at all?As for cheap commodities, consider the case of all that silver that the Spanish empire extracted, which was by far the overall most valuable commodity they got, gold was a small contribution in comparison. Most of that ultimately ended up in China due to how global commercial patterns were at the time, and yet neither the Ming nor the Qing were able to do anything remarkable with all that wealth, they were but a mere shadow of the glorious days of the Tang (except in raw territorial extension). If what you say about resource extraction is true, how was that possible? Where does that negative result come from? Meanwhile, Meiji Japan, with its O-yatoi Gaikokujin teaching system that relied on foreign experts, was able to quickly modernise and develop to the point where in less than 4 decades after the Meiji restoration they could defeat a major European power in a 1-on-1 war.And Slavic countries would have developed anyway without EU funds, they improved a lot during the 90s and early 00s before they became members.
>>17964060>The whole developed world also benefited from cheap commodities exported from Latin AmericaWhy is North America heaped in gold and Latin America empty of resources when they both went through the exact same colonisation process?
>>17964119Because white bad brown good, okay? >:(
>>179637234chan once again proves itself to be nothing more than leftist fed bait that's moderated by feds with most posts coming from Israel.
>>17963723Just so we're clear, everything has been tried in Africa.Race based benevolent uplift, rational materialist communism, expansion of capitalist markets and cheap private credit, Christianity, Islam, Race based non-benevolent law and order, diversity encouraging golobohom, Chinese state colonialism, 0% rate infrastructure loans, authoritarian nationalism, expectation free discretionary aid, and so on.Every moralfag and chuddy smartboi ever has given it a whirl.The result is always the same. a brief improvement in the situation directly proportional to resources invested which immediately evaporates the second they are cut off.
Because white people bad, apparently.
>>17963723Because the idea that “prosperity in capitalist countries only exists because of colonialism and exploitation” is bullshit.Capitalist countries like Poland, Singapore, South Korea, Switzerland, Finland, etc have never colonized anyone nor have they intervened in other countries in the last century and they’re wealthy and prosperous. Also, the countries that did colonize were already wealthy and prosperous before colonialism. German chancellor Otto Von Bismarck considered colonization to be a waste of resources and Germany only became a colonial power later due to pressure to outcompete other countries (basically colonialism was nothing more than a massive dick-measuring contest), not because they were trying to “prop up a failing system”.This whole narrative comes from “The Open Veins of Latin America”, a book published in 1971 by Eduardo Galeano. Galeano himself would later admit that this book was complete garbage and that he wrote it in his youth when he had a piss-poor understanding of economics, politics, and history. He even said he wouldn’t read it again as he was ashamed of it.
>>17964164Finland was a colony for most of its history until about a century ago, and suffered under both Swedish and Russian rule. And let's not get into what the Brits did to Ireland...
The thing brown people love to forget is that whitey _developed_ the lands they occupied in order to create wealth, they didn't steal it out of their hands.
>>17964164A strawman argument.Existence of rich non-colonialist countries does not disprove the fact that some countries got rich by plundering others. Obviously if you rob you got richer, how could it be not true? Easy money come and go, even if ill got wealth was wasted - it does not change anything.The other, more important thing is accepting unfairness of history and moving on.
>>17964113>Those who benefited the most from the Atlantic and Indian oceans slave trades were the African enslavers and traders, to the point where the economies of many west African kingdoms collapsed once the UK banned the Atlantic slave trade. That's true but irrelevant to whether or not certain European countries benefitted from slave trade. >And why have you made no mention of how both Europeans and non-Europeans benefited greatly from the different slave trades where Europeans were the slaves being traded? Because that's completely irrelevant to a discussion about colonialism and the Atlantic slave trade.>all that silver that the Spanish empire extracted, which was by far the overall most valuable commodity they gotThat's not exactly incorrect but it doesn't tell the full story. While silver and gold were obviously more valuable in absolute numbers, the economy of LATAM took many different configurations depending on the time and place. Sugarcane plantations were everywhere, as well as tobacco and cotton. Even after independence, the extractive institutions these countries were founder upon remained active and manifested themselves in the coffee, copper, fruit, rubber, livestock and lead production chains to name a few.>china and meiji japanBy the time of the Meiji Restoration, the Qing were already doomed and China was in shambles. The kind of rapid modernisation Japan underwent (as well as Germany, Italy and other industrial latecomers) was simply not possible in China's best days. And even if China weren't in such a bad shape, there were always multiple variables as to whether or not a country would successfully modernise. Italy rose from a precarious position to one better than Portugal and Spain, the former remaining particularly shitty and backwards for a long time.>And Slavic countries would have developed anyway without EU fundsRassemblement National voters would love for that to be true.
>>17964119>exact same colonisation processThey didn't. Most colonies in Latin America and also the tropical British and Dutch domains were glorified production facilities. The "colonies" were really just immense chains of plantations linked to ports and equipped with precarious infrastructure meant to provide the bare minimum support to life. The exceptions being Spanish mining colonies that birthed cities. While you could argue that the antebellum south was just a protestant Brazil, there was never anything south of the Rio Grande that even marginally resembled Massachusetts, New York or Philadelphia.
>>17963723For the modern era, they don't understand how compound interest works, or they might think the kind of debts imposed on those countries were in some way legitimate. For the colonial era, people don't usually understand that colonies could be a net cost to the state that was engaging in colonialism, but the overall process enriched capitalists and imperialists who lived in that state (while impoverishing the natives). That was the whole point, after all, to get the taxpayer from the colonial state to pay for the colonizing actions, in order to benefit the upper class from the colonial state.
>>17964230>there was never anything south of the Rio Grande that even marginally resembled Massachusetts, New York or Philadelphia.That is pure cope because Spanish cities on the American continent like Mexico City and Havana used to dwarf even the biggest English towns at the time including New York or Philadelphia.
>>17963723>Why do people say this image is debunked?Because its nonsense for people who have never read a single book cover to cover>>17963801>Leftists and other economic illiterates think Africa would be richer if we didn't trade with them, which is obviously absurd.I came here to say this
>>17964329Note that I said Pennsylvania and Massachusets, not Philadelphia and Boston. Cities and universities did exist in Potosí, Quito, Lima and a few other key locations. But that doesn't mean they were societies of freemen building their communities from top bottom. More than half of the population in cities like Salvador and Lima were slaves, the former being an extreme example of a city that was a hollow, decrepit shithole despite its political importance because it still was ultimately only a bureaucratic centre, a port and the needed manpower to keep the city running. And the cities were always, with no exceptions, administrative hubs for the mining/plantation systems around them where only a tiny fraction of people were even free to begin with. The racial demographics of countries like Jamaica and Belize show just absurd the proportion of slave to freeman it could get in the region. Rural Latin America was Catholic Georgia, urban Latin America were better looking Appalachian coal mining towns but in a time when life was much cheaper. It's not a coincidence that a good part of the most developed areas of South America were settled centuries after the original colonisation and built around free immigrants that were granted small pieces of land to work in and given relative freedom to build their own communities. Argentina is better than Bolivia because it was left mostly untouched by the Spanish.
>>17964199>some countries got rich by plundering othersThe countries that colonized were already wealthy before colonialism and were only able to colonize other countries because they were rich enough to do so
>>17963785Wars for the sole reason of national prestige happened all the time 200 years agoIt may seem ridiculous to current Westerners, but 200 years ago we were as jingoistic as your average chink or pajeet is nowdays, and painting your country's colors on a map was enough of a reason to start a war.
>>17963787>The real question is: how much further ahead could Africa be without centuries of extraction, slavery, and imposed underdevelopment?Over 90% of Africa remained independent until the 1880s (and then spent about 80 years under colonial rule until the 60s).The "centuries of colonial rule" only exists in your head as a sad attempt to blame Africa's civilizational failure on an external actor.
>>17963735they weren't profitable *to the imperial governmentsthe private interests that convinced the imperial governments to conquer those regions became insanely rich, partly from looting the colonies and partly from looting the public treasury by getting the state to provide services on their behalf rather than fund those services themselves
>>17964210>SILENCE CHUD, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHEN EVERYONE ELSE DOES IT, YOU ALONE NEED TO PAY FOR SLAVERY EVEN IF YOUR COUNTRY DIDN'T DO IT
>>17965213Not once have I said anything about reparations. Who are you quoting?
>>17965219It's the only way these retards can argue. They put words in your mouth until you're exhausted trying to clarify a point for them.
>>17963723spain and the UK should have the tallest piles as they stole tons and tons of gold from india and the americas
>>17963787>The real question is: how much further ahead could Africa be without centuries of extraction, slavery, and imposed underdevelopment?They would probably be even further behind without the technology and investment from Europe.
>>17963723Because it's bullshit, is why.Here, have some sources about why colonial economics is far more complicated than "muh whitey stole shit" & most colonies weren't all that profitable:>Mammon & the pursuit of empire (Davis & Huttenback)>The economic history of colonialism (Tirthankar Roy)>A new economic history of colonial India (Latika Chaudhary)>Imperial measurement (Kristan Niemietz)And some others that aren't about economics as such, but still debunk tbe image:>Empireland (Sathnam Sanghera)>Black & British (David Olusoga)>All 5 volumes of the Oxford History of the British EmpireAnd loads more but that should do for now (guy who keeps arguing the image is true, read all them and get back to me, I'll wait!)
The simple fact of the matter is that those in sub Saharan Africa have the lowest IQs on average. Unfortunately these same people are breeding at unprecednted rates while Western country birth rates continue to fall. In 50 years this will be the scene of every Western country as millions and millions of these people push into civilization.
>Our key 1500 AD result implies large magnitudes. Regressing income today on the migration-weighted index for 1500 AD, a coefficient of 3.261 implies that a movement from 0 to 1 is associated with an increase in per capita income today by a factor of 26.1. The log difference in per capita income today between Western Europe and sub-Saharan Africa is 2.59 (a factor of 13.3). This income difference is usually attributed to the post-1500 slave trade, colonialism, and post-independence factors in sub-Saharan Africa. The averages for Western Europe and sub-Saharan Africa on the migration-weighted technology index in 1500 AD are 0.923 and 0.303, respectively. The log per capita income difference today associated with that 1500 AD technology difference is 3.261 × (0.923 − 0.303) = 2.023 (a factor of 7.6). Thus, 78 percent of the log difference in income today between subSaharan Africa and Western Europe (2.023/2.59) is associated with the technology differences in 1500 AD.>https://dcomin.host.dartmouth.edu/Publications_files/1000BC.pdfEurope was already richer and more advanced than Africa in the late medieval period. Additionally, it's worth mentioning that like today, back in the colonial era, most trade in the world was between rich countries. Right now the USA trades and invests more with Canada (917.4 billion in trade and 683.8 billion in FDI) than all of Africa (71.6 billion in trade and 56.29 billion in FDI).
>>17964060Africa benefited directly from the slave trade by selling slaves.
>>17963723The image is debunked because blacks and browns have lower IQ, meaning they were never prosperous in the first place. In fact, they benefited more from white peoples than white peoples benefited from them.
>>17964060>European countries certainly benefitted from it.To what extent?We "benefit" to this day from Roman slavery, we still use many Roman roads which were no doubt built and/or maintained by slaves, but this work could have been done at any other point over the next 20000 years. It is the same with slavery, growing some cotton, sugar and tobacco 200 years ago.In America the presence of black people and their crime rates and net cost to the US economy due to them not managing to pay more in tax than they receive in government spending. Certainly after desegregation black people became a net cost to the US economy. Similarly when you people say Sweden or some other benign country "benefited from slavery" it is used to justify defrauding the immigration and social welfare systems of these countries and their people enduring the increased rape, theft and stabbings and drag on the economy and quality of life.If anything it should be white people receiving reparations.
>>17965458If this was posted on Reddit, you'd be downvoted, you know?
>>17965465https://old.reddit.com/r/4chan/comments/1n56eqx/so_whos_gonna_tell_him/this whole thread was posted to r/4chan btw. greetings gentilesirs
>>17963723Europeans barely touched Africa until the late 19th century. European colonisation of Africa only happened after they were already rich and were bored and decided to own empty desert for prestige resions.
>>17965493Rocks? I thought they were generic gold coins to illustrate wealth.
>>17965510rocks could indicate resources. idk a leftoid upset about muh colonialism is bad or something made it years ago
>>17963785yep. same as dei. doesn't work but people still did it.
>>17963986east asian tigers arent a good argument>imperial japanwas also a colonial power>south korea and taiwanrecieved a lot of free economic aid because they were the anti communist garrisons right next to communist states>hong kong and singaporecity states located in very important trade routes. Also they were city states.>chinaextreme large unified country with a history of centralized gov. Meanwhile african states were often unified with divergent groups that just did not like each other.
>>17965493>r/4chanWhat?
>>179664521.3 million users. Dont you know? 4chan and reddit is more connected than you think
>>17963723Africa’s exploitation that continues to this day is just a part of it, something that has done more harm is the west keeping in power evil and corrupt people they can exploit.
>>17966456> keeping in power evil and corrupt people they can exploit.THIS
>>17965493>I sincerely hope you're joking.>60* billion a year from the west. While the west roughly receives 70- 100 billion from resource extraction such as: oil, gas, minerals, and metals. Not mentioning the trade imbalances that colonialism has set in place another 50- 70 billion to western pockets, as well as debt repayments to western creditors.. 40- 50 billion. Cant forget about illegal financial flow and tax avoidance... another 50- 100 billion to the west.>TLDR: Africa is still getting fucked lubelessly by the long 200+ year old dick of colonialism. Anyone thinking otherwise is a laughable idiot whose fallen for Western conservative propaganda or is intentionally arguing otherwise in bad faith.Chuds raped with facts and logic once again
>>17965493Can't these Redditors be content browsing their own website? Why do they have to stalk us here?
>>17963785What the other anons said, but also the main reason the public supported things like the Scramble for Africa was to help those poor negros, unironically. The policies were spurred on by stories of cannibalism and slavery (all true), and Europeans wanted to help them by taking control and giving them modern technology, rights, and Christianity. Publicly, it was an altruistic project. Privately, it wasted money except for making a few people on the ground rich.
>>17963794>>17963832They insulted him >>17963789, but they never proved him wrong.
>>17966462>source: my ass
>>17965167>>17965508Afrosisters....our response?
The richest European countries are the ones that colonized the least (Scandinavia, Germany)The richest African countries are the ones that were colonized the most (South Africa, Angola)>>17966456>>17966457Why is that wrong but communists using violence to stay in power not wrong? What's the criteria? It's all good if the aggression is done by "natives" with communist flags?
>>17967011The richest is actually switzerland, which is where the colonizers store their gold.
>>17963794Well some Africans did
>>17967011> The richest European countries are the ones that colonized the least (Scandinavia, Germany)Germany had colonies in Africa (Namibian, Tanganyika, Rwanda and Burundi) and various South Pacific Island before World War 1. She lost them all to other powers because she lost the war.
>>17967063*Namibia **Islands
>>17967034Damn so the wealth "extracted" (it wasn't even being produced before) from all colonies is now in Switzerland! Of course, that's why it's so rich! Brilliant.But anyway, according to what criteria is colonialism wrong, tell me. Is it because theft is wrong? Murder? Slavery? What is it that's wrong about it?>>17967063That's right and the UK and Spain and Portugal had even more colonies yet they are poorer.
>>17963723What specific technology, mineral, or resource existed in Africa prior to European colonialism and slavery that currently no longer exists? What exactly does Africa have a "shortage" of? Besides food. The reason they have a food shortage is because they're having too many kids, don't have enough farmland, and don't know how to operate the farms they do have. If you look at the world economy today, African nations (which are no longer colonies but completely independent) export plenty of shit every single day (including gold and diamonds). How's this possible? I thought they had nothing left.
>>17965348Yet to see the communists reply to this.
>>17967091>Is it because theft is wrong? Murder? Slavery?Pretty much, yeah
>>17963723Africa and Latin America don't really have any resources, and the few countries that do have any significant amount (e.g. Chile and South Africa) are well-off from it.Hell, if you go back 100 years, these places didn't even have any people. Europe had 5 times the population of Sub-Saharan Africa by 1900.
>>17967109>muh commiesRacial realism is actually more compatible with communism/socialism than it is with capitalism. Communism accepts people have different abilities. Capitalist apologists typically say anyone can have any ability or talent they want as long as they "believe in themselves" or some other such faggotry.
>>17963789A quick Google search says that you are correct.
>>17963785Look at the data rather than your nonsense anon. The African colonies especially were never profitable for the European empires. They were always a permanent red mark on the balance sheet. The one country that came close to making an African colony economically productive was Belgium, and that was an entirely different horror show so far past sanity that it almost sounds like retarded propaganda today (although it's interesting that modern Belgium never seems to get criticized for it, especially not as much as other European nations, even ones that didn't have colonial empires).
>>17967147>although it's interesting that modern Belgium never seems to get criticized for it, especially not as much as other European nations, even ones that didn't have colonial empiresWhat are you smoking? Belgium gets shat on all the time because of it and the numbers are usually inflated to like 10 million dead.Libs/commies even criticize Belgians for having chocolate in the shape of hands, alleging it to be related to the hand-chopping in Congo
>>17967132Capitalism is respect for property rights. It has nothing to do with believing people are equally capable or not. Furthermore it's just blatantly false that capitalism apologists tend to claim that people are equally capable. Communists are much more likely to do that.>>17967121Alright than statism and socialism are immoral as they are predicated upon theft and slavery.
>>17967159Now compare that to the shit that Britain and France get for their (infinitely less horrific, even at their worst) empires.
>>17963723brown cope
>>17967206
>>17967208
>>17963723If slavery made America rich why were the northern states richer than the southern states? Why is Canada which never had slaves more successful than Brazil which had slaves until 1890? Why is Mauritania which practices slavery today not an economic powerhouse? If Europe is rich thanks to colonialism as the leftists say, why is Portugal, the longest-lasting Western empire (1415-1999) poorer than countries that didn't have colonies like Poland, Slovenia, or Finland?
>>17967063>Germany had colonies in Africa (Namibian, Tanganyika, Rwanda and Burundi) and various South Pacific Island before World War 1.Yeah, for about 30 yearsI'm sure it's what made Germany rich and developed
In 1830 the most well off were the ones who were doing well with that era of colonialism, they had literally just taken the wealthiest places in the rest of the world and sold whatever they were already selling.
>>17967522>Belgium (no colonies) just as rich as Britain and Netherlands>Germany and Austria (no colonies) just as rich as Spain, Portugal and FranceProves wealth had nothing to do with colonies
>>17967772Belgium split off from Netherlands after they made their wealth from the colonies. Germany and Austria were starting early on policies that encouraged capital and industrial developments, while Spain and Portugal were on the way down with obsolete economic policies. France was still behind from being BTFO by all of Europe. The wealth wasn't the whole story, but to suggest it wasn't a major factor is simply nuts.
>>17967804Belgium was part of the Netherlands for a whole 15 years.>Germany and Austria were starting early on policies that encouraged capital and industrial developments, while Spain and Portugal were on the way down with obsolete economic policies.Right so you agree nothing to do with colonies.
>>17967812It's not the whole story. The reason they were able to develop during the industrial revolution was thanks to the cheap resources from the colonies. This is why Germany tried their best to grab colonies, because the other colonial powers started to be more strict with protectionist policies, and it's why Austria-Hungary fell behind later on. This isn't a 'this was 100% due to colonies' versus 'this had nothing to do with colonies' thing, the colonies were a major factor. However important they really are, the colonial powers obviously thought they were necessary (but not sufficient) for economic success and political independence, and even the post-colonial powers continued to maintain control in various ways.
>>17967825Which resources are you talking about? Bearing in mind that European countries had been industrialised for decades while Africa still looked like this >>17965167 in the 1870s
>>17967804What are you talking about, moronBelgium obtained its first colony over 50 years after splitting up from the Netherlands
>>17967831They were industrializing, and finding resources in various places. Soon enough they had used up everything that local markets could produce. They were then buying them up from America (North and South) and India, and also from other states like those in the Middle East or East Asia (with a lot of shady business in how they got good prices from those places), and finding more and better prices drove them to colonize anywhere else. It was all part of the same process, one that continued into the decolonization era, and even continued into the off-shoring era (and now on/in-shoring).
Remember that the industrial revolution in britain coincides with indian colonization
>>17967842North and South American states like the US and Brazil were independent states, not colonies, as were the states in the Middle East and East Asia. So were is this dependency on colonies coming from? Just because they decided to colonise somewhere does not mean they were dependent on that area. You can buy things without owning the state in which its produced.
>>17967840Those regions were also the wealthiest parts of Europe from the end of the medieval period and through the renaissance. Netherlands got and stayed ahead because it also had more overseas holdings and interests around the world.
>>17967853They wanted to get the things for as cheap as possible. And later on they also wanted to prevent rival European powers from having access, or at least having to pay tariffs to buy the things. This doesn't mean 'dependent' it means they were enriched by the same process that impoverished their colonies. And this process continues as the developed world is enriched by the capitalist world order that keeps the developing world under debt and ruled by despots.
>>17967856How can you say in one sentence that they were the wealthiest parts of Europe from the end of the medieval period, ie before anyone had colonies, and then in the next say they got ahead because they had more overseas holdings?Do you have a difficult time understanding the concept that just because two things happen at the same time does not prove that one thing created the other. If anything your example just proves that the wealth came first, and then the colonies came after as an expression of power.
>>17967877The whole region, including Belgium and Holland, were the wealthiest part of the Europe in the medieval and renaissance period. Out of the two, the one that got the colonies became more wealthy. After that, the nearby state of Britain (already quite wealthy for similar reasons) got very far ahead after they had colonies in America and India sending revenue home, and after resources from those places began to feed their industries in Britain. The colonies came as an investment in increasing power.
>>17967896You think colonies are like some cartoon sending gold coin back to England in a boat.There was zero economic impact on Britain when the Americans got their independence.You are actually braindead, I cant be bothered anymore
>>17967903They did get money from the colonies though. America actually fought a war to stop sending taxes to Britain. They kept selling wood and cotton and whatever else to Britain, and it turned out this arrangement was more lucrative for both sides. >You are actually braindead, I cant be bothered anymoreOK cool I'm out anyway. Keep thinking that the greatest powers on Earth just wasted huge amounts of money for centuries on something that gave them nothing in return.
>>17967223>the south's wealth was built through slavery>the north's wealth was built through industry and finance>industry and finance build more wealth than slave plantationsThese statements are all true and not mutually exclusive. "The little wealth Brazil had was created by slaves working in coffee farms" is a factual statement. And it's also obvious to anyone that free societies with economies more diverse than slaves planting cash crops are better in every way. Morally, ethically, economically, socially.>If Europe is rich thanks to colonialism as the leftists sayNo serious person thinks that. "Europe got wealthier thanks to colonialism" is a better statement to discuss.>why is Portugal, the longest-lasting Western empire (1415-1999) poorer than countries that didn't have coloniesBecause the Portuguese empire peaked before the industrial age, the time that actually made Europe rich. But the mid 1850s the country was already a complete shithole unable to capitalise on industrialisation. Even if they got more colonies than just Mozambique, Angola and the smaller ones, you'd still hardly see Portugal mining up coal and iron to feed its factories in the mainland, which was the greatest benefit countries could get from colonialism (precious metals pretty much only served very limited private interests)
>>17964199The one European Colonial state that 'got rich by plundering others' was Spain, who plundered vast amounts of gold from Central/Southern America. That lead to out of control hyper-inflation in Spain and broke their economy so badly that they arguably still haven't completely recovered from it. Even when you're trying to be reasonable your perspectives are the literal opposite of reality.
>>17967522>In 1830 the most well off were the ones who were doing well with that era of colonialismThis is putting the cart before the horse. These places were doing well with colonialism because they were rich and could afford large investments into colonial ventures.
>>17967169Germany was worse than Leopold II yet nobody knows about the Herero-Nama genocide while everybody exaggerates Leopold's crimes
>>17967522>In 1830 the most well off were the ones who were doing well with that era of colonialismBesides Britain, who the fuck was "doing well" at colonialism in that era?Spain had lost its colonies, France only had few islands, the Netherlands merely had some swatches of Indonesia...
>>17969128Some tribes rebelled and started massacring the GermansThe Germans fought them off and they fled through a desert where some diedHow is that a genocide?
