This is what Swedish 17-year-olds read in English classes

This is what Swedish 17-year-olds read in English classes.

Good for them learning about the cruelty of the whitey men

>build roads, railroads, cities
>establish law and order so wachutus and wachatees stop constantly trying to genocide each other
oy vey da huwite man be evil

but that sounds as if africans were little stupid babies who couldn't do anything on their own

which is a good message

>build roads, railroads, cities
>establish law and order so wachutus and wachatees stop constantly trying to genocide each other

But none of that happened. The infrastructure was optimized for colonial wealth extraction and not for use by the native population.

>build roads to transport ressources and use slave local populations as labor
>Churchill starves indians when they show opposition to british rule, and still gets away with being revered as a war hero
>whitebois dindu nuffin

Why is it always Americans that say stupid shit

Building railroads to move extracted wealth out of the colonies to homeland isn't exactly enriching the native population.

>He's from the most disgusting country who import here only rapists, thieves and mentally ill criminals who breed like rats (all of them islamic extremists)
> Muh white evil

Biased maghrib

They teach that here too. At age 14

Because 80% of white American men are racist proto-fascists.

Do you really think that?

>all this lefty pol buthurt
Jesus Christ

It's true though.

>Because 80% of white American men
On Sup Forums maybe

There has been later infra given for them wich they will let get destroyed

>not for use by the native population
It was left for them when Euro powers moved out. And they fucked it up, like Nigeria did with the railway system

What about the schools then?

Churchill redirected food sources to the war effort. Fuck the poos.

Oh look, it's a "left-leaning university students who have never set foot in Africa let alone lived there criticise colonialism" thread.

Utter nonsense.

Well, it's certainly true that Europe developed Africa.

...

Thailand and Ethiopia were never colonized and are as developed as its' colonized neighbours so don't see how colonization did that big of a difference in the long term

i wish 17 year olds read that here in denmark. we should take in more refugees and underdevelop europe. it's only fair

That's kind of depressing.

Tragic stuff.

Angela pls

Why do white and Jewish cucks worship third world shitholes so much

Mate Ethiopia has one of the lowest HDIs in Africa and the entire world.

Because it's all part of their desire to be seen as """cultured""".

It's why they promote mass immigration. Foreign cultures are superior and bring so much wonderful things like rice & peas and FGM

why did you reply as if you were disproving a point I made?

Lol, there is no comparison even in numbers.

Kenya is 16th in Africa in terms of HDI, whereas Ethiopia is 36th. Kenya is a particularly nice example actually because its colonisation was relatively late.
Have you visited rural Africa before user?

>Oh look, it's a "left-leaning university students who have never set foot in Africa let alone lived there criticise colonialism" thread.

Notice how the actual African disagrees with you

Showing your true colonist colours, wh*Te man

>Onion logo is clearly visible in picture
>retards here take it sincerely anyway

I really fucking hate some of the Americans here.

all I said was colonialism didn't seem to be that big of a negative factor when it comes to a country's development as Ethiopia and Thailand, countries that have never been colonized, ain't better than their neighbouring countries who were colonized

South Afritard can't read

Your hatred is entirely justified

It dépend on the colonizer tho, the french were pretty terrible and the italians were not efficient.

Fuck off cunt, your nation is a prime example of everything wrong with European involvement in the region.

>Well, it's certainly true that Europe developed Africa.
They developed their own economies with extensive resource extraction and slave labour. You're a fucking piece of shit.

>dépend
An example of the traces of French oppression.

To not use é is to succumb to Anglo oppression

thanks for thé rédpill my man!

>negative
Ah well you didn't actually say negative. You just said there wasn't a big difference. I assumed that you were arguing against colonialism.

That's how Western countries view the world, and women. Only white man can affect his life, women and "coloured people" are affected the powers of racism and sexism and are unable to do anything about it.

That's true to a certain degree, westerners still jave a huge natural recources monopoly in alot of their ex colonies

I take it you aren't aware that our Apartheid government spent more money on the Bantu homelands than the UN did on the entire continent at the time. It was almost twice if I remember correctly, something like $500 million from 1960-1994.

Why do you progressives swear so much?

Colonization was a mistake, but it was a mistake for us, we should've just kept trading and fighting with eachother over who controlled the ports like in the early stages of European Imperialism

Yeah for sure. The Afrikaners' current predicament is a direct result. Not to mention Mozambique and Rhodesia.

Thanks to Europe Africans can keep all 6-12 children they create thanks to medicine and agricultural advancement.

Angola more than Mozambique desu, Salazar put a lot of work in Angola hoping it would be a good investment while still developing Portugal only for the commies to fuck up the Portuguese economy and letting Angola fall into a shithole

at least he died before that happened

Pretty sure Thailand is more developed than fucking Myanmar, Laos and Cambodia.
Ethiopia is also a shithole among shitholes compared to Sudan, Tanzania or Kenya.
It's just that colonialism impact is different country from country because of which power colonized you, the local culture, harshness of the colonial rule (see Belgium's Congo), etc.
The fact is it is true that the colonial powers underdeveloped Africa in some ways but I can't search for what I read now because of shit internet atm.

They were already underdeveloped. That's why they were easily colonized in the first place.

>Europe only became wealthy enough to conquer Africa by conquering Africa

It did though. Because of Europe some of the local fauna is breeding into billions and putting a big strain on the rest of nature.

>sincerely

>t. Christiaan van Snyman

>Colonies were really profitable, which is why Europe had to abandon them at their greatest imperial expanse

you completely left out Malaysia that just happens to be better than Thailand

in the end what I think colonialism affected Africa the worst was the civilizational leap they tried to force it to do, majority of Africa was tribal, they still had like 1000 years of history till they would be ready for Nation-States

African dictators derived from this, they're basically tribal leaders trying to copy 20th century Europeans fascists

Wasn't Portugal a really based and constructive colonial power? They truly tried to develop their colonies to the native benefit as I read. Or was that more of a state ideal that was never as much lived up to?

>Arabs chastizing anyone about conquest and slavery
I literally hope you and everyone you care about gets killed in a drone strike.

>you completely left out Malaysia that just happens to be better than Thailand
Well, still 3 countries less developed for 1 more developed
>in the end what I think colonialism affected Africa the worst was the civilizational leap they tried to force it to do, majority of Africa was tribal, they still had like 1000 years of history till they would be ready for Nation-States
I think that may have been one of the several problems induced by colonisation, yeah. But it was not the worst aspect I think.
The biggest problem is leaving the peoples uneducated. But since colonisation started mainly for the exploitation of natural resources/workforce and cultural prestige, it's no wonder that when decolonization happened there were barely any educated people to manage those countries. So any army leader would topple the previous one and just continue to exploit the natural resources for personal wealth.
The countries that will develop first in africa are the ones that don't have much natural resources. Because it means they have to educate the people so that they can work skilled jobs and enrich the country.

well Salazar pretty much built Angola from the ground up and I don't know of any large crime against humanity done by them, but it was more for Portugal's benefit than Angolans, we were becoming more and more alone in Europe, the colonies were gonna be our trading partners so we needed them to not be tribal shitholes

>Well, still 3 countries less developed for 1 more developed
the point was that weren't that far off from eachother when it comes to human development

>The biggest problem is leaving the peoples uneducated.
well that certainly ain't true for Portugal and Britain, it even came back to bite us in the ass as most of the leaders of the revolutions studied in schools built by us, the leader of the Angolan communist party even studied in the University of Lisbon

good thing swedes learn real history

giving infrastructure to niggers without teaching them how to using it is like giving a kitchen to an anglo

>american education

t. Anglo sitting in cape town

>amerimutts chastising anyone for losing wars.

>dumb murrican on internet, again.

Lost less wars than Krauts

Both wrong

Europeans have established extractive institutions in most of their African colonies. They have also commited countless atrocities, including genocide, against the native population.

>MUUUUUUUUUHHHH BASED APARTID XDDD FUCKIN NIGGERS RUINED SOUTH AFRIKKKA WE WUZ BETTER UNDER APARTMENTIED MUH HUWHITE GENOCIDE
Go back to your edgy LARPing racist militia summer camp, Johann.

>why are those native Indians so uppity all the time? They have reservations!

bantus ain't native to south africa doe

Go back to sipping your soy latte at starcucks, Shiloh.

It's not even worth replying to you in depth because you're clearly only aware of American history.