Where did the idea that England stole from Africa come from? What is there to steal? Fruit? Labor? Everything good about Africa is in South Africa where they colonized it.
Where did the idea that England stole from Africa come from? What is there to steal? Fruit? Labor?
You seem to struggle with literally 3rd-grade tier historical trivia anon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramble_for_Africa
Hope that helps!
This doesn't say they stole anything, it says they bought it.
I believe it specifically says that Europes motivation for the colonization of Africa was to cover their own deficits. They didn't buy shit
It's talking about trade deficits, which has to do with mercantilism. You get out of a trade deficit by exporting more goods.
>Where did the idea that England stole from Africa come from?
Butthurt thirdies/self hating firsties who desperately wanted to pretend that African colonisation was responsible for modern African poverty/to have another reason to shout at white people.
>What is there to steal? Fruit? Labor?
No need to steal the Labour, African chiefs were fighting wars with each other specifically to capture slaves to sell to European slave traders for trinkets and baubles. Or they just went full on Ethiopian and started prisons where they bred and farmed their own countrymen as livestock to meet the demand for American slaves.
Genuinely moronic. France started the scramble for Africa in order to recoup some national pride after getting their arses handed to them by the Krauts. Following that Britain had to go in, just in case France found something profitable enough in Africa that it would have the potential to upset the balance of power in Europe. If you're looking at the process of African colonisation in reality (rather than politicised fantasy) then that meme is the exact opposite of reality, as particularly for the British their African colonies were never able to get out of the red and become profit makers rather than costs for the Empire.
>They didn't buy shit
Yes they did. Everything in Africa was bought even when local Africans didn't claim it, because buying it from locals gave you legal rights in Europe.
The deed for the land bought in South Africa from Dingaan still exists to this day in the Voortrekker museum.
>I believe it specifically says that Europes motivation for the colonization of Africa was to cover their own deficits
and did that help?
When the Scramble for Africa started in the 1880s, the technological and wealth gap between Europe and Africa was even greater than it is nowdays.
If anything, the 80 years Africa spent under colonial rule greatly reduced that gap.
Claiming that it's colonialism that caused that gap is pure dishonesty.
>Claiming that it's colonialism that caused that gap is pure dishonesty.
Nobody claims this though, Europe fricked over Africa in many ways but nobody argues that technological progress was one of them
>Nobody claims this though
Plenty of people do
>Europe fricked over Africa in many ways but nobody argues that technological progress was one of them
My post was about wealth as well, and overall quality of life.
Africa was always backward, poor and miserable. Even moreso before colonialism, when they had no access to quality of life increasing technology and medicine brought by Europeans.
Leftists see a bunch of Africans half naked in some shanty town and think "Colonialism caused this", neverminding the fact this was their lifestyle before colonialism and it's actually colonialism that made some of them escape from it.
Historically speaking, the development of Africa was not seen as exceptional compared to The Americas or even much of Russia
European colonization clearly had a negative impact regarding how they drew Africas borders out of geographic convenience rather than with regards to local sociolinguistic groups (The Gambia et al)
>Leftists see a bunch of Africans half naked in some shanty town and think "Colonialism caused this"
I dont know about africa sir but this is true for India, for example we Indians invented the most advanced type of toilets long long ago, way before the time of even the Great King Vikramaditya and Bramdeep the hero, and the br*tishers stole this technology and said they invented it, when they didnt, we Indians invented ghee and again the br*tishers stole it and claimed it as "clarified butter". This is the history of the br*tishers. They lie and steal. But India is still rising and is a Superpower nonetheless.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Crapper
You jeets never had no damn ballwieners thoever
Nope, the crumbs of infrastructure colonists helped build doesn't even come close to the amount of wealth the colonists got in exchange
Colonies were a net drain on the colonial powers. Everyone knows this. Everyone except your moronic ass apparently. Maybe you should read a book or something.
>Colonies were a net drain on the colonial powers. Everyone knows this.
Citation needed
Okay moron homosexual, let's do a pinch test here and I know this is difficult for you but let's try to use some common sense and reasoning, okay? Spain and Portugal, many colonies. Germany and Switzerland, few to no colonies. Today, Germany and Switzerland big money. Today, Spain and Portugal big poor. There, did your dumb ass understand that? I would tell you to just go look it up but you're probably too stupid to understand an actual study on the topic. Numbers might hurt your head.
Seriously? correlation does not imply causation chud. /misc/ are not sending their brightest.
Rolling around in mineral ore doesn't make a country either. But here you are, posting stupid fricking copes trying to mental gymnastsics your way out of high IQ East Asia getting rich while low IQ Africa stayed poor.
Correlation is a very strong indicator of causation actually, this is an accepted fact in science and used to demonstrate things regularly. If it weren't then you'd have a hard time quantifying anything at all. But setting that aside you don't even have the vaguest correlation between countries being colonized and turning out to be shitholes today, nor is there one between colonial powers then being rich today. Basically, you are literally just making shit up without a scrap of evidence. Africa is a shithole because it's full of Africans, just like every other country/city that is. Cope and seethe. gay.
source?
>amount of wealth the colonists got in exchange
Do you have any proof of this? Most colonies were a massive net loss.
>crumbs of infrastructure
>colonists helped build
Funny way to say that Europeans, within a mere few decades, spawned massive modern cities where only prehistoric huts had stood for the previous 10,000 years
But surely Wakanda was about to happen any day now when evil whitey showed up in the 1880s...
Vgh... The kino of the top...
When will you people realize the top is preferred 🙂
You are prouder than the nephilim and God sunk the civilization of those bastards under a flood.
Black folk straight up didn't exist before bongs and french fricked them into existence
Is that some population density up in Saint Petersburg way back in 1 AD?
Huh.
It's more like the population grew without also developing, because the source of the growth was European farming practices. They were advancing at pretty much the same rate as the rest of the world before Europeans showed up. And that map is from before the Bantu expanded into central and southern Africa with their herds of cattle and iron tools. That was a local development that was sustainable without outside interference.
>Black folk straight up didn't exist before bongs and french fricked them into existence
This is the actual reason why I'm against colonialism, if it wasn't for ang* and frog gays then africa wouldn't have ever reached a population over 100 million
It wasn't that, it was that the Europeans brought massively more effective agricultural practices and techniques. The limiting factor on African population had always been the limited food supply; once that supply was raised the population exploded, and when the Europeans left the locals couldn't keep the food production at the level their newly expanded population required. They're getting better at it now, but they're still not at 100%
>They're getting better at it now
lmao you love them so much that you gave them your genes, your language, your church and soon your own land and everything else when they go from 4% of the world to 40%
>the amount of wealth the colonists got in exchange
It's not like they were using it so what's the big deal. Africa got a free jump start in technology and all they lost was a bunch of minerals they didn't even know they had.
No, no dumb homosexual. You have to DEMONSTRATE EXACTLY HOW those actions made Africa a shithole today. You can't just say "bad thing happen" because "bad thing happen" to every place at some point. Leftoids will just step right over this post though because they are dishonest morons who merely parrot things, that they don't understand.
I sense you're a coping moron that hasn't read anything about the subject. Read 5 books from mainstream historians, then talk.
Jealousy
It comes from Marxists and Post-Colonial thinkers. The truth is that many African colonies were actually a drain on government expenses. The vast majority of people living in African colonies were subsistence farmers producing little of value. The only way you could hope to make money was through resource extraction, but even that was generally limited. Some colonies were more or less entirely agrarian, there was nothing to be stolen.
Your technological era woudlnt exist without the evil, cobalt, lithium and gold mines where millions of African, men, women and children are enslaved.
Most slaves nowadays are indians
It's not a competition.
Um yes it is.
One day a leader will rise up in the Congo to nationalize these mines kick out the colonialist projects and free the slaves God willing. Just like in Niger and Burkina Faso amen
The great leader of the DRC will probably invade half of Africa a la Napoleon. But it will be really cool when it happens.
Even fricking Rwanda has basically protectorate there. It will never be empire because it's one of the poorest region even for Africa standards and starting civilization in jungle is extremely hard.
using slave labour to brutally extract as much wealth as possible in as short a time as possible has literally been the M.O of the congolese for hundred of years. I don't think they'll stop anytime soon
>谢谢你们!
God I wish that were me
Do you really want to try this? Asians have mutted Europe more than they ever have or could Africa, so much so that there are literally three Asiatic rape outposts on your continent.
Wypipo did it better
Damn the German cartoon about colonialism was right
The exact opposite is true. Without evil slave labourers flooding the market with cheap commodities Western companies with sustainable, eco friendly and high tech mining operations would be profitable and it would be better for our economies to have the operations at home instead of the import balance created.
Also most Lithium is from Chile and Australia, not Africa.
Not many stop to realize, the colonization of Africa lasted for a shorter period of time than Soviet Union
and if you add in the lives lost in occupying Eastern Europe, per capita, Baltics, Belarus and Ukraine lost more of it's population than any African country due to colonialism and slave trade. I'm not entirely sure about natural resources extracted from those countries and how to compare it to Africa, but for example, the central Asian soviet states lost a good deal of their oil reserves, which, if they still had, they could larp dubai nowdays.
Does the concept of natural resources ring a bell to you?
https://www.gloria.tv/post/22wG4rqK7n3c4LLi3rPCBEjQE
>video about CFA franc
Always the same old tired scapegoats...
How can the CFA franc explain the poverty of Congo, Sudan, Somalia, Liberia, Sierra Leone...and all the other African shitholes that don't use it?
It's a communist narrative.
There is virtually zero mineral wealth in Africa relative to USA and Australia.
It's a liberal cope to make excuses for inferiority of black people
>that image Eastern Europe was violated by the Turks for centuries, they have nothing to do with the colonialism of Africa
>dude we are like a dumber, poorer and less successful version of white people so we get to be racist to black people
nah
>talking this much shit while also claiming victimhood
why are these people like this
Everyone can be rascist to Blacks, they deserve it. Same with curryBlack folk and goatfrickers
>capitalised 'black'
People don't understand modern economics never mind victorian economics. So normal gays need an easy soundbite like "Europeans took all the treasure from Africa"
maybe they think real life is like an old koei game where each piece of land has a set of money you get when you conquer it
There's a lot to be said for Euro farming practices expanding the Sahara massively.
This guy has something stolen from africa right on top of his head.
>haha dumb white people valuing worthless shiny rocks instead of the natural bounty of the land
>...
>GIVE THE FRICKING SHINY ROCKS BACK REEEEEEE
>We fought
>You lost
>Rather than going full on 'Vae Victis' we then dragged your society forwards a few thousand years in a generation.
The cost of that service was one shiny rock. You're welcome.
Why do Black folk think they own minerals that was bought by someone who bought it from somone who bought it from those who dug up it up on land that they had to pay to dig into?
For some reason, blacks and left-wingers think that stuff found in Africa still belongs to Africans after they sold it to someone else.
That's why, to them, when Africa sells its natural resources to the rest of the world, it's "plunder"
Funniest thing is they feel the same about trade in the modern day. Like that nig country that thought it was the only country on the planet selling cocoa beans. So they threatened European chocolate companies, did some b***hy little media campaign hissy fit about "neocolonialism", then launched their own chocolate brand that failed everywhere they tried sell even domestically. The European companies simply switched suppliers back to South American beans.
Commodities are not and never have beem important.
>Reee not trading with us or u r raciss!
>Reee trading with us is a neocolonialism!
>But pls gib more investment and international loans, pls!
Pathetic, even China is giving up on that shithole blackhole continent
lol
I blame Nigeria's birthrate inflation for that
It's almost like it takes more food to feed 200 millions people than it takes to feed 10 millions
And it's almost like an essential product is bound to increase in price when ther isnt enough for everyone.
Black personians should use condoms
lmfao moron they don't make anything
What a coincidence that every group of people that encountered Europeans loved them so much they sold their land even the land they needed to support themselves. Some of them loved European so much they sold their land and decided to suicide themselves and go extinct.
Indians are extinct?
The majority of ethnicities that existed before Europeans invaded are extinct.
Europeans did buy land, Macau is a good example. It's no coincidence that there are detailed records if Europeans renting or buying land where there was civilization and people before.
Everywhere else was sparesely inbabited barbarians with no sense of statehood and right to the land.
Europe was already the wealthiest continent on earth around 1500AD, which was long before the colonization of Africa took place on a large scale (1880s)
This is true Europe has always been the richest region on Earth. Wealth is mostly a function of intellectual capita and their ability to create value adding industry.
Genetically low IQ races will always be poor. That's why Africa is still poor despite getting 5 trillion. East Asia got richer after getting Western tech, but only to the level they were historically. Europe stayed as rich as it always was and could rebuild almost instantly after the destruction of WW2.
Wealth does not truly accumulate, like prosperity it is something that must be actively generated.
>Trying to calculate GDP per capita in 1500
>Muh Africa 5 trillion to Africa that gets pocketed by Westoid-backed dictators
>Ignores the fact Europe only recovered after getting hundreds of billions of dollars of Amerimutt aid
>East Asia only got richer after Western tech even though Chinese (pre-Qing) dynasties were almost certainly far richer than all of Europe combined
White supremacist cope: the post
>Trying to calculate GDP per capita in 1500
It's valid for Europe, we have been keeping accurate records for millenia.
>East Asia only got richer after Western tech even though Chinese (pre-Qing) dynasties were almost certainly far richer than all of Europe combined
The data I posted was literally prepared by Chinese nationalists who said the exact same thing, but by "richer" they always meant "more populous", not even they were coping that they were ahead per capita at any point, they weren't.
>It's valid for Europe, we have been keeping accurate records for millenia.
Where are the valid records? You simply cannot calculate that far back. There'd inevitably be assumptions and guesses. Maddison's method and work are criticized constantly anyway
>Where are the valid records?
Here an example from a paper I recently read:
>Studies of real wages—the classic paper is by Allen (2001)—and of GDP per capita (e.g., Alvarez-Nogal and Prados de la Escosura 2012, Van Zanden and Van Leeuwen 2012, Broadberry et al. 2015, Malinowski and Van Zanden 2016) charting the various trajectories of the European countries in detail, demonstrated that the Low Countries and England witnessed almost continuous growth between the 14th and the 18th century
Europeans wrote down a lot more than other regions of the world so it is much easier for researchers to do an accurate estimate and this is usual practice in the field. The fact that there is very little record keeping and history outside of Europe is in itself indicative of low levels of development.
Every Economist who estimated wealth in the past centuries got pretty much the same results as Maddison.
Anon, every book worth a damn has a criticism section on Wikipedia.
>OOGA BOOGA ME NO LIKELY CALL ALL BAD THING WITE SOOPREMACHY!!!!!!!
FTFY