Was it worth it for European countries to colonize Africa?

>>2897052
Germans landed at some sandy coast and found huge fucking gemstones just lying around on the beach. Being responsible adults that they usually are they divided the beach into lots, and the whole crew gathered what they could find, which was a fortune, cataloged it and brought it back home for analysis.

Of course it was worth is, Africa is immensely rich with resources, all the horror stories come from Europeans being unable to rule the place efficiently, mostly due to their own corrupt viceroys/administrators.

File: DrBQzhA.jpg (83KB, 687x618px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 687x618px

>>2897052
>Was it worth it for European countries to colonize Africa?

Yes.

>Did they get much richer from their African colonies since Africa is the continent most abundant in natural resources?

Colonies benefits don't come solely from wealth anon. The reason why caring about a colonies "profitability" is a meme because governments aren't supposed to be making profits (that's not their purpose), that's governments engage in things that are a net cost on themselves but have other benefits to it like infrastructure projects in the U.S or running the water utility. They got many benefits out of them.

Did Germany's overall economy improve a lot during the colonial era?

Would Germany be as rich as it is today if colonialism didn't happen?

>>2897074
How would you know? If they didn't colonize parts of the world, they would have focused on building up infrastructure back home. As >>2897061 said, siphoning resources back home from the colonies made possible more investments back home. It almost definitely was richer, but by how much you can never know exactly.

That chick in the pic is fucking hot.

>>2897052
If you were a merchant or plantation owner, yes.

how big does your dick need to be to satisfy a black gf

>>2898048
They don't have cavernous black vaginas, if that's what you mean. My wife hasn't had any complaints.

>>2897052
No giving the blacks our technology just did more to make people see tham as equal to us.

>>2898068
>Fucking a negress
Ugh

Generally speaking colonial powers made damn sure they got a profit out of it. Africa was 'empire on the cheap' and it is telling that colonialism collapsed rather rapidly (besides Portuguese hold-outs) once it started to cost money to maintain.

In Britain's case especially much of the colonial administration was done through indirect rule (i.e. some tribal chief was placed to impose order while giving tax) with infrastructure projects established purely to facilitate resource extraction. If a given area wasn't able to turn a profit it was simply left alone and wouldn't cost more than a survey, the ink used to colour the maps and perhaps a priest to spread the word.

Beyond economics the continent also provided a healthy supply of manpower for both world wars and although Germany wasn't able to use it's African soldiers in the trenches Lettow-Vorbeck was able to pin down significant Entente numbers through his guerilla campaign. Then there is the need for power projection with coaling and telegraph stations established to facilitate travel to the pacific etc.

>>2897109
You can't just make resources by investing at home. Even assuming Europe could get adequate access to items like cotton and rubber somewhere else the price of such commodities would rise which would have a negative impact on everything.

>>2898154
>You can't just make resources by investing at home.
I completely agree, of course they were better off after colonizing. I was saying that any country would adapt to not being able to colonize, but that it simply wouldn't be the same.

>>2897052
I'd colonize her if you know what I mean!

File: 11111111.jpg (126KB, 1080x1350px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 1080x1350px

>>2897052
>ywn be the son of a wealthy plantation owner and have the qt black slave girl teach you about sex

>>2898343
>teach you about sex
Your father would beat you for thinking that nigger is a person.

>>2898343
There was less race mixing in rural areas than there was in town. It was the city boys with house staff that were porking their slaves, generally speaking.

>>2898354
Your father would have had several mulatto bastards himself. Hell, he'd probably encourage the whole thing.

>>2898446
Sex with house keepers has been the norm in Europe since forever. I doubt that Cleetus wouldn't tap the ebony pussy

>>2898343
I'd colonize her, if you know what I mean!

>>2898464
>Europe
>The American South
anon, I...

>>2898471
>british settlers are not european
Wut?

File: American ethnicity by county 2010.jpg (4MB, 7129x3833px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 7129x3833px

>>2898476
In the South you seem to have an even mix of those who consider themselves British and those who consider themselves Americans. I'd say the ones who identify as Americans are Americans.

>>2898541
>Current identity holds any value in this conversation
Anon I ...

>>2898562
Identify usually carries over generation to generation. You'd be surprised how many people today identify as their ancestors did.

>>2898596
Pal the whites in the south are british culturally with some negro and Spanish culture into the mix. They sure as hell had sex with their house maidens

>>2898596

I just identify as American.

>>2897052

Wasn't there a study that illustrated how europeans would have been four to five times better off if they hadn't try to colonize/exploit Africa and rather focus and invest in their own native European infrastructure, commerce and so forth?

From an economic standpoint colonization was a disaster at worst and hinderance at best. The rich natural resources acquired by it did not compensate for the effort, time, energy and manpower needed for it's collection.

Not necesserily related to Africa, but didn't about 50% of all early colonies in the Americas end up bankrupt as well?

Given that "Atlantropa" was the hottest idea of the 20s I'm going to guess it was rather profitable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantropa

File: image.png (686KB, 909x535px) Image search: [Google]

686KB, 909x535px

>>2897052
this is now a COLONIZED thread

also
>tfw hate race mixing
>but love how much bootyblasting WM/BW relationships cause

File: image.jpg (115KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 640x640px

>>2898343
it hurts to live

>>2897052
>>2898343
>>2898738
>>2898747
who are these knob goblins?

>>2898596
You fucking dumb nigger its been nearly 150 years since slavery was abolished. The redneck Southerners aren't a fucking planter aristocracy anymore and Southern culture has changed substantially.

>>2898343
>>2898747
>they don't know pretty black girls are 90% weave and makeup

>>2898541
>Kentucky
>almost entirely off-white/"""""""unknown"""""""

fucking kek

I think it was a mistake. The natives may have been low iq simpletons, but I believe trade surrounding African controlled infrastructure, would've been a better way to help Europe as well as Africa in the long run.

>>2898152
K

>>2898354
>t.someone who doesn't know Jackshit about precivil war American history.

It was preferred that white men used black slaves as a way to have free sex or practice girls rather than dishonor "white maidens. "

>>2900324
All girlss wear a shit ton of makeup Anon. Youou virgin. Another thing, you would be surprised how many whites wear weave...oh I mean "extensions" as they like to call it. See Kim Kardashian.

>>2900416
>What is ethnogenesis?

>>2897052
I feel bad for people who actually want to talk about Africa on this board.

>>2898154
Colonialism was essentially always a net loss for the colonizing country monetarily. Britain reaped NEAR what they spent on their colonies back in direct taxes.

In also every case, Colonialism was a kind of subsidy for big business interests who made the bulk of the profits from the endeavor while the Home Government footed most of the bill.

>>2900933
should say *NEVER* reaped near

>>2900928
>tfw someone made fun of me for asking for recs on a book about the history of Liberia in a reading thread

>>2900944
Sorry my dude, this thread is just one example of how any discussion in Africa is doomed. Half way into the thread it became about america.

>>2900890
Y

File: GettyImages-134573968-woman-with-curly-hair.jpg (23KB, 640x427px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 640x427px

>>2900324
>TFW you would be perfectly happy with their natural wild negress bob

>>2900933

The British GOVERNMENT didn't profit, that doesn't mean the British people (at least the financial and industrial interests, perhaps not the average person) didn't profit. Think of people like Cecil Rhodes who became millionaires from virtually nothing.

Think of it this way. Somebody eats the costs on administration, policing, infrastructure, etc. Then other businesses reap the profits derived from these things. The government might not make that back in taxation, but the businesses wouldn't have bothered if they weren't making money. Even today western business interests are reaping a nice harvest out of Africa despite governments losing money on the continent.

>>2897052
Africa was never actually colonized, except South Africa. The colonization of Africa is just a meme rooted in passive agressive white supremacy.

>>2901068
You're just rephrasing what I said. Colonialism was essentially a subsidy for private interests who were the primary beneficiaries of the government expenditure, but the policies were almost always a NET LOSS financially for the actual government and the average citizen who was more likely to see an increase in taxes before a fall in the cost of living.

The 2nd Boer War is a perfect example. While beneficial to the mining giants operating in the area who had agitated for the war, it cost tens of thousands of British lives and millions of pounds in cost, while the average Briton got absolutely nothing out of it.

not for the average citizen of a European country. just shitty taxes.

>>2897058
>I don't know about that friend, I think there's a reason no vast civilization could ever rule large swathes of Africa (except for the med of course,) its an extremely diverse place with a shit ton of people who speak a shit ton of different languages and crazy ass jungle to dessert climates. It would take logistics that are hard to do even today for a single entity to rule over the continent of Africa (2/3 of it was owned by the brits.)

Germany got shit from Africa but they actually were the only nation to turn there colonies profitable in the industrial world, mostly because of their governmental structure.

>>2897074
>Did Germany's overall economy improve a lot during the colonial era?
No it improved a little but Germanys metropole was one of the largest and most industrial economies already nd it didn't need to import from the colonies, they were more of a prestige thing and Germany wasn't in the colonial game for long because Bismark thought colonies were a meme.

>Would Germany be as rich as it is today if colonialism didn't happen?

Yes.

But that also delves into alternate history and brings up a shit ton of questions and the butterfly effect. Do you mean the Europeans don't colonize anything? Because that would most likely mean that the Muslims took Portugal and Spain (fighting back the Muslims in Spain, Grenada then Morocco is what prompted the first colonies, and the Muslim Ottomans refusal to trade with, and constant warring against, Europe is what inclined Spain and Portugal (later England, France and the Netherlands) to circumvent Africa and reach India.

If colonialism never happened its likely that France is either conquered and part of a Caliphate or is constantly at war with an Islamic Iberia and so it would have a harder time sending soldiers to help the Hungarians, Poles and Germans beat back the Ottomans. Its likely in such a world Germany as we know it would exist.

>>2901157
Colonies aren't supposed to be profitable. That's not the primary fucking purpose of a colony (same for government's that's why governments engage in thigns for the populace that may be a cost to it) but many African colonies did net great money and guiltily for the metropole
Also the line that the colonies were profitable comes from no doubt this line

>Only Togoland and German Samoa became profitable and self-sufficient; the balance sheet for the colonies as a whole revealed a fiscal net loss for the empire.

Germany had more then those tow places as colonies and this statment actually means out of all Germany's colonies only those two were self-sustaining. People always misunderstand that line

>>2901455
>Colonies aren't supposed to be profitable.
That is totally untrue.

>>2901090
Because all that land Briton gained now belongs to Britain. Now there's more job opportunities for Brits for working in mining, farming as well as other jobs that will come about due to British workers getting a good income as well as more land to expand into and other valuable shit under the ground.

The shit Britain gained is not really obvious to the untrained eye.

>>2901467
Anon colonies have more purposes then just making money.
That's like saying governments are supposed to be profitable.

>>2901478
The sort of colonies that existed in Africa were profit driven, such as the Congo.

>>2901470
None of those tertiary benefits changes the fundamental calculus that Colonialism mostly benefited a tiny minority of private interests at the top, usually at the expense of everyone else. Clothing the endeavors as matters of national prestige and power were how they were characterized to those who didn't have a direct material stake in the game.

>>2901455
Colonies are supposed to be profitable, until the 1800s they were profitable at least because they allowed for power projection. Once everyone industrialized they just needed places to trade with and a few islands for refueling.

In the end they were just prestige. The German colonies were profitable because the Germans tried to build up light industry in east Africa and was able to get the population to like them.

>>2901483
Loepold got Congo because he wanted a colony because everyone else had one. They gave it to him because Leopold played some grade A manipulation to get Europe powers and America to support him.

>>2901504
Because colonies provided much more then just private interests. Trade was the biggest thing colonies brought.

>>2901524
>Germans tried to build up light industry in east Africa and was able to get the population to like them.

Nigga the population trucking hated them. You never heard of the Maji Maji rebellion and the constant putdowns or uprisings and pissed natives?

WOMEN ARE THE OPPRESSORS! EVERY YEAR WOMEN WORLDWIDE KILL 50-60 MILLION OF THEIR OWN BABIES BY WAY OF ABORTION, WOMEN ARE EXTERMINATING THE FUTURE OF MANKIND(BOTH FEMALE AND MALE FETUSES OF ALL RACES)! FEMINISM IS MENTAL ILLNESS, IT'S DESTROYING ALL PEOPLE!

>>2901608
Just a bunch of hotheads and troublemakers. Most of the population sided with their Teutonic overlords and loved Ordnung.

>>2901524
>He's never heard of the Herero genocide

>>2901650

Was the Herero genocide the only bad thing Germany did on their colonies?

Also, did Germany import a lot of natural resources from Africa? Did it help build companies in the main land? Did the cost of living go down for certain commodities?