Has there ever been a civilization blacks occupied and actually improved as a result?

Has there ever been a civilization blacks occupied and actually improved as a result?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=NHnF85dww3M
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>blacks
>occupying anything

Only thing they do occupy is governmental terrain to build their slums.

Botswana

America. Obama fixed the economy, made the world more peaceful, ensured that all Americans have access to healthcare, deported more illegal immigrants, etc.

Spain

My existence greatly improved the world dude.

yeah, USA

Obama is mulatto, not black

Are u a black Canadian

Black genes are dominant

He is black by US standards tho

This

Cuck

Here's the thing, Colonial scum. Colonials tend to develop a few cities but only as a port to move the resources and goods pillaged from the locals. All those nice public buildings and fascilities that you see in former colonies were for the colonials. In my country, the Brits built schools but only to produce low level clerks. They created the local military but the officers were Brits. They literally denuded the country of tin but the locals see very few of it. Yes, the Africans fuck up after gaining independence and this is no excuse but the colonials built great things only for their own profit.

Basically bullshit.

My family descends from Madeirans who were so impoverished that they hopped on a ship to a land they'd never heard of to be indentured servants working in possibly the most exhausting, miserable work available: harvesting sugar cane.

These were uneducated people who knew nothing beyond farming. Yet, within three generations, their descendants became university-educated middle class citizens who could hold conversations on everything from theology to history. We directly profited from a system that was not expressly built for us, but which was made available to us even when there was no obligation on the part of the British to do so. We were educated, employed, allowed to freely travel and share in the wealth of society which afforded opportunities that a Madeiran peasant farmer on an island in the Atlantic Ocean couldn't have even imagined.

Shitty and stupid standards

This. Rare African success story of a country that has actually improved dramatically after achieving independence.

Can someone explain to me why blacks haven't been able to create a great state/civilization? It's not just modern days only, look at Africa during ancient times.

What about Nubia, Ethiopia and Mali

>Madeirans
>Some small ass island off the coast of Europe with a population slightly bigger than Buffalo
Wow great example bruh
wow, so impressive

Huh?

I'm not referring to Madeira you dolt. My family was sent to what, at the time, was called British Guiana (today Guyana). We weren't British but were absolutely not barred access from those privileges which were available to the British themselves. In other words, what the Malaysian was claiming about this enclosed society which was there purely to serve colonials and their interests is false. It may have been true of his country's history, but it was not par for the course in all colonies across the globe. The treatment of my family is proof of that.

>muh anecdotes trump facts
Its always a fucking Canadian

How fucking stupid are you?

He's roleplaying as an Australian, but he's not very good at it. Just ignore it.

>How fucking stupid are you?
That's what I should be asking you. It's a well known fact that the British or any colonial for that matter gave a rats ass about the land they pillaged, literally fucking Google it for Christ's sake

Solid advive

I don't understand. Is what I'm telling you still not making sense or what? This was typical of the British colonial policy in Guiana. People who were brought over as coolies (Portuguese, Indians, Chinese) were, at the end of their contracts, afforded full participation in society. They were not condemned to poverty and exclusion in perpetuo as the Malaysian would have you believe. These ARE the historical facts.

How come its always an americlap behind the worse threads of Sup Forums?

you're an idiot

People who set up shop with the intention of permanently occupying a land typically don't pillage their surroundings and exhaust all resources. It's imprudent, obviously so. The British did not pillage Guiana much as the British did not pillage Canada. They settled here and built lives here, establishing laws and institutions which allowed others to do the same in spite of the fact that these people were ethnically and racially dissimilar to themselves.

You have a cartoonish view of the British and you're embarrassing yourselves.

Because a good number of my fellow countrymen are deplorables.

>people brought over
So they're immigrants congrats it's not the same as pillaging Malaysia or Nigeria. It's well known that the British purposely sabatoged whatever little semblance of functioning society as soon as they left

See above

Looks like a big improvement to me.

>Be Libya
>Colonials come
>Only thing they can make use of here is olive trees
>Make olive trees
>Entire economy is olive trees
>Roads only from farms to ports leading to Italy
>Not a single university in the country
>Not a single form of education or training for locals
>Italy leaves
>Only four people in the country with higher education obtained from Ottoman/Turkey

Africans sure fuck up the civilization the white man gives them :DDDDD

Next user to get dubs wins a free trip to Detroit.

...

I'd love to visit Detroit desu

>When he does something wrong or you need a cheap shot at the US he is black
>When we can use him in a stupid way for a pointless argument he is part white
I'm crying m8

thanks china

...

No, they're not immigrants. An indentured servant is entirely different from an immigrant and if you need any more information on this refer to a dictionary or Wikipedia or something.

I didn't think this need be said but evidently you're some kind of imbecile, so: the British did not have one, all-encompassing colonial policy for every country they encountered. They probably did deal unfairly in certain places and certain times, but if you think that was always the case then you're an ignorant moron. British colonial policy in Canada was different from British colonial policy in Nigerian which was different from British colonial policy in India. It changed based on a variety of factors: the climate, the geography, the resources available, the political climate in Britain, the indigenous people, etc., etc.

>see above
I've already addressed each of your posts.

better get packing boi

>indentured servant
>not an immigrant who works on contract who at the end of the term gets residency and/or citizenship rights
You're the retard here claiming Guyana which is a British Brazil has anything in common with the majority of British colonial states sans Canada and Australia

...

> made the world more peaceful
> by arming islamists in the middle east

Okay buddy.

...

The definition of an indentured servant doesn't even include the word "immigrant" or "immigration" because the two are distinct words that communicate two, separate ideas. You idiot.

By all means, tell me what you know about Guyana since you think you have it all figured out. Point out my mistakes.

No you prove me wrong that the British purposely sabatoged whatever little semblance of functioning society they created in their colonial states. Guyana isn't much different than Australia in terms of bringing foreigners over aka immigrants to work and maintain the colony versus a state such as Nigeria where the populace was enslaved by proxy

depends really. check u.a.e history and india history under British rule.

Civilisation is a meme, as long as the people are able to survive on what they have then they won't venture further
Africa, for the most of its history, has had abundant resources. And were able to live off the land

You made this thread on /his/ too, you fuck.

Again, two different concepts. A person might be an indentured servant in the town they were born and raised in. Immigration doesn't necessarily enter into the equation. Indentured servitude is simply unfree labour by contract. That's it.

I can prove you wrong very easily using only Guyana as an example: Guyanese society was functioning up until the moment when it became a republic, a political move which was ratified by Guyanese public consensus and a decision which had little at all to do with the British themselves. Between ~1890 and 1950 race relations in Guyana were rapidly deteriorating. Whites were, in effect, chased out by the increasingly rebellious and violent blacks (shocker, I know), which led to an enormous case of brain drain where the largest body of educated and skilled people in the country virtually evaporated in a few decades. What were left were uneducated, unskilled blacks and a minority of moderately educated, skilled coolies.

You want to know why Guyana is a shithole today? It's not because of British scheming or exploitation or sabotaging or whatever other lunatic theory you have. It's a shithole because of violent, stupid blacks who can't get along with anyone and whose immediate reaction to any situation they don't like is violence, looting, vandalism, and general mayhem. British administration was the only thing preventing Guyana from become a massive, steaming dump even sooner. Guyana's independence formally handed over administration over to people who are unfit for the task, and have demonstrated such by creating a country which is known for nothing but mass suicides and its massive suicide rate.

There it is.

the colonial period in africa ended too early
there were plenty of settlers doing good work and creating good ifnrastructure
with stable institutions, and an education system put in place, africans would have integrated to these societies slowly

lets not pretend they were prepared for independence at all. else just expect they were going to remain tribal for the rest of history, so why bother

in short this but in movie form youtube.com/watch?v=NHnF85dww3M

this canuck speaks the truth