Thread replies: 8
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3
File: 1461241240666.png (15KB, 473x454px) Image search:
[Google]
15KB, 473x454px
Is there any merit to the argument that places which were colonized-such as South America or Africa-which aren't in super great condition today, can't blame their misfortune on European "exploiting" them as it wasn't Europe's fault that they were we advanced?
I always hear the "fact" that Africa, for example, is in such a shitty state due to exploitation, and "WE WUZ KANGS" aside how come they didn't put up more of a fight to Europe?
Couldn't the argument be made that these places have been inferior from the get go?
As little /pol/ as possible please, I'm juts curious about why some places happened to advance more than others.
>>
> why some places happened to advance more than others
Pure luck. Why some place is destroyed by the natural disaster, but not the other? Pure fucking luck.
>>
>this thread again and again and again and again
>>
>>2219101
>an alternate timeline where Africa colonized Europe is completely conceivable it's just luck of the draw man
This is what redditors actually believe
>>
>>
File: CarthaginianEmpire.png (365KB, 1583x869px) Image search:
[Google]
365KB, 1583x869px
>>2219112
> Africa colonized Europe
Just imagine Carthage winning against Rome, we could all have been ride pet elephants by now...
>>
File: 1479994120811.jpg (182KB, 1000x668px) Image search:
[Google]
182KB, 1000x668px
Can you really make argument against Americas if most natives there were destroyed by bacterias and not by exploitation?
>>
>>2219098
Most of earlier big civilizations started on places where there was a higher food production from the land.
Fertility of the land provides more food and after that more means to do other things than farming.
Thread posts: 8
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3