Colonization Yay or Nay?

File: 1488924541129.jpg (123KB, 1067x653px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 1067x653px

>>2564546
I don't know but that world looks delicious

File: IMG_1469.png (9KB, 378x472px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 378x472px

>>2564546
Who gives a heck? If they can take it and defend it, it's theirs.

>>2564588
its not morally right though.

Is the "colonizers lost economically on their African colonies" meme true?

>>2564599
Spooky m8

File: 1478061152203.gif (142KB, 495x700px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 495x700px

>>2564599
here we go again

>>2564599
fuck your morals

File: smugasswitch.png (180KB, 847x744px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 847x744px

>>2564599
>morally
>right

File: ba2LGnB.jpg (311KB, 800x1272px) Image search: [Google]

311KB, 800x1272px

Depends which style. If we're talking 19th/early 20th century colonialism, you have a few different ones:

-The "Mission to civilize" (France, Portugal, Belgium depending on when, Netherlands to a lesser extent): little to no profit, destruction of traditional power structures, some genuine idealistic/paternalistic concern for the natives with infrastructures built not just for profit, sometimes going as far as letting them participate in government if they assimilate, teaching them they are the "sons of the motherland" or whatever. Colonies ruled like this often became a shithole after independence, often after conflicts, as they were too closely tied to the motherland and local westernised elites usually fled to the motherland when independence came.

-The "As long as I can rake in cash" approach (Britain, Netherlands to some extent): more profit, conservation of traditional power structures, infrastructures built primarily with profit in mind, education of the conserved traditional elites, little education of the lower classes (often left to private institutions), some aspects of local cultures repressed. Little to not effort to civilize the entire population. Colonies ruled like this often turned out alright after progressive independence.

-The "Let's put White people there" (Britain, Russia, kinda?, France, depending where): Settler colonialism. Profit. Natives usually more or less wiped out after minor conflicts, infrastructures built with profit and concern for natives in mind. Turns out just fine if progressive independence.

American and Japanese colonialism took parts of each. Spanish colonialism was kind of a shitshow, they never had the ressources to do it properly. Early Belgian colonialism was just on another level that doesn't fit anywhere.

yay

10000 years the new world natives even more and they didn't even invent the wheel

500 years after colonization by a superior force the land was utilized and it propelled humanity too the moon

progress

yah

>>2564599
It's not morally right to leave the world in the grip of savages when you can do better.

>>2565006
Says who?

>>2564915
Yeah I'm sure the empty af plains of North Dakota really helped get a man on the moon
Also the hot af desert helped create the computer. Right?

>>2564546
Which era?
The old era of colonialism (late 1600's and 1700's) focused mostly on the Americas. Or the new imperialism era (late 19th century to mid 20th) in Africa, Asia and with new powers like Japan, America and Russia(?)

>>2564599

whose morals we working on m8?

>>2564546
It lead the path to globalism, take that as you will.

>>2565951
It's amazing how polfucks love european colonalism but hate globalism

Nay, unless you genocide the local population. Otherwise you end up like France.

File: he h.jpg (101KB, 1012x1024px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 1012x1024px

>>2564599
>my subjective moral compass LITERALLY CAN'T guys

>>2564546
The mission to civilize: yay. Its failure is extremely tragic. I can't help but think that, had it been an honest and well-planned attempt, we'd be living in a much better world. But it wasn't due to the concessions made to exploitation and the unwillingness of powers to invest in their colonies.

Exploitative colonialism: nay.

Kill all natives and attach the captured land to your country.

File: Map_of_the_Portion_of_Abyssinia_Tranversed_by_the_British_Expedition_in_1868.jpg (720KB, 985x2651px) Image search: [Google]

720KB, 985x2651px

>>2564612
The British did. Abolition and maintaining Christian missions were'nt cheap.
The British didn't engage in the ruthless mineral extraction and coerced labour that the Belgians partook in - The state was not compensated in the way modern liberals accuse it of being.
It seemed more about prestige, an exhibition of moral and geo-political superiority.

Look at the British Expedition to Abyssinia:

>Christian Emperor of Ethiopia Theodore II wants international recognition so writes to the great powers of Europe.
>Only France responds and is kind of rude.
>Livid, Emperor Theo imprisons all the Euros in his empire including the British Consul and a bunch of missionaries.
>British Government and especially Queen Victoria want a peaceful solution - as it happens the Brits are quite curious about this African Christian Emperor and view him as a romantic figure.
>The British earnestly try to resolve this without blood but Theo's behaviour becomes erratic.
>Theo moves his hostages to an extremely inaccessible stone mountain fortress 400 miles from the sea.
>OkayWeTriedToBeNiceYouDumbNigger_NobodyTreatsHerMajestiesSubjectsLikeThis.jpeg
>Robert Napier is given the permission are requisite funds to bring 44 Elephants from India, 40,000 people (most martial races from the Raj and their camp followers/ dome British regulars) provisioned with state of the art weaponry and other astonishing supplies - in what is later described as "one of the most expensive affairs of honour in history."
>Invasion lasts months, Napier wins every engagement, battle with Theo is very brief, 2 dead on British side, 700 on Theo's.
>Theo seppukus
>Brits free hostages
>Brits leave.

People can kind of say Ethiopia was never colonised.

>>2564546

it's shit.
look what it gave the Europeans, some shitty minerals they could've better earned through normal/gunboat diplomacy.

Colonies were expansive as fuck and arguably only a dick measuring contest between the royals in Europe.

>>2564599
Good one

>>2565905
Says the more powerful and intelligent. What are you going to do about it cuck? You have no power and the empire can do whatever the fuck it's wants and you can't do shit about Good one buddy

>>2565974
They like them because it was pointless not to. What were we just going to let them sit there and doing fucking nothing for another 20000 years? Fuck that we are takiing their shit and there's nothing you can do about it. Now I don't believe we should have ethnically divereseempires because they are much more likely to kill themselves from the inside. I agree that we fucked up in not wiping out the africans or just keeping them contained and isolated in their shithole but "muh life" and now we have to deal with niggers. Fuckin great

>>2564911
although it is not what you intended, this is a rather good way to counter anti-colonial discussions by shifting the context from right or wrong to how it is performed.

Thanks for putting more fuel into my jew tactics folder.