Extremely unpopular opinion;
Europeans shouldn't have abandoned their colonies, say for the ones where islam had entrenched itself. Every civilization has its sphere where culture, beliefs and technology bleeds into. Christian, islamic, indian and chinese civilization each formed a sphere of worldviews that came together with a sense of "kinship" beyond national borders, helping underdeveloped peoples accept "foreign" inventions because they weren't totally foreign. Africa never got to either form or be absorbed into a sphere of civilization, instead being carved up during the age of nationalism. Nationalism is somewhat helpful for societies with an already stablished worldview that gives foundation for social cohesion. But in a society without a unified sense of "what the world is like", nationalism is an incredibly destructive force that doesn't allow unified narratives to help form a society, instead letting each tiny narrative have the same clout and fight it out untill only the strongest survives
This whole process can and should be avoided. Forced integration into western civilization, even when seen by progressives and racists alike as a nearly demonic act, was the best outcome for africa. But instead of leaving behind solid enough nations like the catholic empires of yore, secular and progressive europeans left the colonies while just beginning to build them, leaving behind not a new piece of Christendom, but a set of chaotic semi-states trying and failing to build western-style republics and attempting to blunt force modernity, quite ironically, believing this imitation of the west would free them from it. This failure of liberal democracy to bring civilization with itself might seem meaningless to first worlders, people seeing anything other than their own democratic social order as demonic. But outside the first world, every tiny failure counts. A narrative where the west, america in particular, is the great boogeyman, has formed.
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
orthodox kang
He actually was
Ethopiaiswhitebros...
orthodox in ethiopia have a habit of burning protestant churches
They're not fond of people converting to other sects as well e.g pentecostal
If they didn't abandon them they would have done it themselves and the outcome would have been much worse. Not only because it would leave Africa in a complete state of disarray (even more so than now), it would have a resource sink for Europe and the west, not so much for the US which would definetely capitalize from European failures one way or another.
>it would have a resource sink for Europe and the west.
No power would invest in their colony like they would in the metropole. You think they'd start doing free public schools in an area where the budget was basically nothing? A lot of these colonies were ruled on the cheap because they either provided their utility with little financial cost or were fricking redundant/pointless so they had even lower shoestring budgets.
The minute you ask the European prole/middle class in Europe to give some of the budget up to some bumfrick colony your poltical career is DEAD. Europe post-ww2 was all about throwing money at it's people in Europe to stav off socialist/communist movements and passing radical new reforms. Also having to include African/Asian voters in elections means that for several parities they either sloe or gain votes. In the Belgian Congo it was all French and highly Catholic so the Flemish alongside Protestants would be on the backfoot.
>No power would invest in their colony like they would in the metropole.
France did with Algeria
and their outreach only was contained to the few coastal cities. Not to mention that investment was limited to the settlers (a frickton of the Pied-Noir were not actually French) and settler enterprises propped up by French money.
Because France wanted to take Algerian land for itself and ethnically cleanse it of Algerians, replacing them with settlers.
Not quite. Only europeans that tried doing so were the Italians with Libya
Wtf there were millions of European settlers that were expelled after the Algerian war of independence.
They all lived in northern algeria
So does 99% of the Algerian population lol.
Now but most Algerians were rural back then
>rural
>the country is a desert except the coast
Not convinced
>what are nomads and hut dwellings
An insignificantly small part of the population.
And they all lived in southern algeria
If they succeeded Algeria would be the best country in Africa.
Are you justifying genocide? Also it wouldn't be "Algeria" just Southern France. Yes, southern France would be the wealthiest country in Africa.
>Are you justifying genocide?
Yeah
Liberals cannot refute this.
Reality is really just uncaring of belief systems
It would still be shit because it had no economy that could springboard into manufacturing or services and the elite was obssessed with wrangling for control of land. Also did not have endless labour reserves like South Africa
But it'd be a part of France and full of economical, businesslike israelites that are objectively better at making money than Arabs.
Those elite would throw a shitfit and seek out independence right away as an attempt to get more money and enrich their already high political position. israelites aren't exceptional at making money either.
>Jews aren't exceptional at making money either
Bruh...
>Capital A atheists are richer than both agnostics and "nothing in particular"ists
Based
>Presbyterian, Hindu, and israelites cucking the Atheist in material wealth, spiritual knowledge, and fertility rate
>Hindus
>Spiritual
Go back
That's USA.
holy based
It failed. Pretty based right?
Yes.
>So failure is based?
No.
>So the quality of being based is independent of success
There can be overlap, but yes.
hope this cleared things up <3
It didn't. Please define based.
"Based" isn't an easily definable quality.
It's similar to the issue of intelligence, certainly we can say that something is or is not, or is more or less intelligent, but the definition of the thing in-of-itself is tricky.
Here is my attempt however. "Based" is defined as being forthright and certain in contravention to not just the prevailing Zeitgeist of the time, but in contravention to the entities that exist within the frame of that Zeitgeist and depend on it for their existence. Additionally, the larger a following a "based" take has, it becomes inversely less based.
To give an example, believing that democracy is a good thing isn't a particularly based take. This doesn't contravene any positions that the modern zeitgeist holds, it's a rather normal opinion, and as such can't be an example of a "based" take.
For similar reasons, declaring that you're a Satanist isn't particularly based either. While it contravenes Christian doctrine, "Satanists" can be more accurately described as edgy atheists, which are in fact.
So what would be a "based" position? Well, lets take the one that was described as being "holy based". The position stated directly contravenes virtually everything that the Zeitgeist upholds as being moral, and you would be hard pressed to find people that actually believe it.
>which are in fact the inverse of based.
Seems it backfired eh?
Thus negating that notion Empires invested in their colonies the same why it did on its own people.
5'1" manlet Orthodogs who unironically claims Caucasian, making the people of Ethiopia starve.
The primigenial based moron.
He looks like George Jefferson
>He looks like George Jefferson
Not at all.
>Europeans shouldn't have abandoned their colonies, say for the ones where islam had entrenched itself
So Europeans hold on to their colonies where Islam exists or not?
>Extremely unpopular opinion;
It's not unpopular as you think until recently though?
Except for Brits, European countries did their best to retain the control over their colonies. It's just they failed.
Also Americans were against colonialism because colonies would lean to soviet if it gained independence after a length of war against European nations; so they pressured them so hard to abandon their colonies.
Both the U.S. and Soviets supported independence of colonies to gain influence in the region and build a sphere of influence themselves.
>length of war
*lengthy war
>It's not unpopular
*It hasn't been unpopular
the US basically forced them to let their colonies go because commies would have a field day in the 3rd world if Washington started supporting the old colonial overlords
>US forces Europe to start abandoning colonies because 3rd world commies will sperg out
>except French Indochina, where the US supports France fighting insurgents and then subsequently inherits France's war when France can no longer hold Indochina and proceeds to grind down Vietnam physically and itself morally
>Forced integration into western civilization, even when seen by progressives and racists alike as a nearly demonic act, was the best outcome for africa.
>Forced integration
>into western civilization
>was the best outcome for africa
lmao
>implying western modernity is naturally desirable by every human on Earth
>impying European integration of Africa doesn't actually mean intagrating into what Wellerstein calls periphery
>implying we are doing them any favor
Read Gledhill's Power and its Disguises.
Read Gellner's Nations and Nationalism, and to add to that, read Durkheim and Weber talk about modern society's burocracy.
Read Anderson's imagined communities.
Read Wolf's Europe and the People Without History.
Read
Also that opinion isn't unpopular at all, it's in fact very popular. You are mixing ideas coming from cultural fundamentalism, strongly related to xenophobia, wich are two of the strongest ideological weapons of political domination in the times we live. And I tell you what, things are only geting darker and more sterile the more "modern" we become.
>Read Gledhill's Power and its Disguises.
>Read Gellner's Nations and Nationalism, and to add to that, read Durkheim and Weber talk about modern society's burocracy.
>Read Anderson's imagined communities.
>Read Wolf's Europe and the People Without History.
>Read
all of that is trash by people letting their natural language processors run wild, with zero predictive power.
read why nations fail if you want to read pre-cooked narratives rather than just learning history and poring over data yourself.