If Colonialism and slavery never happened, wouldn't western countries be much poorer due to never being able to exploit the wealth of other nations? And due to that, wouldn't scientific development significantly be cut away, as resource surplus is needed to produce scientists and philosophers?
So say it never happened, does that mean Africa is now like slightly more wealthy, but at the cost of basically making western nations have 1/50th their current wealth?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.m.wikipedia.org
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
that's such a stupid question, but I know you're aware of that. If "Colonialism" never happened than it's irrelevant to consider whether Europe would be wealthier or poorer as it would be so totally different it wouldn't be comparable
shut up its serious question. they talk about reparations and shit in the trillions of dollars. try to tell me what trillions of dollars with interest compounding over 500 years would do to our society, and tell me we wouldn't be affected
>wealth of other nations
>wealth
they can't even exploit their own now.
ONLy if youre retarded woth no idea about economics, there is no colonial wealth in any euro country.
Almost the entirely of western wealth / growth is attributable to the individual revolution and market capitalism. Slavery was actually getting in the way of economic developer as it prevented a proper labor market from forming. The net beneficiaries of colonialism were the colonies. Without colonialism, Africa still would not have the limited infrastructure that exists now, medical care, etc.
The middle east and Northern Africa were white people's until Islam,
So probably should include if the dark ages could have been avoided if shit skin sand niggers never left their shit hole near India
>If Colonialism and slavery never happened,
Are you talking only about the the 5 western nations that got to it or any kingdom that ever did that?
Cause if it's the first then Russians, Mongols, Indians, Chinese or Muslims would've done it.
outside of the industrial use of gold and gems, they have no worth. if the euros never got that stuff out of Africa/Americans they'd have just moved to a backless currency like we use today.
Also why do you americans believe some europeans got together and said let's colonize the rest or what?
What did the aztecs do with the rest of the tribes or the Romans with all the mediterranean if not slavery and colonization?
SURVIVAL
Get it on your head
Colonize or get colonized.
How much wealth did Singapore steal from Africa, retard?
Eastern and Nordist Europe didn't colonize any part of africa or america or asia other than some ports and you can see their cities and civilization, they weren't as rich but they weren't poor either.
There is no such thing as stolen wealth, nothing anyone uses comes taken from
Africa mor are there any african resources or anything, African resources USED to be used by euro powers when it ended then all resources were lost and only redources used were traded from
Local sources.
it's not like africans were using rubber before the europeans you know
also no such thing as africa as one nation, they were several kindoms fighting between them just as europeans but with spears instead and slaves
Wealth from
Africa is as syolen
By europeans as the current iwners of that respurce, but retarded social marxism takes precidence over facts and economics.
>try to tell me what trillions of dollars with interest compounding over 500 years would do to our society, and tell me we wouldn't be affected
that still doesn't make any sense. Are you writing some sort of shitty essay on this for a summer class? My point is that colonialism was the beginning of joint-venture capitalism, and ran on speculation. It was inevitable owing to the wealth, manpower, and technology of Europe in the early modern era. One can't clearly separate ILL GOTTEN COLONIAL WEALTH and DOMESTICALLY PRODUCED EUROPEAN wealth as a Europe where colonialism and speculation weren't occurring would be a Europe that was poor and technologically inferior in the first place
Are you retarded?
Afrivan resources are just fuel you lose fuel then you have what you didnt have as extra.
dead people in ww1?
which is my point; it is all stolen wealth. That's why when people bash refugees, or say we should stop foreign aid, I can at best laugh at them, and at worst, want them fucking silenced. We literally caused basically every problem on this planet, and then we go "who, who did that, I don't know!"
stupid fuck
you don't even know what the ottoman empire was now do you?
>Afrivan resources are just fuel you lose fuel then you have what you didnt have as extra.
what?
Only way Africa would've been better without colonialism is that africa would have now maybe 5% of the population
Give back our gold.
If colonialism didnt happen the middle east would have eventually been either genocided or turkey would have began colonizing instead
We would have no potatos, tomatos, modern corn, no USA, no french revolution, spain would have been part of Austria de facto, lots would have changed
Literally everything would have changed, nothing would be the same
so you u admit that native americans would not have been the victims of genocide, and that Africans would be fully modern now without us purposefully making them fight amongst each other, and stealing their resources?
"Our" when are you giving back the copper to its rightful owner?
Colonialism was a net drain and plantations were pretty much removed from the rest of the economy.
If America needed slaves to build the nation, why was the South so poor compared to the North?
Africa has had blacks for along time. what happened there?
No, the people who think Africa would be some kind of Wakanda like superpower are fucking deluded.
Besides a lower IQ, the continent is handicapped by the cultural malaise known as "African Time", which was on full display in Empire of Dust.
en.m.wikipedia.org
This explains why non-black civilizations are usually shitshows.
You mean to the Pachamama?
Cause the cooper it's ours.
Slavery does not do anything other than enrich an individual paying workers produces exact same production but dustributes it more to worker..
Niggers were brought here to pick cotton, to make clothing and bedsheets. You're giving their contribution far too much credit.
that doesn't make any sense, we're talking about economics not some liberal dogmatic twaddle. What is "stolen" wealth? What do you think Europe was pursuing? Commodities, primarily spices and exotic goods. The early to mid colonial period saw production of foodstuffs and raw resources overseas that couldn't be produced in most European climates; tea, coffee, sugar, cotton, etc. This isn't "stolen" wealth, as the Caribbean islands, for example, were non-productive by any definition of production of surplus. The labor acquired through the slave trade was through trade, it was arguably mutually beneficial to West African and Arab traders, the ship owners, and the slave traders.
Late colonialism sees an explosion in overseas exploitation of resources such as metal, wood, fuels, almost all of which is capable only through Western investment, speculation, and involvement. It wouldn't have happened otherwise, so how is it "stolen"?
Yes salt and other spices made us very rich and permanently fucked brown races
Who is rightful owner of vopper?
serious question are you so fucking stupid as to not realize all the other nations in the world besides the western world still practice slavery ?
a lot of meme pretenses here, I was fairly certain you were just trolling and now I'm positive. Why are you doing this? We could have an actual discussion but you're just being a dumb twat
both the africans and indians would have died of dysentry look whats happening now that "the white man" left africa.
Massive starvation and plagues.
You have not replied a single one of my posts
You are just a troll
>our
no such thing as chile befor spain
it's not yours
Legally?
Rockefeller.
If you stole it from our cold death hands it ain't yours.
So you are the rightful owner of the copper?
Or rockefeller if so go talk to rockefeller
>t. someone who has never had a college history class
Look, if you actually believe that stuff I'm willing to engage in a debate. Why are you ignoring Spainbro?
I just want the artifacts back.
This pendant took more than a year to make, Nahuel got a prophetic dream that told him where to mine the silver, he dig till his hands bleed, in order to make it for Rayen the daughter of the Lonco.
Spanish hairy manbeast killed her for it and murdered his son that tried to protect her, while Nahuel was fishing.
Meanwhile in africa
Some genocide if they are still alive.
Get a dictionary fucko.
then lets kill rockerfella.
>market capitalism magically led to every scientific advancement
Fuck off idiot. The only reason capitalism became prevalent was because the resource surplus from colonies shifted the balance of power to the bourgeoise.
Sure let's just let ourselves get overrun by third world uneducated browns who believe Islam and want to murder all of us, or we'll just become the new race of browns. Great fucking plan, retard, this is where your historical white guilt leads us. Why is it that only white countries need diversity? Japan and China are racist as fuck and keep people out, and no one bats an eye. But crybaby leftist loons want to open the gates to let in the hungry barbarians, insisting nothing bad will come of it.
You mean Antifa ?
Search Results
bourgeois
ˈbʊəʒwɑː/
adjective
adjective: bourgeois
1.
belonging to or characteristic of the middle class, typically with reference to its perceived materialistic values or conventional attitudes.
"a rich, bored, bourgeois family"
synonyms: middle-class, property-owning, propertied, shopkeeping; More
conventional, traditional, conservative, conformist;
ordinary, commonplace, provincial, parochial, suburban, small-town, parish-pump
"she came from a bourgeois family"
antonyms: proletarian, unconventional
(in Marxist contexts) upholding the interests of capitalism; not communist.
"bourgeois society took for granted the sanctity of property"
synonyms: capitalistic, materialistic, money-oriented, commercial; informalyuppie
"foreign ideas were denounced as bourgeois decadence"
antonyms: communist
noun
noun: bourgeois; plural noun: bourgeois
1.
a bourgeois person.
"a self-confessed and proud bourgeois"
synonyms: member of the middle class, property owner
"Liebermann was a self-professed and proud bourgeois"
antonyms: communist
Fuck I knew Antifa where bad but I didn't know they stole the wealth of Africa.
Makes sense though how many liberals went over to fight the african child soldiers though.
Liberals liberally killing african kids in the jungles of africa.
because the landed nobility is well known for innovation?
so why do communists proffess their love for the party but are known for killing their allies.
Shit they are anonymical to themselves.
Rich white kids dressing up as freedom fighters and calling blacks white supremacists.
Let's kill him and stole his silver, colonialist style.
Take his possessions first then he will die because thats all that attaches him to this world.
colonized lands were literally hundreds if not thousands years behind in progress, they would be much worse with only their own "creations"
>If Colonialism never happened
Brown countries would still be poor as they were before colonialism.
Thread/
Oh it's Europe's fault that Africa is a mess isn't it? Without Europe's intervention Africa would now be a flourishing peaceful continent, right?
Europe is only wealthy because they exploited other countries and took their resources, right?
Not 500 year long intra-continental economic specialisation, not the rise of nation states, not social contracts, not the creation of economic and legal infrastructure, no bananas, cocoa and palm oil is what gives nations wealth...
The wealth of Europe is not material wealth, it's the a stable and safe societies they live in. From that context wealth is create
No. Slavery in fact retards progress. Niggers fucked us over again.
Apparently the only thing that he has that he actually made and collected himself it's his bettle collection.
He can keep that.
No real economic growth happened before industrial revolution.
Return our jewelry, euro niggers.
I can't answer that question but he meant the urban middle class, by bourgeois. Burgher, Burger, citizen, Burg dweller, etc. "Colonialism" happened because of them for the most part, it was a continuation of late Medieval, Renaissance economic and speculator trends. Colonialism is really not that different than the spread of the Hanseatic League in the North and Baltic seas, basically just with better shipping technology
My critique is if it weren't for the speculation and pursuit of future earnings that is inherent to capitalism that most innovations wouldn't spread. They MAY be discovered and utilized but the widespread adoption for competitive reasons is a hallmark of capitalism. If that poster is postulating a different wealthy class, a non-"capitalist" one I can only imagine it would be the Medieval landed nobility that takes its profits through rent and sharecropping; only engaging in little trade, and that trade being possible only through the existence of cities, both natural and ecclesiastical
prattling on as you do .
The answer is because they are full of shit and so are you.
They see something pretty they want it, the cheaper the better, all the rest it's rethoric and justifications.
what? I wasn't even unsympathetic to whatever you were trying to say; it was just irrelevant
is the sun addling your brain down there?
pretty much this.
Everyone is just talking bullshit hardly anyone is being real.
you missed the point entirely.
Its an actual term used to describe the emerging middle class. Are you fucking retarded?
Not the point. Capitalism arised from resource surplus
Classists are kill on sight fyi
welcome to the real world.
...
...
>Not the point. Capitalism arised from resource surplus
I'm not disputing that; that much is quite obvious. But if not for the capitalists who do you see investing into new technologies and production methods? The state? individual nobles? That too would require resource surpluses that would imply similar economic conditions to that of the late Medieval to early modern period. Cities, advanced manufacturing, credit, etc.
Robber Baron in the tower,
Counting all his gold.
You know while he goes unchecked
And stays in power,
He's never gonna let,
He's never gonna let,
He's never gonna let us go!
It's a mixed bag for India in my opinion; We had muzzie rulers in the Moughals and the subcontinent was perpetually divided along communal lines; Although there is reason to believe that Moughal were a declining empire anyway and the Hindu's were taking control; The Birtish did act as a catalyst. Also, The transfer of western technology obviously had it's upsides although this process could have easily been peaceful and mutually beneficial instead of hyper expolitataive. It is not an exgaeration to say that the medieval era Indian industry was systematically destroyed because of colonial policies. In the end, I still not sure if India was better or worse off; primarily because history is not over yet; The west did harm itself in the process by loosing it's sense of Christian morality and forcing glottalization upon itself.
I agree with you. OP's post was just about how advancement resulted from resource surplus, which it essentially did. Capitalism was the system that would have naturally arised after feudalism and mercantilism due to the large market of goods that was now available.
Once, long ago there was a time
in what now seems a distant land
Each small boutique was precious and unique
'Cause every little thing was made by hand
Then there came a revolution
The progress of production was its aim
Now instead of one, there were many
And each costs just a penny
But every single one looks just the same
We paid for colonialism with two world wars. Please btfo yourself.
What?
You fight among yourselfs and destroy your own monuments and now it's our fault or something?
If you really want to act like that give the land back to the natives Chile.
Chile/Founded
12 February 1818
Jewish Passports-El Salvador
While Jews were trying to escape exile in The Axis powers,Colonel Jose Castellanos Contreras saved up to 40,000 Jews by providing them with Salvadoran passports which could be used as a form of Political Asylum.This was however very quiet and unrecognized part of El Salvador for World War 2.
Before being Chile we were the Collasuyo, still a determined nation.
>Collasuyo
When talking Geopolitics you must make your points clear.
>"Give back the stolen goods to Collasuyo"
Not Chile.
I'm actually posting Mapuche jewelry and the Mapuche nation still exists.
You can leave them in Temuco, with a written apology.
If you don't want to dismantle Chile and become the seperate nations again or whatever then you don't get back the treasure.
>Not that I don't want you to have it back Im just saying what they will say as an excuse.
I would rather take more of your shit to be honest just because of your attitude I would rain death from the skies upon you for your sleight and don't think I can't I am trying to help you fucko by explaining very carefully why they will not relinquish control of it without semantics
So if you want to go ahead and try and trick me you can expect I will return the favour.
My statement was a general one I don't give a shit about your history and for all your relevance you guys could have a famine and I wouldn't hear about it unless I waded in.
I am far beyond such concepts as economics.
In what part did I tried to trick you?
They stole people's belongings and now they display them in their museums making money out of things they stole.
The usual argument it's boo hoo spoilers of war we won suck on it, but that's not true we won they lose, they just were niggers about it, stole them when we weren't looking and display them like they do all the rest of the jewelry for the continent.
>Almost the entirely of western wealth / growth is attributable to the individual revolution and market capitalism
not true at all most of the wealth from the British came from taking resources from India via East Indian Company or from other colonies in America
semantics when I am speaking in general don't be a fool I was initially agreeing it should be given back then you kept going you do realize I am not responsible for private individuals and all you are doing is make me sympathize with them because we where on the same page untill you started saying I should leave you an apology.
Very foolish of you if you ever want to be taken seriously by anyone.
