You can bitch about it all you want as racist, but isnt this

>prioritize stripping colonies of their resources and placing whites in positions of power within a region
>benevolent

Yeah, fuck off back to /pol/.

>>1784546
well it's not like they were doing anything with those resources ;^}

>>1784546
>placing whites in positions of power within a region

no shit, why would they put some dumb yokels who think guns are magic lighting sticks in charge?

The Europeans being there is the only reason those places, which were in the stone age while Europeans were maping the stars and sailing the world, ever modernized.

Im looking for an actual argument against this that is NOT a liberal appeal to emotion none argument.

>>1784556
but it is like they could have done something with them, introducing industry peacefully would have been benevolent, doing it only to profit from your propped up institutions and to exploit the indigenous population is rather malevolent

>>1784563

they did do that. Even in the 70s, Rhodesian was doing just that, but they went full autist mode and said REEE NOT FAST ENOUGH! and then took over and turned the country into shit.

Go read about the foundation of Liberia if you think its just all evil whitey. The western educated blacks desperately tried to teach the savages there, but they violently refused to even go into a school.

>>1784535

You know whats funny? SJW types bitch about the white mans burden, yet they AND their negroid "friends" full believe in it. They wont shut up about how whites need to do this and that to help minorities

>>1784567
the US had only supported Liberia financially and sort of diplomatically, it was basically just
>FREE BLACKS PEOPLE RRREEEEEEE
that materialized into deportation, as for Rhodesia they sort of kept up the whole codea of colonization by keeping an empowered minority wealthy at the expense of a disenfranchised and exploited minority, they were really just colonial institution translated into domestic policy. They sort of are both evil whitey, so looking where evil cis scum didn't touch, Botswana, we see a different picture. Because they were never exposed to colonial institutions and so it was not capable of persisting, they were able to get themselves together, establish a democracy on par with countries like South Korea, and are currently doing pretty aight economically considering that they are a sub Saharan African nation. In conclusion, KILL WITEY NYIGGA

>And Im not deluded to think it was purely out of kindness
It wasn't any amount out of kindness. White Man's Burden is literally just an excuse so that Europeans could justify empire building as benevolent. It was about resources and prestige from day 1 to day 20,000. If you want to believe that empires need to justification to do imperial things, then fine. It's a fair point. But don't start acting like it's ever anything more than that. An empire's an empire. Whatever niceties people fabricate to try and dress that fact up are irrelevant. Also, don't act like empire's are the sole way that ideas and technology can and will be effectively spread.

>>1784560
But they weren't stone age though.

>>1784560
>dumb yokels who think guns are magic lighting sticks in charge?
The majority of places that Europeans conquered were well aware of what guns were and how they functioned because they partly used them themselves to try and fight off the Europeans.
> which were in the stone age
You do realize that stone age has an actual definition right? It doesn't just mean "whatever vague point in history I want it to mean." Stone Age actually means something, and most places were most certainly not living in it.

>Im looking for an actual argument against this that is NOT a liberal appeal to emotion none argument.
How about you make an actual argument that isn't a diatribe of biased uneducated schlock?

File: you just got your shit eaten you nigger ;u;.jpg (63KB, 288x386px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 288x386px

>>1784560
>>1784634

>>1784535
No one really believed in it wholeheartedly. White man's burden came as a justification and a paternalistic self delusion for many of the polices in the colonies.

It's like the parents of some child actor taking the money from their kid then instead of saving it away at the bare minimum or teaching the kid a good financial bases and education they burn all the money off while they say to the kid "YOU CAN'T HAVE THIS YOU AREN'T OLD/MATURE ENOUGH. MONEY IS FOR ADULTS. WE ARE YOU PARENTS OUR CHOICES ARE INNATELY CORRECT etc etc.". You are a kid and you know it's bullshit but you can't do anything because they own you and you can't split from them until 16 and you honest to God know that they'll burn it before then and they know it too based on their analysis of you.

>>1784567
>Rhodesian was doing just that,

Not at all. the entire system was designed to keep Blacks as a permanent labour underclass that due to how the voting system worked and the people in power enacting policies to empower the white minority population.

Why do you think these countries became isolationist in the first place?

The typical monarch strives to maintain stability, they were willing to use corporal punishment to raise their kids to behave perfectly and flawlessly in front of courtiers and they were raised that way also. It was basically their job to be the best figurehead for a bunch of warlords who controlled various parts of the country in a delicate balance of power and would butcher them in a heartbeat if it suited them. This was the only way to maintain the law, stop the country descending into pointless civil war and the only way for things like trade and intensive agriculture to function at time when 95% of the population were farmers and gdp per capita was like $500.

From their perspective what they were doing was right, even from the perspective of technological progress. You can't build a railroad if you're in the middle of a war thus rendering railroad technology pointless for example. You need both the technology and the economic means to do so which means you need political stability.

It is true they were as oppressive as the colonialists so the liberal meme of "exploitation" is null here, but it is not like they hated knowledge for no reason whatsoever. What they disliked was westerners using their warships to disrupt the balance of power and sending missionaries creating new religious factions that might rise up. The spread of technology might have proceeded faster without this threat.

>>1784602
>the US had only supported Liberia financially and sort of diplomatically, it was basically just

no shit, but the leaders were higher class, western educated blacks. And when they went over to Liberia, there basically had to put down the dumb tribalist who kept chimping out because they tried teaching them how to read.

>>1784711
>The spread of technology might have proceeded faster without this threat.

complete and utter bullshit

>>1784535
>not acknowledging that without Mediterranean civilization, Europe (and by extension most white people) would have remained mostly mud huts
>Chinese in the basket

Full retard.

>>1784749
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Jenkins_Roberts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Allen_Benson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Bashiel_Warner
i dont see anything that suggests that they were western educated or were pre-determiend as higher class before moving to Liberia, which #3 did at age of nine. only looked at the first three, feel free to go deeper and you may not see much that suggests your theory until later in their history

>>1784773
This cartoon wasn't made in 115 AD

If Romans can uplift Europe than why wouldn't it be the same for Europe and the rest of the world?

>>1784782
>This cartoon wasn't made in 115 AD

But acknowledging historical context is important, otherwise you start getting morons talking about inherent racial superiority (or inferiority) and it becomes a race issue instead of a civilization issue.

>>1784665
>conclusions without evidence

>>1784789

>Race isnt real

ok

>>1784810
>strawman

ok

(I'm gonna stop replying now.)

>>1784818

ok

>>1784789
Original person you were replying to

Besides the racist caricatures i can't see what else this cartoon is expressing besides that uncivilized people need help from civilized people to reach civilization.

If it was trying to say those people were subhuman it would portray that they could never reach civilization and must be genocided by the white man.

>>1784797
> Land Apportionment Act of 1930
>Land Tenure Act of 1969
> 1947 Native Urban Areas Accommodation Act: splitting areas into "African and european"
>The Color (Colour) Bar
>Africans not allowed out in town centers past 9pm without escorts
>Residency requirements were so fierce that Africans were legally not allowed to live in most residential areas of the towns, including the suburbs, or own businesses in the town centres themselves. The government policy was designed to prevent poorer whites competing with richer Africans for the cheaper housing.
>Conclusions without evidence
proceed to kill self

File: 1461542768153.jpg (77KB, 719x600px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 719x600px

>>1784535
even at the time many people knew the "white man's burden" posturing was all bullshit

>> Land Apportionment Act of 1930
Pre-Udi. fault of the British
>>Land Tenure Act of 1969
It would be harder to rearrange the tribes back to the origional lands that the British fucked them out of.
>> 1947 Native Urban Areas Accommodation Act: splitting areas into "African and european"
Pre-Udi. fault of the British
>>The Color (Colour) Bar
Pre-Udi. fault of the British
>>Africans not allowed out in town centers past 9pm without escorts
Pre-Udi. fault of the British
>>Residency requirements were so fierce that Africans were legally not allowed to live in most residential areas of the towns, including the suburbs, or own businesses in the town centres themselves.
Incorrect, most opted not to as about 80% of them were rural and 60% of those were tribal. Post the statute.
>The government policy was designed to prevent poorer whites competing with richer Africans for the cheaper housing.
Nothing but conjecture.

Take your rebbit shit back to rebbit.
Trying to copy paste those I'll constructed accusations from a rebbit post is pretty funny.
Take your conjecture and accusations of racism that apply to the pre-UDI British state and shove em up your arse.
Most all policies enforced and put in by the British were repealed.

File: PA_1358182_1.jpg (100KB, 650x421px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 650x421px

>>1784918
>>1784855

>>1784752
Dude man people were fascinated and curious about new stuff.

Many of those folks wanted to modernize after seeing all that cool stuff through trade and seeing it in action. Many places got fucked up by various ways that destroyed them in some way.

>>1784918
Then why didn''t they take those pre-UDI rules down? They ain't British anymore lol they are independent! That's the whole point of UDI ! you make it seem like they are stuck with those pre-UDI rules.

>>1784866
The native man is beating up that white man so he can revert to his barbaric ways.

The British man is beating up that native man so that his people will be civilized.

>>1784971
They did.
They drafted an entirley new constitution you fuckwit.

>>1784983
>The native man is beating up that white man so he can revert to his barbaric ways.
no actually i'm pretty sure its for the independence of his people from foreign oppression
>The British man is beating up that native man so that his people will be civilized.
no actually im pretty sure its so he can continue oppressing the native population for his own country's benefit

>>1784986
UDI's system for it's seats were even more favored towards the white populace then the 1961 changes is one example

>>1785018
Also Rhodesia was pretty much independent in all but name before UDI.

>>1785018
It wasn't /more favored/ in anything but preventing an uneducated population, handed to them by the British, from running the country into the ground.
It was actually less favored, where before no African could even hold office, now Africans in the lower court could make up to 51% of the Congress, including 8 garuenteed seats for tribal leaders.
Remember, 80% of the African population is rural, and 60% of those are tribal. Just shoveling them representation in the middle of a war with radicalized communist terrorists is not a very good idea.
Rhodesia also subsidized and attempted to educate the vastly rural population, but most were concerned with just defending their land from communist filth, and making sure they get crop yields.
They had no use for the education provided to them by the government or Christian missionaries.

Here is about the only "deplorable" action you can call upon, their deliberate suppression of African history such as "great" zimbabwei.
They did this mostly to prevent any support to go to the radicalized terrorists
>>1785037
Entirley incorrect. They were still heavily subjected to the force of British parliament, and had to get approval of their actions.
Pre-UDI Rhodesia is nothing similar to post-UDI Rhodesia, they drafted an entirley new constitution to make sure they didn't follow the failed policies that resulted in the rise of African terrorist groups such as ZANU and ZANULA.
Ultimately the British threw a tantrum and a shit fit and refused to even accept the Rhodesia- Zimbabwei solution and the first vote, and forced Rhodesia to put the terrorist Mugabe on the ballot.

>>1785075
>They had no use for the education provided to them by the government or Christian missionaries.

And education was tied to Voter enfranchisement though and many Blacks were very invested in the education of their children and paid out of their pockets to support there schools.

If the government poorly funds schools that are heavily strained and under funded and the missionaries were poor as fuck with no money and forced to rely on the money from the Blacks they served as there few sources for funding doesn't that mean that the government actually gives no fuck Black enfranchisement. Like if the education is rock bottom and the right to vote was tied to education then that must mean the amount of blacks who could make it to 2+ years of high school education is extremely small because of the costs to reach that level and very few secondary schools.

>>1785146
On top of that there were 8 constituencies for Africans with another 8 being elected chiefs while Non-Blacks got 50. This however leads to a conundrum, what's preventing the people represented form the 50 from completely dominating the the politics to their will? Like those 50 beat the 16 no matter what they do.

>>1784990
>no actually i'm pretty sure its for the independence of his people from foreign oppression
So in essence he's attempting to revert to barbarism?
>no actually im pretty sure its so he can continue oppressing the native population for his own country's benefit
So he's advancing the cause of civilization?

You're talented with euphemisms. There's no doubt you've been trained.
Also,
>oppression
this is a meaningless term that expresses nothing but the emotions it's been charged with. Intellectual snake oil.

File: Rhodesian_Classroom.jpg (112KB, 594x468px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 594x468px

>>1785146
>And education was tied to Voter enfranchisement though
No one would ever dispute that
>and many Blacks were very invested in the education of their children and paid out of their pockets to support there schools.
And Rhodesia had a small system of rural schools at first, but found it wholly unsustainable to send teachers out to risk their lives in the Bush to teach some kids useless information, and risk the kids lives of getting killed by terrorists.
>If the government poorly funds schools that are heavily strained and under funded and the missionaries were poor as fuck with no money and forced to rely on the money from the Blacks they served as there few sources for funding doesn't that mean that the government actually gives no fuck Black enfranchisement.
It's hard to give a fuck when 80% are rural and they are in the middle of a rural bushwar with constant terrorist attacks. Rhodesia was forced to put Rural and Tribal folks in concentrated camps to keep these ZANU fuckers out. There was no way they could sustainably educate them.
>Like if the education is rock bottom and the right to vote was tied to education then that must mean the amount of blacks who could make it to 2+ years of high school education is extremely small because of the costs to reach that level and very few secondary schools.
You're correct, but there was no ability to even provide them with education out in the rural bush with constant terrorist attacks going on.
The provisions first set aside by Ian Smith showed he had the upmost interest in educating the rural black population, but realized it was not pheasable when you're fighting a mass communist insurgency who kills children and takes families hostage to force people to fight (and later vote) for them.

Here is an early picture of a rural Rhodesian classroom, that was most likely shut down as the bush war progressed.

>>1785162
The 1961 constitution allowed the number of African constituencies to rise annually as the population reached educational and developmental status, mind you this is only for the lower house, this does not include the smaller upper house which was all white.
This was probably the best solution that the Rhodesians could come up with that would allow the state to survive, while also including the Africans into the political system.
It was by no means perfect, but it did away with the inherently racist structure of the pre-UDI British extortion show.

White Rhodesians had nowhere to go, they had to make an effective political state, while also including the African population, and making sure they didn't fail under the weight of sanctions.
To demand complete and absolute representation for an uneducated populace would have doomed the state so insanely quickly I wouldn't be suprised if whites were all voted to be stripped of wealth and you get Mugabes Zimbabwi of today, but you get it in the 1970s.

You should read "The Great betrayal" by Smith.

>>1785178
>The 1961 constitution allowed the number of African constituencies to rise annually as the population reached educational and developmental status, mind you this is only for the lower house, this does not include the smaller upper house which was all white.

>There were two different types of place returning members to the House of Assembly. The colony was divided into 50 constituencies each returning a single member, and in addition there were 15 districts which also returned one member each. For the constituencies, voters from the 'A roll' and the 'B roll' could both vote, with their votes of equal value. Due to the fact that the 'A roll' was substantially larger than the 'B roll', these constituencies were almost entirely elected by Rhodesians of European descent. Theoretically, if the 'B roll' votes was more than a quarter of the total, they would be reduced in value to a quarter, but in practice this never happened due to the low enrolment and low turnout.

Not to mention that very few Africans were on Roll b due to poverty or to not meeting the requirements

>>1785199
None of what you posted contradicted what I said tho.

>>1785199
Like even if Africans were increasing in HUGE numbers under the 1961 system no matter how huge their numbers their votes if a constituencies 60% were Blacks it would be reduced to 20-25%. Their vote on the B roll is strictly inferior to Roll A. Roll A can vote for districts too (both Rolls vote for districts and constituencies) but it's a meme vote because it doesn't matter because your Roll A vote always got devalued there but it's fora bunch of 8 useless seats.

>>1784535
Don't mind what you said, but the problem comes when the colonists start massacring protests, and cutting children's arms for not working hard enough in rubber tree plantation.

Basically what I'm saying is that there are countless murder, rape, and destruction in almost every country. Colonists became barbarians they hated at least once.

>>1785167
>So in essence he's attempting to revert to barbarism?
i didn't realize 'barbarism' meant the same thing as 'independence'
>So he's advancing the cause of civilization?
i didn't realize 'civilization' meant the same thing as 'stealing resources from other nations'
>this is a meaningless term that expresses nothing but the emotions it's been charged with.
it's actually a quite meaningful term that you seem to be dismissing out of hand because of your own biases against its connotations in modern society

>>1785223
I have a question.

If the argument for keeping blacks out of voting power was that they were uneducated and largely rural, did this same restriction apply to non-educated and rural whites?

Because if not, well, that seems pretty racist to me.

>>1784810

Define race

>>1784546
Yes those assorted Gems were much more important then infrastructure or hospitals and schools

>>1785319
Everyone has to pass an education test.

>>1785327
and did the blacks, who passed this test, achieve precisely the same rights as the whites ?

>>1785281
>i didn't realize 'barbarism' meant the same thing as 'independence'
The modes of existence these people would choose independently are barbaric. In this case they are one in the same.
>i didn't realize 'civilization' meant the same thing as 'stealing resources from other nations'
When the transfer of these resources aids civilized nations, it advances the cause of civilization. Also, nations aren't capable of theft.
>it's actually a quite meaningful term that you seem to be dismissing out of hand because of your own biases against its connotations in modern society
Not really. The emotional nature of them term doesn't allow for it to accurately describe anything about human society or inequality. I'd like to say that anyone using it is inherently wrong, but they're really expressing nothing more than an impassioned yell.

>>1785319
Not the same anon, but the Biological definition of race is "a population within a species that is distinct in some way, especially a subspecies."

Or (noun) "each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics."

>>1785342
quite so.
Mind you I'm not >>1785223
I'm the one defending Rhodesia, my mother was from there.

>>1785360
yeah but the second definition is qualified as archaic in most modern dictionaries

>>1784560
The Americas before Europeans arrived had a better grasp on medicine and agriculture than Europeans. They just didn't make use of metals. They had highly complex, hierarchal societies like Europeans did. Do some research outside of your high school world history book you dumb fuck

>>1785364
That came straight from Google all of 2 seconds ago.

>>1785362
thanks mate. I don't see the problem, Rhodesia was pretty cool I guess

this thread is a garbage fire. why do so many people pollute /his/ with ill-formed ideas on race

>>1785368
Actually they were all small, tribal, and were in constant warfare, genociding each other willy nilly.
Their population exploded when they were colonized.

>>1785355
>The modes of existence these people would choose independently are barbaric.
what a completely baseless assumption.
>When the transfer of these resources aids civilized nations, it advances the cause of civilization.
how is theft anything but barbarity?
>Also, nations aren't capable of theft.
"civilized" laws very clearly argue against that notion.

File: 1462430969747.png (141KB, 1000x500px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 1000x500px

>>1785371
>pretty cool
Probably the coolest post-colonial state, and the only ones who knew that decolonization was a horrible idea bound to fail.

>>1785390
>Tenochtitlan population of 300,000 don't real
>Europe constantly in warfare genociding willy nilly don't real
>Smallpox and Spanish extermination of those who didn't convert don't real

oh my god, what reality do you live in?

>>1785413
Sorry, I read Africa.
>Europeans constantly in war
Large scale national wars hardly compare to tribal genocides.

>>1785368
>better grasp on medicine and agriculture than Europeans
t. pablo

>>1785426
show me a tribal genocide in the Americas, I'm not being facetious I'm genuinely curious

>>1785429

who are you referring to

>>1785430
Again, I'm speaking of Africa, of which I confused you of typing
>Tribal genocide in America
Routinely done between the north American tribes.
South America probably had the same history.
Hell Europe had the same history at one point too.

>>1785446
oh. tbqfh I have no knowledge of africa besides timbuktu so you got me there

National Socialist here.
No to 2/3rds, the Chinese and the Indians have (d) advanced cultures with sizable contributions to civilization.

File: 1472285405356.jpg (290KB, 708x864px) Image search: [Google]

290KB, 708x864px

>>1784563
>introducing industry peacefully would have been benevolent
what type of fairy dust cotton candy view of the world do you have? The world is not fair, people mostly just think for themselves and the Europeans conquered these areas only or at least mostly for their own gains. That doesn't mean though that these areas didn't get modernized/westernized in the process. Learn to read what OP is saying before you go all "f-fuck b-b-back off t-to /pol/."

it's so gratifying to see /pol/ get btfo'd when they come to /his/

>>1785446
>South America probably had the same history
The Incas in South America were actually doing pretty well before the Spaniards fucked everything up. The Incas weren't peaceful hippies but they weren't really Aztec-tier savages. Honestly, if you look into what Pizarro did the Spaniards are the ones who come across as savages by taking the Inca emperor hostage, demanding gold as a ransom, and then killing him after they got the gold.

>>1785455
No thanks to you lol

>>1785453

sure. the problem is the rationalization for european empires to rape pillage and annihilate foreign cultures was that the people they were colonizing were inferior. if empire-age europeans had any developed ideas about race and not half-baked darwinistic viewpoints on it, it would have turned out differently

>People whining about colonization

The history of the world attests to one fact: You either have an empire, or are a part of somebody else's.

If you aren't in the former position, don't complain about any consequences you may face for being in the latter.

>>1785459
Even if you're an egalitarian you can argue that while the people weren't inferior their culture and way of life was, the Australian aborigines are a good example. Then again they make a good argument for biological inferiority as well.

>>1784535
>they were mostly benevolent

File: 1452457988504.gif (362KB, 475x347px) Image search: [Google]

362KB, 475x347px

>>1785459
yeah it is almost like ideas, technology and or understanding of biology and "race" has developed over time. If the the empire-age Romans had developed any type of modern artillery, and not just some shitty ballista, things would have turned out differently

>>1785465
that has got to be one of the most ridiculous oversimplifications I've ever heard

>>1785467
>no tillable farmland
>all you can do is hunt kangaroos and paint sand pictured

hmm. I wonder why they didn't become "civilised".

Also, they aren't biologically inferior, they just haven't had much in the way of breeding with other races so their DNA is closer linked to humans from 50,000 years ago than most others. The scientific consensus for the modern human is somewhere around the same time.

>>1785478

It's true.

a little bit. >>1785399
>what a completely baseless assumption.
To some extent you're right, but if they're preferred way of living in any way resembled the way they lived before, it wouldn't be fair to all it anything other than barbaric.
>how is theft anything but barbarity?
No action can be barbaric in and of itself. Also, the claim of those resources by their rightful owners isn't stealing, and yes, the successful use of force made those resources rightfully theirs.

You're making the mistake of assuming that which is civilized isn't or should be nonviolent. Civilization is dependent on certain types of violence. what you categorize as theft is one of them, so in the context sustaining of civilized nations, forcibly transferring resources from another nation to your own is among the most civilized behaviors.

>"civilized" laws very clearly argue against that notion.
Many laws exist to protect and enable barbarism. This is one of them.

>>1785478
it's 4chan.

>>1784535
>in the 1800s, western powers were the ones who dragged the rest of the world out of primitive backwards way
Hardly, Western powers extracted the wealth and left developing economies dependent on resource export. The problems today in regions like Latin America are directly attributable to the effects of colonialism.

>>1784535
Define civilization.

>>1785502

>developing economies

They weren't developing. They were either stagnant or regressing. In this regard, Western powers changed nothing.

>>1785511
From the point beginning of colonialism onwards nothing was done to create diversified and self-sufficient economies with equal trade bargaining. Western powers actually destroyed a lot of traditional agricultural land so production could switch to sugar. If anything the situation is worse.
It could have been done a lot better. Contact itself brings upheaval but far more occurred than was necessary.

>>1785484
>no tillable farmland
What is the entire Eastern coast.
>all you can do is hunt kangaroos and paint sand pictures
In just decades westerners tamed the emu, using it's meat, feathers, skin, and eggs.

The Native Americans had to travel down the continent, found cultures, and eventually learned algebra, astronomy, built great pyramids and learned bronze metallurgy.
The aborigines lived on Australia thousands of years prior and weren't even using stone tools. They were though devouring their young.

Goodnight Mr. Diamond.

>>1785489
no it really isn't, there are so many examples to the contrary that saying "the history of the world attests to one fact" is just ludicrous.

You also seemed to imply that might makes right, which is another grossly simplistic view of the world.

File: 康熙帝.jpg (222KB, 827x1143px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 827x1143px

>>1784752
>it is bullshit just because
I am already aware you think it is bullshit, that is why I wrote 3 paragraphs explaining why you are mistaken and it is not bullshit. Are you even going to attempt to challenge anything I said? I even avoided using mainstream bleeding heart leftist arguments against colonialism and explained it from a purely pragmatic point of view.

I guess you were just shitposting then. You asked a question and I answered, but apparently you are just another racist retard from /pol/ and never wanted any answers in the first place.

Good job wasting my time. Well done le master troll.

>/his/ is not /pol/, and Global Rule #3 is in effect. Do not try to treat this board as /pol/ with dates.

File: yaoc_tenochtitlan.jpg (123KB, 780x572px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 780x572px

>>1784556
yeah, sure, the 5th largest city in the world with some of the most complex hydroenginnering and agricultural pratices built despite only having copper tools and not even possessing work animals isn't "doing" anything at all

>>1785457
The aztecs weren't really aztec tier savages either, see >>1785700

>>1784535
>X happened as a result of y
>Sure, yeah I'll admit, some x was a result of z
>But therefore, the only way x can happen is through y

>>1785535
Was the eastern coast made farmable.

Also Australia was completely divorced from the world.

>>1785342
Hypothetically yes but in reality achieving it was basically impossible due to the society of Rhodesia.

>>1785700
you dont by chance have a pic that will tell me what all those numbers are referencing do you?

>>1785319
Technically yes but that scenario was very rare.

File: wewlad.jpg (10KB, 230x279px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 230x279px

All of you idiots need to go and read The Heart of Darkness and The Torture Garden to get some perspective on how people in the late XIX century viewed the idea of white man burden. Even back then people knew it was bullshit, and these books were serialized, open for mass consumption.

>>1785796
I always found the obsession with imprinting culture on the primitive people funny in how two faced the people harping on it as its supporters were.

File: teno 1519.jpg (90KB, 960x742px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 960x742px

>>1785782
I don't, sorry, but they are probably just naming what each structure was

off the top of my head I know that 16 is the Templo Mayor main temple, and that 26 is a ballcourt. 15 and 12 are obviouly causways.

I think either 26 or 29 is the palace.

>>1785806
"We are bringing democracy to the region"

>>1785325

In what fucking /pol/tard universe do you live in where you think medicine and education weren't universally important?

>>1785814
thank you for the info anon

>>1785762
>made farmable
Retard, its arable land
And it was always there, they had no trouble clearing it because they Burnt the interior forests
They also ate babies and tasmanian Abos couldn't even make fire

File: IMG_0047.jpg (47KB, 350x230px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 350x230px

The fact is if we didn't curb stomp the assorted shitskins hordes and steal their wealth they would have done it to us,

>we should have shared it with them and taught them how to use it

And have them be lords over us? Fucking Kek

And it is highly debatable that they would have been far less caring as us

So fuck them, might makes right
I am white as fuck and don't feel guilty about any of it

File: 1472800252844.png (88KB, 298x332px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 298x332px

>>1785886

>>1785886
Only true of Muslims & Central Asians.

Most of the "shitskin hordes" were either chilling in their homelands or creating autist Empires in East Asia that bothered nobody.

>>1785900
At the time,
But trade and benevolent contact with Europe or China they could have exploded in population and power

>>1785910
What during the 15th-17th Centuries? When Europe's supremacy over the globe was still in question? Didn't happen at all.

If anything , what you said was only true of non-Muslim entity: Japan. Tried to take Korea they did. And they were swatted silly for it and turtled up like fags.

>>1784535
>China
>not civilized

Come on.