All the major european colonial powers reached every corner of the world yet they took mostly nigger slaves to the New World.Like England, Portugal and France had colonies in East Asia, India and Africa.Why is that?
Actually it was black kings calling the shot the whole time
>>539455632Niggers decided to become slaves?
>>539456296Not necessarily. Europeans relied on a network of african rulers and kings to capture and bring amounts of slaves, in exchange for goods like firearms, textiles, and such more. That allowed some kingdoms to actually form under this colonial partnership
>>539455579For the same reason certain races of dogs are used for hunting, other for guard, other for personal defence and so on.You have a race of phisically strong, incredibly stupid creatures who can resist working in the open in hot climates, you give them a welfare program that 2x/3x their life expectancy and in exchange you have cheap labour. Win-win.
>>539456360That doesn't answer my question. Why did niggers ended up as slaves more than chinese and indian. Keep in mind that China and India historically had the largest populations in the world.
>>539457027I'll say accessibility. Africans were much closer in distance than the Chinese or Indians. Add to that, the underdeveloped life of Africans that didn't allow them to know how to fight back, which was an extra to get them instead. Also, china still had a leadership in the Qing and Ming dynasties, which wouldn't have allowed the Europeans to enslave them without waging a war against the country. As for India, it was still more developed than subsaharan countries. Mainly due to existing not too far from where knowledge used to get traded (i.e. Silk Road). Still, that didn't prevent them from getting colonized by the British. They were enslaved, but not imported much like africans. They were imported to some colonies in africa before local leaders took power after ww2, and started deporting them with no care at all (nationalism go brrr).So yeah, it's about accessibility, underdevelopment, and not having to wage wars for cheap labor.
>>539455579Africans were selling each other, other places were not, not complicated.
>>539455579Because they're a robust farming implement why do you think?
>>5394555791. Africans sold other Africans to Europeans with no problems2. Africa is closer to the Americas, and traveling from Africa to the Americas was much easier than traveling from Asia to the Americas3. There was a belief that Africans were better suited for manual labor than Native Americans or other peoples and could better endure the climate4. The system that developed during the transatlantic slave trade made it more efficient to obtain enslaved Africans than people from other continents. This system was called the Triangular Trade
>>539457027They didn't end up being more enslaved, Jesus Christ why do you have a confederate flag if you're going to be this fucking retarded?
>>539455579Other races fought them and resisted mostly, niggers are slave minded and sold each other for cheap beer, plus they're the perfect slave: weak in the mind but the strong in the body.
colonialism was the elites using white men as stunt dummies to manifest their global ambitionwhites were colonized first, hence their disposition to whine and feel inadequate, never possessing personal sovereignty, just cattle to be used and disposed ofultimatley, helping to fulfill agendas that they themselves would fall victim to because useful idiots have their part to play
>>539457412>'ll say accessibility. Africans were much closer in distance than the Chinese or Indians. That makes sense>Add to that, the underdeveloped life of Africans that didn't allow them to know how to fight back, which was an extra to get them instead. Why would they fight?It is well known that that most of the time it was niggers selling other niggers>As for India, it was still more developed than subsaharan countries.Are you telling me that niggers were less developed than fucking poojeets?I would also assume that chinks and poojeets must've been cheaper considering their population sizes
This is why you should at least finish high school
>>539458175>They didn't end up being more enslaved, Jesus Christ why do you have a confederate flag if you're going to be this fucking retarded?Are you retarded?The entire New World is filled with nigger slaves.
>>539457027Chinks and jeets were exploited in other ways, like jeets around Bangladesh were forced to sign contracts by the British compelling them to grow opium and sell it for almost nothing, to the point it forced people into poverty. The British also employed Indian mercenaries in their wars and stuff, while Asian "coolies" are obviously very famous for being exploited for next to nothing.The difference is Europeans were still willing to exploit those people but not to the extent they were with Africans, the reason is the level of civilisation between the different cultures and also probably just straight up racism, the idea of taking a cargo of African slaves from some jungle in Africa was more palatable than kidnapping some Chinese or Indian guys (who were very still civilised at the time, Indians probably moreso than today lol) to do manual labour.The exploitation of India and Chinese came much after the exploitation of the New World too. Why take Indians to the Americas when you can force them to grow tea and opium in India instead? The value of exploitation of Indians and Chinese in their home countries was far greater than taking them somewhere else.Also don't underestimate the importance of Europeans buying slaves off African leaders instead of capturing them themselves, that's another big reason for it. Very rarely were Euros actually willing to enslave people themselves, the most prominent example of that happening would be blackbirding, but that involved more trickery than outright violent kidnapping; again, they were probably more willing to do this with Islanders than Indians and Chinese because they felt more superior.
>>539456360When did you niggas change your flag?
>>539460898>Very rarely were Euros actually willing to enslave people themselveslolno Europeans had no problem enslaving people they enslaved native Australian aboriginals and native Americans and oftentimes the slavery was brutal enough that those groups died out. They enslaved Africans because there was a market there already and too many native Americans had died and they knew the geography of America better making it easier to escape into the wilderness.
>>539462398
>>539457412>but not imported muchlondon is full of jeets rn
>>539463183I did say "very rarely" didn't I?With Aboriginals and Native Americans it was usually forcing them to live on missions/ reservations, which while awful and exploitative wasn't the same kind of slavery we're talking about.
>>539455579Asian people are short black people are taller (at least back in those days) and since most of them still did manual labour due to being from underdeveloped nations probably stronger as well who would spend money on some short chinese guy and then next to him is some big huge dude instead?
Look up The Sotadic Zone, Seck Gorgui, Andre Gide Amyntas. Whites have always been a faggot race. A fact exploited by those more intelligent than them. They literally genocided natives around the world to make lebensraum for their Black men. Only true archfaggots would venture dangerous oceanic voyages, fight their own neighbors, and put their nations at perpetual risk just to get access to those Black penises.
>>539457027The Chinese and Indian indentured servants replaced slaves in the 19th century, that's how the Chinese ended up in Malaysia and Singapore and how Indians ended up in Suriname and Guyana.
>>539455579sub saharans were at the right stage of historical development to facilitate slavery. they were still in the early iron age and technologically dwarfed by europeans, but crucially africa had developed civilizationally enough that local kings could capture vast numbers of people to sell as slaves to europeans. people in even lower stages of historical development like australian abbos werent used as slaves because they were so undeveloped that they couldnt even facilitate capturing large numbers of people to turn into slaves.
>>539455579Maybe niggers are the perfect slave race.
>>539465645imported cheap labour≠slaves
>>539465645very good point.>>539468544do you know what an indentured servant is?
Niggers got hands, they got wrecked in Somalia and Ethiopia and recently that got whooped by child soldiers in Niger.
