Japan before Westernization

We were literally Southeast Asia...

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_China
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Trust me, you don't want to be South-East Asia.

why niggers though?

half civilized perhaps?

...

We are literally monkeys

After Westernization

汚物チョン

Why is everyone black?

>tfw no feminine japanese bf

It wasn't a color photo ofc

WE WUZ BLACKS

Still looks far better than us.

oi cunt give me a bf alri'

...

raaaaaaaaaaaaaaare

l-lewd

Tokyo (Edo) BEFORE Westernization

Korea before and after our annexation

we still have headhunters until 20th century, beat that

even today they cannot throw used toilet papers into toilets, but have to throw into trash bins

またネトウヨが関係の無い韓国の話を始める
病気だよ

joyful life in Korea during Japan's colonization

You could have done that without a false flag attack though.

Except those are probably Japanese people/Korean collaborators.

Why are there Indian women in the right

Korean women with too much suntanning

>Japan built schools, banks, hospitals, railroads in Korea
from literally shit place to this

These are english teachers right?

there are no japanese posters on this board only proxies and english teachers

Do Japanese people legit believe this? The Japanese did not improve Korea's infrastructure out of the goodness of their hearts. They probably improved only the capitol city using money earned by ravaging the fuck out of the rest of the country to accommodate the Japanese, not Koreans. Railroads were probably built to improve transport of resources from Korea to Japan easier. Every country with colonies did this, but Japan is the first country I've seen on the internet that tries to say it was a good thing.

Why do you have Thai beer?

This is only poverty stricken areas. From the limited information I know, the Japs were a solitary society (perfectly compatible with national socialism) who held on tighter than most to their own customs and traditions.

>Do Japanese people legit believe this?
only the poorly educated alt right do

There's nothing wrong with colonialism.

Some Japs like to push the tale that they were "helping" Asia or "freeing" them from European colonialism for altruistic purposes. This is propaganda and should be appreciated as such.

But the fact is that European colonial rule, in pretty much every case, was good for natives and savages. The same was true of Japanese colonial rule. It doesn't matter what the primary objective of the colonising nations was: if we are assessing outcome, colonialism was uniformly good for colonies.

In my view the world would be a better place in pretty much every respect if the European colonial powers, especially the British Empire, were to reassert themselves on the world stage and take back the territory that has been allowed to rebel. Indeed, in almost every case, "independence" movements have really meant running in to the arms of the Americans or the communists to become a satellite/puppet/vassal - a colony in everything but letter of law.

The result of informal colonialism is a bad deal for both sides. The colonising nation cannot openly pursue its own interests, so it is less efficient to derive benefit from the colony and therefore worse for the colonising nation, and moreover, it cannot exert direct control to develop and advance the colony, making things worse for the colony, too. Bring back traditional colonial imperialism.

>But the fact is that European colonial rule, in pretty much every case, was good for natives and savages. The same was true of Japanese colonial rule. It doesn't matter what the primary objective of the colonising nations was: if we are assessing outcome, colonialism was uniformly good for colonies.
It fucked China up for decades with the opium mess and made India dirt poor. Not exactly what I would call great.

Nice third-worldist revisionism.

Not exactly a good rebuttal desu lad

Not going to bother rebutting a rubbish argument from the chicom fifth column. Go back to your own country.

Here's a graph of China and India's GDP from 1952.

If you don't want me to argue why colonialism was not a """net benefit""" for the natives then don't say that it was. Geez. That's all.

>GDP
What does GDP mean?

How come the graphs don't extend to the 19th century?

What are you even trying to show?

India and China were better places before the end of colonial control. This is an inescapable conclusion for anybody who has bothered to read the history.

As for the argument you're making there:
I suppose you're talking about opportunity costs. Colonialism improved those countries compared to their prospects if left alone; I don't think you will disagree with this.

Perhaps "equal" liberal trade would have been even better for the third-world than colonialism was; your graph shows the increase in economic activity that came about form something like such a transition (though it should be noted that GDP is not necessarily a good reflection of how "good" a country is, and certainly doesn't work on a linear scale).

Essentially, however, you are going to be stuck arguing that European colonial powers were good but could have been better for the natives. My argument is that colonialism was good for European powers, and good for the natives to boot (as a little bonus, not as its main object). Liberal trade, compared to colonialism, is better for the third-world, but worse for Europeans - so unless you're a third-worlder (which is precisely the accusation I levelled at you), it's not preferable to colonialism.

Calm down Kim

Change in Korean population during Japan's annexation:

1910 13.1 million
1945 25.1 million

>China
>Civil war ends in 1950
>Goes full communist
>China is now free to bloom away from the "west's capitalist pigs"...

>India
>Fully independant state in 1950
>Goes for "the third way"
>India is now free from the British government who has "deprived the Indian people of their freedom but has based itself on the exploitation of the masses, and has ruined India economically, politically, culturally and spiritually."

>Neither China or India have much growth for 4 decades

>80s

>Deng's reforms allow China to go for capitalism and global trade
>Opens itself to the West for investment, trade, advises,...
>GDP per capita skyrockets

>Rajiv Gandhi's reforms start to liberalise the country
>Western private investment is again welcomed
>GDP per capita skyrocket too !!

So yeah, sure, colonialism and other meddlings of westerners must have been such a bad thing for India and China.
We can see how they bloomed once we let them completely by themselves.

> The Japanese did not improve Korea's infrastructure out of the goodness of their hearts

Of course they didn't : it's called investment !!
It wasn't by pure charity, sure... but it still improved people's lot overall.
Damn, the very fact that there was a Korean intelligencia to be purged by the communists instead of just peasants and warlords is proof that the japs did something right.

Because when you work all day out under the sun, you get a tan.
And when you are a peasant born of a peasant born of a peasant born of a peasant... then your family has been working under the sun for so long you're bound to not have a white skin.

>New Guinea
>New Holland
>New Zealand

the fucking dutch I tell you

wow this is a fucking shit flag

he's right though

>he doesn't know isac
new

>being rude to isac
rude

>lying on the internet

India would objectively be a series of multiple superior nations to what it is now if England hadn't bled the people dry

>Controlling for selective annexation using a specific policy rule, I find that areas that experienced direct [British] rule have significantly lower levels of access to schools, health centers, and roads in the postcolonial period. I find evidence that the quality of governance in the colonial period has a significant and persistent [and often negative] effect on postcolonial outcomes.

>>Controlling for selective annexation using a specific policy rule, I find that areas that experienced direct [British] rule have significantly lower levels of access to schools, health centers, and roads in the postcolonial period. I find evidence that the quality of governance in the colonial period has a significant and persistent [and often negative] effect on postcolonial outcomes.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

To be clear, my point is not that the proponent of the wrong argument is a wretched, beastly looking thing, but that it is very apparently a third-worldist revisionist.

yeah maybe back that up with facts, after all she did

>Indian in America writing in the 21st century
>anything BUT a third-worldist revisionist
Go and look at the contemporary sources, you gook.

> west

>How come the graphs don't extend to the 19th century?
>During the Mughal period (1526–1858) in the 16th century, the gross domestic product of India was estimated at about 25.1% of the world economy.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_China

I couldn't find anything specific for China but opium really fucked the place up.
>India and China were better places before the end of colonial control. This is an inescapable conclusion for anybody who has bothered to read the history.
>*laughs at you while addicted to opium*
>*starves to death*

It had a few benefits and a much larger list of consequences. I didn't really care about the thread until he was taking about how colonialism full helped the natives and how they totally would'nt have been able to do it themselves in time.

Well duh. For a country to grow you need trade and other sorts of things with the world. You can't be a successful by yourself. A lot of EU countries themselves took the gibmedats EU was giving them to come ahead quickly. Whereas other countries had to work their ass for it lmao.
>So yeah, sure, colonialism and other meddlings of westerners must have been such a bad thing for India and China.
It was and deep down you know it too.

ahh yes I now see how she is wrong

>he thinks being ruled by Whites is a bad thing
Only a non-White could think this.

ahh yes I now see how he is wrong

Be a bit more polite to your future landlord lad

I was just bantzing user. No need to be cut