Is it true that west is rich because we stole all of wealth from

>>1483039
Big animals mostly.

>>1483039
>stole ALL the wealth
Colonization of the New World did propel the West above the rest circa ~1500, but it's not like Africa and the Americas were looted bare or anything. As Diamond posters will suggest, albeit poorly, the historical competitors to the West in Asia have been limited chiefly by geography. If Europe was populated by Chinese and China by Europeans our current economic circumstances would almost certainly turn out the same way.

>>1483039
>outdated meme like a free markets, protestant ethics and shit like that.

But those are true...

>>1483055
Protestant ethics is just dumb. Shinto Japan and Confucian Korea became as wealthy in far less time.

>>1483059
Using methods built on Protestant work ethics. To say you need to be Protestant for it to work is retarded. To say it didn't develop out of Protestantism is even more retarded.

Europeans weren't more advanced than other peoples until the 1500's and beyond. Spain in particular became filthy rich until they fucked it up. Europe became a global hub of trade and ideas because of the Americas, which led into the industrial revolution when Europe was able to completely BTFO the world in a way that was impossible until that time.

>>1483063
Autocratic capitalism isn't protestant

>>1483063
There is literally zero evidence that either country "used methods built on Protestant work ethics." It's a meme, and the sooner you accept it, the earlier you will be less of a moron.

>>1483059
Yes and this guy went from the stone age straight to the iron age. Really shows how retarded those bronze civilizations were
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVV4xeWBIxE

>>1483069
And yet it developed out of capitalist theories that developed out of Protestantism

>>1483070
Japan modeled its system on Protestant Britain. Korea partially modeled its system on Japan while primarily being influenced by the United States. It isn't a meme. Early Capitalism, particularly the early international mercantilism which Europe used to dovetail into industrialism, came out of Protestantism.

>>1483054
>claims "Diamond posters" make same claim but poorly
>proceeds to say exactly what "Diamond posters" say, verbatim
You need to work on your attempt to avoid anti-Diamond shitposting.

>>1483039
I do not think that we are rich because we stole all resources (instead of wealth). Well partly.

But I do think that now that we are rich, we are using most of the resources that other countries could potentially use but because they are poor do not have use for or at least not the capability.

The rich are the main consumers, no?

>>1483068
Does that means that we basically stole from the poor native people and that how europe become The Europe?

>>1483082
>Japan modeled its system on Protestant Britain.
Modeled what system on Protestant Britain? What the fuck do you mean Protestant Britain anyway, protestant work ethics was about calvinism mostly. Britain was never in the slightest way calvinist.

>>1483085
The real world isn't a zero sum game

>>1483082
>Japan modeled its system on Protestant Britain.
What?

If anything, East Asian work mentality is fucking Confucian-based.

>>1483093
Don't you know that work ethic was invented by Protestants?

>>1483095
>>1483093
Confucianism is pretty much the anti progress religion

>>1483085
Well Europeans didn't become the majority on 3 non-European continents by being completely nice people.

>>1483098
Here's a thought. Religion fucking doesn't matter as much as you think it is, i.e. determinative of everything.

>>1483099
The only nice people in recent history were the Moriori.
Things didn't work out for them

>>1483085
The poor native people would have done exactly the same to Europe if conditions allowed, and they actually had done the same to previous native societies without any interference from The White Man.
How do people forget that the Aztecs were basically Spartans living off a grotesque and bloody slave-empire of corn-eating helots?

>>1483039

Essentially.

The economy isn't zero-sum, but at the same time, it's a fact that Africa and the developing world send wealth, net, to the developed world. The developed world is actually supported by charity from the developing world, not the other way around. If the relationship between the developed and developing world ended tomorrow, the developed world would collapse.

>>1483098
It isn't. If anything it is more progressive than abrahamic religions.

>>1483109
>if trade stopped tomorrow the world would collapse
what a revelation

>>1483118

If trade stopped it would be worse for the developed world than the developing world.

We benefit from the arrangement right now, they don't. If the arrangement ended, they'd be better off.

>>1483090
In some ways it is and other ways it isn't.

Forcing Andes peoples to mine silver and mercury until they died and then shipping 100% of the silver away with the natives not seeing a single real for their trouble is theft. So is conquering African kingdoms to exploit their resources instead of simply trading for said resources like Europeans had done during the Triangle Trade.

>>1483127
> If the arrangement ended, they'd be better off.
No
they would feel fewer repercussions but they would also be worse off

>>1483059
>Protestant ethics is just dumb. Shinto Japan and Confucian Korea became as wealthy in far less time.

Japan and Korea have good cultural work ethics too. What's your point?

>>1483127
We would be effected more, but alot of the development projects in developing countries would stop. It would not be good for them

>If trade stopped it would be worse for the developed world than the developing world.
Of course, this however doesn't mean that:
>We benefit from the arrangement right now, they don't.
Yes they do.

Africa would be worse than it is if it were not for trade. And then we have more promising examples such as Nigeria who is doing "relatively" well and has been making progress in getting past ethnic tension. While still doing global trade.

>>1483147
>>1483127

>>1483127
Most third world countries would starve since most food production is actually made in the west, we would be worse off of course but they would lose both food and manufactured goods

File: 1440749108603.gif (1MB, 351x224px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 351x224px

>>1483105
>passive resistance has never worked because I have one example of when it didn't work
Nice meme.

>>1483106
Not that anon. You are correct, but let's not allow one bad deed to excuse another.

>>1483039
Nordic countries and Germany barely did any colonization, how do you explain their wealth then especially compared to Spain/portugal?

>>1483161
Germany colonized Eastern Europe. Most of what was Germany in its heyday was former slavic lands.

>>1483039
Ask them how Rome, Greece and Macedonia were so wealthy.

>>1483156
Are you implying that Gandhi and other civil disobedience types accomplished their goals because of civil disobedience? Because that is hilariously wrong and you are retarded for thinking so.

>>1483140

Yes, but not by as much. The developed world relies on exploiting the charity of the developing world to survive, they don't rely on our charity for survival, but for 'development'.

>>1483144

Which development projects are these? 90% of the time, they belong to western firms, and if the nation tries to regulate them, they get couped.

>>1483147

Everyone is worse off without trade.

>>1483156
Well, I mean can you give an example of passive resistance working against a direct military threat or warfare?

>>1483150

One assumes they'd stop producing cash crops for export if there was nowhere buying them and advising their countries to focus on them over food crops.

>>1483156
>there aren't any other examples because they got wiped off way before recent history
I don't even understand what point you're trying to make.
I'm not saying we should be assholes all the time, i'm saying that being nice only works when you're dealing with other nice people.

>>1483180
>i'm saying that being nice only works when you're dealing with other nice people.

example?

>>1483179
except that without modern methods agriculture isn't very productive and most poor countries also have very inflated populations.

>>1483164
This happened in the middle ages it has no relevance today, when Germany started its industrialization it was already long time ago.

It is industrialization that made the west rich not colonization, on a long run it even costed more than it benefited European countries. That being said, it is true that the west worked to be sure that third world nations would never be developed much

>>1483184
gandhi

>>1483195

Sure, but without oil modern agriculture doesn't work at all. Developed world is worse off without the deal again.

And they use modern methods as much as they can; it's just that the IMF tells them they must grow cash crops.

>>1483176
This tangent is getting increasingly non-relevant.

The other anon used an example of one peaceful people getting wiped out by a violent people presumably as proof positive that Europeans were in the right for exploiting weaker peoples, as if to imply that if Europeans weren't dicks that they would be eradicated or some shit.

>>1483161
Finland especially.

Finland did not receive Marshall aid, had to industrialize from barebones infrastructure and had lost 2/3 of that infrastructure in WW2 and arguably suffered from a degree of "colonization" (resources taken from Finland used to build up infrastructure from Sweden).
Also the only country that paid it's post-WW1 debt back to the U.S fully.

>>1483039
Some of it. Most of the West's wealth today comes from its investments in their own infrastructure and education while maintaining policies that benefit their companies within these highly developed and educated regions. But a lot of old money that went on to form the banks and financial institutions of today came directly from exploitation of foreign countries.

>>1483167
>other factors played a role in India gaining independence therefore this one factor that I don't like because I'm probably an edgelord had nothing to do with it
wew

>>1483179
it would take years for them to adapt to the new situation, and as anon said >>1483195 they have an exponentially rising pop leading to massive starvation

>>1483203

And Gandhi won without any threat of violence from other Indian independence groups?

The British were saving face in India. We have to remember that they promised Indian independence during World War One as well as during World War Two, if they hadn't left, it would have been a war for independence that the British would have lost.


The main difference between the British Empire and all others: we read about all of them from the perspective of British historians.

>>1483218
Massive starvation would hurt them less than a massive drop in standard of living would hurt developed countries, simply because of where you start from.

>>1483207
without oil the 1st would countries would use something else instead of oil, which would make them poorer, while the 3rd world countries.
would have famine.

>>1483161

Came here to post this. Europe/the west is better off than the developing world because they have a headstart in education, infrastructure, and capital development (i.e. building factories).

Western institutions are also better suited to economic development, and again those countries just got their shit together earlier than those in asia/africa. Florence issued a stable currency and created a European banking network in the 1400's. King Mugababoo still prints money for his bodyguards, destabilizing the economy and hindering economic growth.

Britain and America's early growth was almost entirely from textile production. Now who makes t-shirts? The burmese/thai/vietmanese. Low wage sweatshops are a necessary step in the transition from agricultural to developing to developed economies. In 15 years they'll be making cars and more advanced goods like machine tools or phones. Another 15 and they'll be making computers.

The real difference is in how fast you can progress through the necessary steps of industrialization. Hong kong, south korea, singapore, and turkey are all good examples of this. Heavy investment in education, coupled with a limited, stable government and monetary system really go a long way to promote growth and wealth.

-t. libertarian

>>1483218

The same would happen in the developed world. But worse.

>>1483216
>other factors played a far more prominent role in India gaining independence therefore the role of Gandhi is overstated because that is the reality of the situation
FTFY

>>1483039
More importantly: Is their exploitation caused by them submitting to it? Is underdevelopment really a state of mind?

>>1483226

>1st would countries would use something else instead of oil

Like what?

>would have famine.

Everywhere would have famine. The developed world would be in a famine of no resources, but the developing world would just lack capital; without the developed world taking it all the time, they'll build it up.

>>1483170
>, they belong to western firms

Yes because they have the cash and technical know how to do them. Are you implying that foreign investment has no positive aspects?

>>1483227

The link between countries that have developed is that they reject international debt, they nationalize existing industry, they enact protectionist measures, and they do this until they can float on the world market. There are no places in the world that developed industry under different conditions.

muh work ethic has less to do with protestantism and more to do with German and Scandinavian culture.

>>1483235

I'm saying it benefits the developed world greatly, and the developing world slightly.

File: 4322214colorado-offering-monster-42000-tax-break-on-tesla-roadster.jpg (185KB, 508x305px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 508x305px

>>1483234
> Like what?
Elecricity

Does a certain amount of Western wealth tie back directly to exploitation of developing nations? Certainly. Is it the majority of current wealth? Absolutely not, in fact I would probably estimate it is a very small proportion of current wealth. I think it's the same argument that idiots make about the US being "built on slavery." Certainly in the antebellum South you can make the argument slavery built their entire economy, and to a lesser extent the cheaper cotton contributed to Northern industrial profits, but to pretend if the US never had slavery they would never be the global superpower is absolutely ludicrous. Industrialization was antithetical to a slave state and the US became the manufacturing superpower on Earth due to its ability to industrialize as quickly as it did.

I think the worst part of that image is suggesting that South America and Africa are now "bereft of resources" because they were stolen by the West. It's nonsense. Africa is STILL the most resource-rich region on planet Earth. It's not like diamonds are gone, it's not like precious metals are all gone, Nigeria, Libya, Algeria and Angola all still have vast oil depositories. These countries simply cannot do anything with these resources so they are smart to trade them to countries that can turn them into economic profit.

File: 960.jpg (58KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 960x540px

>>1483248

...

>>1483228
let's use some abstract values
say the welfare level of a 1st world county is 1000 and the welfare level of a 3rd world country is a 50.
The 1st would country's welfare might drop by say 95% and end up as 50, while the 3rd would country might drop by only 40% and end up as 30
The 1st world might suffer a lot worse but the level is so high that it would still end up on top

>>1483229
>factors
Yeah, like the continuing to shine was a factor. If the sun died then there couldn't have been Indian independence, amirite? Therefore the Sun was the primary factor for Indian indpendence... Your argument is flawed because you are including all of the shit that led up to the situation and shit instead of focussing on the situation itself. There is no end to how far off you can follow the causality of it all and the dependencies.

Indian resistance and protest was a huge part of India gaining independence.

>>1483257
*the sun continuing...

>>1483221
>Millions of people dying of hunger is less worse than taking the bus instead of having your own car
ok anon

>>1483228
no why? the west is self sufficient is term of food production, we would loose some exotic fruits but that is it

>>1483234
batteries, coal, alcohool etc

>>1483127
I guess falling from a 20-story building would hurt way less than falling from a 40-story building. Yes.

>>1483248
Weak punchline

>>1483257
the Indian resistance and protest getting a lot of media coverage was just as important

>>1483234
You think the world is "oil dependent" because of necessity? Nah. Oil is replaceable. Electricity being the most obvious option.

>>1483287
Electricity comes from burned oil, anon.

>>1483289
mostly from coal

>>1483266

Correct.

>>1483287

It's oil dependent RIGHT NOW. Cutting off the supply does not result in a soft landing.

Assuming the developed and developing world split off and could not trade, the developing world would have the soft landing.

>>1483264
They already have regular famines. One more wouldn't even be noticed.

>>1483289
or coal, or nuclear power or even burning wood kek, oil is cheap and convenient but it is replaceable

>>1483291
And natural gas.

The West is richer because it has better infrastructure, better education, better healthcare, more activity in high level sectors like engineering, technology, finance, media, etc. That's because all of those things were created in the West in the first place.This in turn is due to something unique that happened in the West and nowhere else called the Scientific Revolution. This isn't a consequence of colonialism, it's what made colonialism possible in the first place.

>>1483292
What soft landing?
It's like saying that if Bill Gates lost all his money except for a couple million dollars he'd be worse of than a bum who couldn't find anything to eat that day

>>1483309

A soft landing from oil is having an economy that will not collapse when oil is a thousand dollars a barrel. We may get it if we keep developing, we won't get it if most of the oil disappears tomorrow.

>>1483303

The Americas were colonized before the scientific revolution.

>>1483303
>the Scientific Revolution had nothing to do with colonialism
No one is going to pay some weak wristed pansies to sit in a room all day thinking unless there were buku bucks rolling in from somewhere.

>>1483312
And what do you think would happen to oil exporting countries if they can't export any more oil?

The West would have a rough time before adapting and replacing oil with other things. Oil countries would be fucked back into the stone age forever.

>>1483312
their economy would collapse without food

>>1483320

They'd use the oil in their own farm machinery.

>>1483322

It would suffer. It wouldn't take more than a year to get people farming food crops again. It's not like the IMF would be imposing sanctions on states that didn't cooperate with their plan.

>>1483315
Not really, the Scientific Revolution actually started in the 14th century. But regardless, how would colonising America have helped it at all?

>>1483317
What are you even talking about? None of the early scientists were doing anything for money, and they sure as hell weren't getting money from colonies.

>>1483160
The point is, it's not a bad deed. It's just optimal civilizations interaction. If you act like two unequal things are equal, you're fucking yourself up by distorting your reasonings, and you'll end up making mistakes.

>>1483289
Coal, nuclear, hydro, solar

You don't know what you are talking about.

>>1483328
you're either trolling or retarded

>>1483329
They can steal native inventions, thats how.

>>1483328
Yeah, they're going to turn Saudi Arabia into a green paradise, lmao. And then what? Agriculture based economy, literally Neolithic tier.

>>1483039
the word you are looking for is imperialism.

>>1483337
Not sure if awful bait or just sarcasm.

>>1483170
>they don't rely on our charity for survival
Yeah right, it's not like half of Africa relies on western charity even just for feeding the populace. If trade stopped tomorrow, half the agricultural ground of Africa becomes as worthless as the Sahara on the spot. What little money was made from selling the cash crops disappears and can be invested into buying food no more.

>>1483039
kek, spain and poortugal are left behind in that map.

>>1483328
>They'd use the oil in their own farm machinery.
Saudi Arabia can use as much oil they want in their "farms" they won't get enough food for them let alone the whole Muslim world

>>1483312
You know that you can create energy with coal gas or nuclear power plants right?

File: plate_24_10_7.jpg (292KB, 844x1327px) Image search: [Google]

292KB, 844x1327px

>>1483039
Europe had industry and lot's of it. More than other large civilizations.

Northern Italy, the low countries, England and to a degree France and the HRE reached higher urbanization rates and produced more value than some farmer. Why this happened in these places and not the rest of the world is still a matter of dispute.

>>1483348
And a good chunk of Easter Europe covered in wealth, for some reason

>>1483352
>You know that you can create energy with coal gas or nuclear power plants right?
Problem with this is that developed economy is highly capital-intensive and a lot of the capital that exists right now is oil-based.

>>1483164
>Most of what was Germany in its heyday was former slavic lands.
Yeah, because the slavs totally never pushed westward right? It's not like most of what now is slav land wasn't called Germania Magna, Illyricum, etc 2000 years ago, right?

>>1483365
gib back clay you filthy kraut

File: [Losing way intensifies].gif (176KB, 425x240px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 425x240px

>>1483331
>exploitation is optimal for humanity
The weak are meat and the strong do eat, amirite?

>>1483360
>Problem with this is that developed economy is highly capital-intensive and a lot of the capital that exists right now is oil-based.
Without world trade no one would remain capitalist at least in the first stages of the adaption period, that state would take over the production chain of the most crucial elements : food, water and energy

>>1483039
>Is it true that west is rich because we stole all of wealth from an other countries?

Well... Fracis Drake was named """Sir""". Before piracy England was so irrelevant. So your friend is right.

>>1483360
Sorry to shatter your dreams but just wishing for western civilization to end without oil won't make it real

>>1483329
>The wealth of individual Europeans had nothing to do with the wealth flowing into European countries from their colonies

File: this this.jpg (126KB, 340x480px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 340x480px

>>1483303

>>1483039
What use did Australian Aborigines have for zinc, lithium, coal and nickel before the British settled their continent?
What use did the natives of Arabia, West Africa and South America have for their colossal oil reserves until the Industrial Revolution necessitated their drilling and precipitated a surge in value?

>>1483375
>The weak are meat and the strong do eat, amirite?
Any other system relies on its propositors forcing the opposition to comply to it. So necessarily it's still the strong oppressing the weak.

>>1483374
>gib back
There's no gib, there's only take.

>>1483405
>propositors
wut

>>1483398
>What use did the natives of Arabia, West Africa and South America have for their colossal oil reserves until the Industrial Revolution necessitated their drilling and precipitated a surge in value?
The oil in all those places were not exploited until the 20th century, long after the Industrial Revolution.

>>1483405
>Any other system relies on its propositors forcing the opposition to comply to it
the system isn't needed on a small scale.
but if you create a very lenient system on a large scale a few assholes would take avatage of it and make things bad for everyone

>>1483388
The vast majority of the people responsible for the Scientific Revolution were either members of the clergy, academics who lived from teaching at universities and that sort of thing, or members of the nobility who lived off their lands.

>>1483411
Nevermind me, I'm ESL.
I meant proponents.

>>1483421
>the system isn't needed on a small scale.
As long as it's possible, "needed" is irrelevant. People WILL group up and come to get you.

>>1483039
Saying this ignores how the west got to the point where it even COULD exploit other countries

A lot of it has to do with Capitalism/banking, an innovative culture, political and philosophical development

>>1483434
>ignores
Most rhetorics on the subject is basically "non-whiteys are pacifists, only you shits went around making war and oppressing others", so it's not so much that they ignore it as much as they make up utter bullshit to justify it.

>>1483434
No, it was technology.

>>1483434
>A lot of it has to do with Capitalism

Capitalism in the XVI century?

>>1483422
You said it yourself they were rich. You cannot deny they were rich largely because of the same reason the rest of Europe was rich. Wealth from colonies. Why the fuck do you think European countries sought out colonies so much? Because there was a tonne of wealth to be had by exploiting native peoples and shipping their wealth back to Europe.

Europe became a hub for trade and ideas because of colonialism. That lead to Europe vaulting past the rest of the world. For example American crops and the Chinese iron plow aided in the Agricultural Revolution in Europe which directly lead to the Industrial Revolution.

>>1483405
>>1483430
>Any other system relies on its proponents forcing the opposition to comply to it. So necessarily it's still the strong oppressing the weak.
I don't even know what you are arguing at this point.

>>1483434
It's inconvenient for them because it destroys their narrative about equal cultures and civilizations

>>1483039
>a
Nahh, the west is strong because somehow they dare to find and make value in technology while finding cheap labor, natural resources and low value manufactured good's in Latinamerica or China.

The 2nd world countries don't progress that much due to community mindset, heavy cronysm (affecting competitivity), whatever progress they make it get's rekt by politicians, just like crabs walking backwards.

>>1483451
>You said it yourself they were rich. You cannot deny they were rich largely because of the same reason the rest of Europe was rich. Wealth from colonies.
But that's complete bullshit.

The Scientific Revolution began in the late Middle Ages, before any sort of colonialism. The countries that profited the most from American colonies were Spain and Portugal, which contributed absolutely nothing to the Scientific Revolution. Meanwhile one country that did contribute a lot to it was France, whose only profitable colony was Haiti, and only starting in the 18th century.

Your theory makes no kind of sense at all.

>For example American crops and the Chinese iron plow aided in the Agricultural Revolution in Europe which directly lead to the Industrial Revolution.
What the fuck, the Agricultural Revolution happened around 10 000 BC.

>>1483451
>That lead to Europe vaulting past the rest of the world
how was Europe not already above the rest of the world since Europe became the hub?
Colonization barely brought any wealth to Europe as you can see now since the richest European countries are those who didn't take part in the slave trade and colonization.

>>1483459
>I don't even know what you are arguing at this point.
I'm arguing that's stupid to make moral judgements. All societies work towards their own benefit (whatever they might perceive it to be) and there's nothing wrong with that.
Exploitation doesn't mean anything. It's just an exchange where one partner is much stronger than the other, and as such has more leverage.
The whole rhetoric based around the term is pointless, and used to disparage basically everything someone doesn't like.

>>1483417
I know. My point was that such machines are advances of technology which was either invented in, or became commonplace during, the Industrial Revolution.
People need to stop thinking in terms of modern morality, society and technology. I stand by my point; Australians have built a rich and industrious society, which wouldn't exist without mass mineral exports. Aborigines moan that 'their' resources are being stolen, yet they had zero uses for almost any subterranean materials whatsoever, pre-Cook. This is a case of wanting to both have one's cake and eat it too. You cannot claim you expect all of the perks of modern Western life without accepting some impingement of your native cultures/societies.

>>1483055
>free markets
>good
pick one

>>1483507
More like
>free markets
>real

>>1483331
>it's not a bad deed
genocide of native americans, the creation of the west african slave trade, and colonization of other peoples' lands were all bad things, anon.

>>1483464
>The 2nd world countries
2nd world countries are those that belong to the Soviet Bloc.

>>1483476
>What the fuck, the Agricultural Revolution happened around 10 000 BC.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Agricultural_Revolution

>>1483476
>The countries that profited the most from American colonies were Spain and Portugal

No, it was england thanks to piracy.

>only profitable colony was Haiti

It was The colony back in the days. you have no idea the wealth france took from Haiti.

Modernism starts with europe discovering the americas. And it was discovered thanks to the compass, so say thanks to china for your "scientific revolution".

>>1483513
it's both actually. "Free" markets aren't really free and the whole idea of the free market is based around the exploitation of the working class, so it's an inherently corrupt economic system.

>>1483476
So Spain and England built those fleets out of thin air? Not from South American silver, Indian Cotton, and Indian opium?

Hardly. Fleets cost a lot of money.

>>1483531
It was Columbus personal fleet.

>>1483514
>>1483514
It is considered bad now that the west has adopted cultural relativism, many other people did it in the past too and are unapologetic about it. The west did it on huge scale because it had the means to do it

>>1483478
Spain became filthy rich from South America. France became rich from Haiti and to a lesser extent North American furs. England became rich from Indian cotton and opium.

The idea that colonialism wasn't profitable is a meme thought up by colonizers to make their history seem more like a narrative of them uplifting the world rather than exploiting it. Furthermore the meme is dependent on counting buying further ships and soldiers to crush the hearts and minds of the colonized. That's like saying no corporation is rich because they immediately spend their liquid assets on expanding.

>>1483531
How did they build the first fleets to exploit the Americas then?

>>1483540
How did Germany/Sweden/Norway... became rich then? How did they got the means to do it in the first place?

>>1483480
>we cannot apply the rules for humans equitably and productively working together for the greater good to humans because that isn't fair
This is exactly the situation we should apply morals to.

The existence of people who don't act moral in every circumstance does not totally nullify the relevance of human morality.

>>1483542
queens jewelry

>>1483521
As an aside to this, it's worth commenting on the relevancy of agriculture to the concept of possession and therefore wealth.

1. A society adopts an agricultural lifestyle, and thus jettisons their nomadic ways
2. Hunter-gatherer skills are quickly lost, making a good crop necessary for all members of society to avoid starvation
3. Competition arises over the biggest and most fertile patches of land
4. The man with the biggest and most fertile patch of land now has a bargaining tool, weighing the odds in his favour when negotiating with those whose land is smaller in area and/or less fertile

Agriculture is/was an alien concept to most of the peoples of the Americas and sub-Saharan Africa. The poorest are poor because their societies are, it seems, Darwinian dead-ends

File: 0,,17573753_7,00.gif (36KB, 700x580px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 700x580px

>>1483546
They all had colonies and now these regions are one of the poorest parts of the world, check the maps.

>>1483542
What fleets? They conquered the Aztec and the Inca using canons and horses shipped over on small caravels. The man-of-wars that were blowing Chinese junks out of the water came much later.

>>1483540
check this out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_galleon_San_Jos%C3%A9

>laden with gold, silver and emeralds worth about USD$1 billion (£662m) as of 2012.

And this was just one ship!!

File: 1468733231132.jpg (40KB, 404x480px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 404x480px

>A-africans totally would've figured it out if you gave them 1000 more years
>I-i-its just the geography, if they were in Europe then they'd be just as well off as the Europeans
>Y-y-you killed them in the cradle

I want African apologists to go

>>1483556
>They conquered the Aztec and the Inca using canons
For Barely 30 years and these countries have few things of value, and what about Nordic nations and Switzerland and even eastern Europe who is only poor when compared to other white nations they are largely above the world average

>>1483564
>African apologists

I guess you just saw that african map, and you think the whole thread is about apologists

>>1483550
>The existence of people who don't act moral in every circumstance does not totally nullify the relevance of human morality.
True. It's the total subjectivity of any form of morality that totally invalidates the concept.

>>1483546
Proximity to those doing the exploiting. If your neighbor is a super rich mob boss then you are more likely to see some of that cash he is spending on than someone living a thousand miles away. For example, Sweden had a lot of iron to export. Also those European countries had a lot of the same guns all the more powerful nations had, so they couldn't be as easily conquered. Plus there was the idea that Europeans shouldn't be colonizing each other, they should be colonizing the godless non-Europeans of the world.

>>1483554
I think your conclusion is a little janked. A lot of Amerindians were semi-agricultural, West Africans were agricultural, and even South Africans were adopting agriculture when Europeans arrived because corn made it a lot easier to feed a population. The new tactics used by the Zulu that led to their success was only possible because of a population explosion due to corn from the Americas.

>>1483562
Complete anachronism though also gold and diamonds only have the value you put onto them they aren't like resources with non abstract value like species and furs

>>1483559
Even more pathetic from the Aztecs then, when you let yourself conquered by someone who has no absolutely advantage on you, you can only blame yourselves

In a very simplified by mode, the idea is right. The Western countries have done over the last five centuries was to establish an international division of labor / production that was extremely favorable to them, directing the wealth for themselves. This was done through wars, colonizations, debt, imposing unfavorable conditions, guaranteed investments and / or cooptation portion of the local population. Countries like China are trying to reverse this situation.

>>1483569
>Also those European countries had a lot of the same guns all the more powerful nations had, so they couldn't be as easily conquered
So how can they achieve such technological development and wealth without exploiting America/Africa? There is something wrong in your analysis
also
> Plus there was the idea that Europeans shouldn't be colonizing each other, they should be colonizing the godless non-Europeans of the world.
European countries have been invading each others for centuries and colonization didn't stop that at the contrary.

>>1483521
>One important change in farming methods was the move in crop rotation to turnips and clover in place of fallow.
Those aren't American plants.

>>1483522
>It was The colony back in the days. you have no idea the wealth france took from Haiti.
And yet Descartes lived 100 years before that. How could that be? How could he even have time to write without all the wealth streaming in from future Haiti? derp

>Modernism starts with europe discovering the americas.
The Modern Era is considered to start with the French Revolution.

>And it was discovered thanks to the compass, so say thanks to china for your "scientific revolution".
The dry compass was invented in Europe independently from China.

>>1483531
... what? You're saying Europeans needed the wealth from America in order to build fleets in order to discover America? Are you completely retarded?

>>1483577
>when you let yourself conquered by someone who has no absolutely advantage on you
Is this a joke post?

Why is this board crawling with butthurt WEWUZ niggers, is this summer?

>>1483594
Well either Europe gained all its advantages thanks to its colonies, or it already had those advantages before conquering them. You can't have it both ways Tyrone.

>>1483590
>So how can they achieve such technological development and wealth without exploiting America/Africa?
I don't understand what you are getting at. They more or less had the same tech as other European nations because they were right there. Certain secrets like how to make the world's best optics were closely guarded state secrets, but no one ever held out hope that ship and firearm tech wouldn't quickly disseminate.

>European countries have been invading each others for centuries and colonization didn't stop that at the contrary.
Yes, but the Peace of Westphalia established the right of the nation-state to exist. Non-European peoples like people of the Americas and Africa didn't apply because they weren't European enough.

For example, when Napoleon conquered Europe he didn't claim all the land in the name of France. He just put puppet governments in charge because Europeans believed in the right of such nations to exist.

>>1483592
>Those aren't American plants.
I'm aware. American crops simply helped. The impact of the potato is obvious and corn is a super crop in colonized regions of the world if it didn't catch on in Europe.

>>1483592
>You're saying Europeans needed the wealth from America in order to build fleets in order to discover America?
Not in the slightest. Are you saying European fleets around 1500 were comparable to the fleets of 1700 and 1800? Europe was barely even a significant actor on the international state prior to 1500.

>>1483514
>genocide of natives

Stop with this meme

>>1483602
The Americas were only just leaving the stone age, dumby. The comparison is between Europe and the rest of Afro-Eurasia.

>>1483592
>And yet Descartes lived 100 years before that.
No. check the dates.

>The Modern Era is considered to start with the French Revolution.

Not by everyone. There are good arguments that it started with Columbus in America.

>The dry compass was invented in Europe independently from China.
>independently

sure

>>1483624
The difference is technological. Let me simplify this:

science -> technology -> conquering the world

However the West's current wealth is based on its technological advantage, not on having conquered the world centuries ago. See Spain and Portugal, the poorest countries in Western Europe.

>>1483612
>He just put puppet governments in charge because Europeans believed in the right of such nations to exist.
It is how it happened in Asia too not in Africa because they didn't have states to begin with and in America because the vast majority of the pop died of illness

Anyway, my point is that Europe already had the superiority even before "exploiting" anyone therefore Europe would still be the richest part of the world now and without colonization Africa would still be living in the stone age. Industrialization would have happened with or without conquest of the Americas

>>1483637
Descartes was born in 1596. Haiti started becoming profitable in 1711.

And the dry compass was invented in Europe around 1300. It didn't exist in China at the time.

>>1483638
The poorest countries in Europe is like saying the poorest people on Wall Street. Regardless, those institutions were created gradually over time thanks to Europe becoming a hub for trade and ideas, which itself was due to colonialism.

What do you idiots think, that we Westerners have big coffers full of gold we stole from Africa 200 years ago or some shit and we use it to buy technology from aliens?

>>1483078
great

>>1483650
>It is how it happened in Asia too not in Africa because they didn't have states to begin with
Yes they did. There were slaver kingdoms selling slaves for European guns in West Africa and states up all along the Indian Ocean. When Europe cut off purchases of slaves from Africa those slaver kingdoms collapsed, allowing Europeans to easily move in and conquer the regions in the next phase of colonialism.

>Europe already had the superiority even before "exploiting" anyone
That isn't true. Constantinople had just fucking fallen to the Turks when Columbus sailed the ocean blue. Europe wasn't special at that point. If anything Spain and Italy were jealous of Ottoman wealth, inspiring the search for a shortcut to India in the first place. Christians were sick and tired of paying Muslims a king's ransom for spices.

>>1483624
>Europe was barely even a significant actor on the international state prior to 1500.
No one was, Europe created the international stage, before that, countries only traded/warred with their neighbors for the most parts

>>1483652
No, they weren't. You're making up links with no evidence whatsoever and while ignoring basic chronology. Europe wasn't a "hub for trade and ideas", Western Europe was the origin of every new idea in the last 800 years. The only people who profited from European colonialism in terms of technology and ideas are non-Europeans.

>>1483039
Given that all this wealth didn't help the southern countries I'd have to say it was due to other factors.

>>1483671
>No one was
The Ottomans and pretty sure China were better than European nations around 1500.

>>1483670
>There were slaver kingdoms
Nothing comparable to the sophistication of European kingdoms
>When Europe cut off purchases of slaves from Africa those slaver kingdoms collapsed
So ending slavery was bad?

Constantinople was barely western and if all the christian nations had ally against the Turks they would have easily won, but they were too busy fighting each other. I agree that the Muslims (who were almost united under Ottoman rule unlike christians) were almost on par with the west at this time but they did nothing meaningful with their wealth and were definitively defeated by the west a few centuries later

>>1483682
>Spain didn't claim a fortune in silver
>England didn't have an industrial revolution because of the need to process huge amounts of Indian cotton and make miles of rope for its navy.
You are wrong. Furthermore economic theory as we know it developed because of the huge amounts of wealth flowing through Europe. Inflation was a major reason Spain's Empire collapsed and why future empires didn't make the same mistake to similarly colossal degrees. The fortunes being made by trade missions were what lead to the creation of corporations, banks, and insurance.

>>1483687
>Given that all this wealth didn't help he southern countries

It did. Check out the spanish golden age.

>>1483693
Better in what way? The West leaped ahead of them in science and technology by about 1300.

>>1483713
The Scientific Revolution didn't happen in Spain or in industrial England.

Corporations, banks, and insurance all date back to the Middle Ages.

>>1483706
I don't even know what to make of this post.

>Nothing comparable to the sophistication of European kingdoms
I never implied they were.

>So ending slavery was bad?
That is COMPLETELY beside the point.

>if all the christian nations had ally against the Turks they would have easily won
Except they didn't because they never would do that and that is still completely beside the point. Turks had the more expansive empire, the best international trade leverage, the larger fleet, and had comparable tech to Europe.

No offense, but you need some coffee, anon.

About the myth of progress through science: without economic exploitation of the New World and the intercontinental slave trade there would simply be no money to fund research. And before writing about Portugal and Spain, note the wealth generated in places like Potosi and Minas Gerais circulated throughout Europe, especially England.

>>1483693
>The Ottomans
Literally in the middle of the Eurasian continent so they could trade Asian goods in Europe and to a lower scale European goods in Asia. When European started sailing the oceans it was over for them.

>China
Did nothing of their advancement, let Portuguese and Netherlands, 2 small European nations abuse them. They can only blame themselves

>>1483718
bullshit.

>>1483733
>When European started sailing the oceans it was over for them.

when the silver from the americas devaluated the global currency it was over for them.

fixed for you.

File: 1466573497558.jpg (927KB, 1600x1059px) Image search: [Google]

927KB, 1600x1059px

>>1483039

>I can't name one that wouldn't be outdated meme like a free markets, protestant ethics and shit like that.

Political stability, a fair justice system and currencies that are widely used in trade + hold value (related to the first two).

Want to know why no one invests in massive factories in the DRC or elsewhere in Africa? It would be cheap and it's right next to whatever materials they use to make their grapple grommits (presumably), but the risk of a tinpot dictator walking in and seizing everything and other security concerns combined with a legal system that will never find in favor or anyone or anything other than an African company means that your money is in no way safe in the DRC, so people will invest it elsewhere where it is. Same reason why people prefer Georgia over Azerbaijan, or Germany over Russia. It's also the same reason why business in China primarily revolves around personal relationships with the counterparty rather than just legally binding contracts.

>>1483734
By the early 1300s Westerners had the dry compass, canons, mechanical clocks, optical lenses, and had discovered the basic principles of classical mechanics and calculus. Just to name a few things.

>>1483729
>Turks had the more expansive empire, the best international trade leverage, the larger fleet, and had comparable tech to Europe
yes, but is was all over when the Europeans realized they had been conned and could as easily directly buy their species in Asia. Also, the wealth acquired by the Ottomans was mostly used for useless things like jewelry, big palaces... and war of course like everyone but Europe invested it wealth in tech, science, education... so by the 1800's Europe was largely more advanced the the Ottomans.

>>1483127
The developed world can make everything they need, the developing world cannot. A lack of trade will cause more problems for the developing world.

>>1483718
>The West leaped ahead of them in science and technology by about 1300
The Ottomans being a power goes without saying. The entire reason Spain sent Columbus was because they were jealous of the Ottomans.

China was only really behind Europe when it came to guns and perhaps naval tech. China was for a short time building larger ships and fleets than European nations though. They had the capacity but lacked the desire. Their disadvantage in guns despite inventing them might have had a lot to do with Europe being a bunch of very competitive nation-states who had to develop bigger and better guns so they wouldn't fall behind their neighbors.

So in short, the only advantage Europe had was the best ships and the best canons, an advantage they shared with the Ottomans. Luckily this was right at the time when international sea trade became possible so it's no wonder why this is when Europe came to prominence. The right tools at the right time.

>>1483759
funny how you call it "dry compass" to make distance from the chinese one.

hi tumblr

>>1483778
Ottomans didn't even have canons by the 15th century. It was a German engineer who built the canons that enabled them to capture Constantinople.

The West was simply ahead of both the Ottomans and China in just about every way by then, see >>1483759 for a few other examples. The difference is even obvious in techniques of art and architecture. This is simply because both of them stopped advancing scientifically or technologically (or indeed culturally) around 1000 years ago, which is about the same time the West emerged as a civilisation.

>>1483780
Well yes, because the Chinese had the compass, but not the dry compass, which shows how the West was ahead of China technologically.

>>1483082
>Japan modeled its system on Protestant Britain
He was talking about how both China and Japan were both incredibly wealthy countries even before contact with "Protestant" Britain, which was what? 1530s? That was during the Sengoku period, and the guy who initially came out on top expelled all Christianity from the nation, and the people after him enacted Sakoku. And Edo period Japan, isolated as it was, was still quite prosperous, without much, if any "Protestant" influence.

>>1483039
I wouldn't know about other countries, but the french had a very lenient rule on most of their colonies. They didn't benefit from them; in fact, it ended up costing them billions. Today still, even.

>>1483717
>It did. Check out the spanish golden age.

Even without these resources Europe was still better than the sub-Saharan Africans and the native Americans.

>>1483823
Yeah not exactly because it was lenient, more because they invested way more into them in infrastructure, education, healthcare etc than they got out of them. To them it was more about civilising the savages and possibly turning them French than about economic profit.

File: chinese_inventions.gif (6KB, 383x324px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 383x324px

>>1483801
>which shows how the West was ahead of China technologically.

maybe after the XVI century.

>>1483733
>Did nothing of their advancement, let Portuguese and Netherlands, 2 small European nations abuse them.
Do you even know what century we are talking about right now? The Century of Humiliation was closer to the present than 1500.

>>1483770
Yes, and?

>>1483854
Could you minority worshiping commies fuck off?

>>1483855
yes i know and it was not Portuguese/dutch but still China was on top and could have easily prevented what happened, by the 1800's it was too late

>>1483797
>Ottomans didn't even have canons by the 15th century
kek

File: 1465742496432.png (281KB, 535x466px) Image search: [Google]

281KB, 535x466px

How did the west get powerful enough to extort those resources in the first place?

>>1483862
No shit. What's your point?

>>1483865
racism

>>1483865
They picked a fight with people from the stone age and sucky immune systems.

>>1483854
Bullshit graph.

Just one example: metal movable types weren't successfully used in China until 1490, 50 years after Gutenberg had already invented the full blown printing press.

>>1483861
/his could really hurt your eurocentric ego.

>>1483859
and Europe came on top not by "exploiting" other nations but by being smarter about what to do of their tech and wealth

>>1483864
Look up the fall of Constantinople and who built the cannons for the Ottomans. 1453.

>>1483874
>>1483880

>>1483880
Smarter? Smarter how? What you are describing is simply geography.

File: xolga-of-kiev-did-not-mess-around_jn6t.jpg.pagespeed.ic.wWnkxG8V2W.jpg (206KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 720x720px

>>1483865
Obviously, Yakub genetically engineered them to be that way.

>>1483886
Like this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_weapons#Artillery

>>1483895
Investing in Education, science and tech rather than palaces, jewellery and other useless stuffs

>>1483879
>WE WUZ KANGZ
No nigger, you wuz slaves

>>1483915
I think the superior egalitarianism of some European nations compared to the Ottomans had a lot to do with the fact that European nations were largely NATIONS instead of a cultural disparate empire with subject peoples that needed to be awed into submission.

>>1483039
Blame the Mongols for allowing the Europeans to fill the power vacuum.

>>1483922
u sure told him

>>1483878
As China had tens of thousands of characters, while Europe had 52 letters (upper and lower case), it was much easier to make a printing press in Europe.

File: DICE rewrittes history.jpg (310KB, 1232x1651px) Image search: [Google]

310KB, 1232x1651px

>>1483039
This website has some articles on it which should interest /his/. It uses statistics more than historical opinion pieces, so some people don't like it.
http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/colonialism-did-not-make-africa-poor/

Nope. We're rich because of human capital. Nothing prevented the natives from gathering and utilizing all those resources.

>>1483959
This.

One advantage of the Bronze Age collapse I guess. The old languages used graphemes but after the Bronze Age phonemes became popular, and phonemes are a lot more manageable with movable type. China never underwent anything similar to a Bronze Age Collapse so they just kind of tweaked their language over time. Like they continuously added to a Model-T instead of someone else who crashed their car and built a new one using what had learned about building cars up until that point.

>>1483451
>Their wealth

How developed does a society have to be to "own" the resources in the lands it resides in? Does a small hunter-gatherer tribe "own" the resources under their feet? A village? A town?

>>1484003
Yes.

>>1483567
Do you have an argument?

>>1483410

The muslims will just take your clay, in just a few years you will be a minority in all age brackers except 45+.

>>1483520
Developing countries then.

>>1483039
Why isn't there a pile on top of Spain and Portugal? Weren't they the most brutal colonialists? I guess whoever drew that picture must have been under the impression that they are oppressed people of color because they only met Mexicans.

File: Screen Shot 2016-06-22 at 3.01.25 PM.png (290KB, 997x593px) Image search: [Google]

290KB, 997x593px

>>1483039

>>1483537
That's not what cultural relativism means.

In fact, it's pretty much the opposite.

>>1483106

>The poor native people would have done exactly the same to Europe if conditions allowed, and they actually had done the same to previous native societies without any interference from The White Man.

No they wouldn't have. The critical failure of Western though is the idea that all its aberrations and abstractions are universal.

>>1483878

And the printing press was invented in Korea 60 years before it appeared in the West.

>>1483922

Salty as cuck

>>1483039
Wealth isn't always grounded in or derived from the trading or usage of natural resources. Just think of how many trillions of dollars are in circulation thanks to electronics and digital media companies, neither of which are directly derived from the usage natural resources that are more commonly found in non-western regions.

Many of the industries that appeared in the colonial era also weren't even directly dependant on resources found in colonized areas of the world.

>>1483039
>stole all of the wealth
Then how do african countries still have economies you stupid fuck?

>>1483039
According to their logic then Ethiopia should have be equal to the West up until 1936 and magically lost all of its infastructure, technology and wealth in 5 years of Italian Occupation

>>1485726
autist

>>1483507
The vast majority of economists agree that markets are necessary for sustained growth based on innovation (rather than just copying other peoples inventions like every single command economy in history has tended to do), so yes, they are (usually) good.

>>1487349
> Mercantilism
> Free Markets
The meme part here is that in Europe markets were more free than for example in China

>>1483292
>implying the west would let them cut supplies

The middle east is selling oil so that western powers won't formally come over and take controll.

Name a thing you own that wasn't made in China or India. Bet the only things coming to mind are ikea furniture and a German pencil sherpener.

>>1486728

yeah. Funnily enough ethiopia was the poorest, most illiterate country in Africa until decolonisation

My European country actually got POORER thanks to colonialism.

>>1487561
>made in India
lmao, pajeet pls

>>1487561
Computer.

>>1483234
they'd kill each other because they're low iq savages

>>1483127
you're kidding right? African countries can't sustain themselves in the slightest. What do you think all those billions we send over are for?

>>1487629
>What do you think all those billions we send over are for?
exploit them

>>1487633
This and I'm pretty racist myself. Humatarian aid is a fucking scam and helps nobody.

>>1487629
>all African countries are the same
http://niceme.me/

>>1483039
No. You can thank infrastructure, industry, culture, and technology for that. Raw imported resource, gone in a flash, does not a wealthy nation make.

>>1483039
>The west managed to steal EVERY single last resource in the southern hemisphere in half a century

Fuck off

File: 1426530135036.jpg (34KB, 292x257px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 292x257px

>>1485197
fukken saved

>>1483039
This is Core and Periphery/Dependancy model
It's pretty solid, and is the current model that is being pushed in sustainable development circles, but has criticisms like that it is just the opposite of modernism theory and that it doesn't really provide solutions beyond socialism (workers seize the means of production, start producing stuff domestically, less export, every place becomes a local core, or something like that at least)

>>1489595
Also a pretty big part of dependency theory is that the cores have a vested interest in keeping the peripheries shitholes so that their only method of economic survival is to export raw materials to other countries that produce more valuable products

>>1483039
Maybe 5% of the reason.
The other 95% was technological gains coupled with more centralized, stabler political systems.

>>1483988
T-they would've f-figured it out if you gave them enough time!!! J-just 100 more years xd xd

File: 1456207133245.png (328KB, 463x684px) Image search: [Google]

328KB, 463x684px

>>1483063
>Shinto and Confucianism, religious ideologies that had existed thousands of years before Protestantism, copied "muh superior Protestant work ethics"

Unless you have any strong evidence to prove me wrong, I'm gonna call bullshit on that

>>1483101
Agreed. Race is the only thing that matters