I disagree with my high school history teacher

>>3291348

>Europeans conquer each other for centuries
>This is fine

>Europeans conquers Africa
>OMG THIS IS THE WORST THING THAT EVER HAPPENED

Anti-colonialists are idiots, you can't argue with them any more than you can argue with a rock.

>>3291364
You can't possibly compare the two situations. One is battle with enemies of relatively equal culture/technology and shared history. The other is direct exploitation of progressively inferior societies.

>>3291348
Your teacher has cought a case of "is-ought" syndrom. Conflicting his ideas of the way things are and the way they "should" be. Most people have it and it's really hard to break out of.

File: china_in_africa_2.jpg (99KB, 622x640px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 622x640px

>>3291348
Now china want some too

File: china_in_africa.jpg (57KB, 599x389px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 599x389px

>>3291407

>>3291395

So when Caesar enslaved the Gauls and Celts he wasn't "exploiting" them? He wasn't engaging in "direct exploitation? Nope, there is no reason why European colonization in Africa should be arbitrarily treated as worse then every other conquest in human history.

>>3291364
You can't possibly compare the two situations.
One is battle with enemies of relatively equal culture/technology and shared history.
The other is British military history and greatest pride

>>3291432

>You can't possibly compare the two situations.

Wrong. I reject your false dogma.

>>3291418
No in that case it was also exploitation. I'm specifically talking about medieval to industrialised Europe where most Europeans were on a relatively equal footing.

The reason colonialism is talked about is because it had a prominent racial component. A subject that's rather contentious these days

>>3291348
>In this situation might DOES make right, although not necessarily morally right.
>How do I get my point across without coming off as a racist /pol/tard?
You don't. You're a relativist and he's an universalist, you're arguing from completely incompatible premises.
Short of backtracking all the way to the basics of ethics you're never gonna find any agreement.

>>3291348
> I'm tempted to stand up one day and ask "by white, do you mean..." and list five or six European ethnicities.
don't do that, it would be cringe

just ask him if the zulus had the right to conquer their neighbors and impale rebels and so forth and see what his reaction is

>>3291411
You have to go back, faggot. You got kicked out and you will never come back to Zambia.

>>3291457
>see what his reaction is
He's gonna go "are you gonna lower yourself at that level?" on him.
Granted he could call him racist at that point, but he's not gonna impress anybody who didn't already agree with him. Paternalism is more heavily ingrained in the mind of anticolonialists than it ever was in the mind of the staunchest imperialist.
Or if he's smart he'll go "two wrongs don't make a right" and shut anon out.

>>3291446

>The reason colonialism is talked about is because it had a prominent racial component

Exactly. There is absolutely no reason why colonization of Africa is somehow magically worse than Caesar enslaving the Gauls. The ONLY reason that colonization of Africa is treated as being the worst thing that ever happened is because of the desperate need to frame Europeans as the bad guy.

>where most Europeans were on a relatively equal footing.

So when the English were starving the Irish to death and demolishing Irish homes and imprisoning Irishmen for the crime of singing Irish songs or speaking the Irish language, they were on a "relatively even footing"?

>>3291468
>implying they want to return to this shithole

>>3291348
The true country and only one who made actual money with Africa doesnt appear on your shit picture : its China.

Ok, Europe and USA made money outta slavery (more like single individuals made money, but I simplify for SJWs) but in the 1900-1960s period it cost way more money for France, for example, to maintain and modernize colonies than the French government got revenues for them.

>>3291487
So you won't come back? Then case closed.

>>3291489
Sorry for my english

>>3291453
>relativist
>universalist
explain these terms like you would to a ten year old, it seems like you know what you're talking about. Thanks.

>>3291489

German colonies in Africa were also pretty profitable. The astonishing loyalty that the Africans displayed during WW1 really says a lot about how people respond well to being treated with dignity.

>>3291473
The reason the racial component is so important is because living groups of people are still affected by it. No one today is affected by the conquest of the Gauls or the viking raids, but the aftershock of colonialism is still present. Even though segregation in America is outlawed, the ghettos and communities it formed are still present and are basically their own little pocket cultures. Post colonial countries are underdeveloped and still being exploited by western economic interests. The fact people question why people care more about that stuff is more confusing than anything.

>>3291493
>implying I am white

Sorry to disappoint you, but africa is still a shithole.

>>3291511
Why are you assblasted that your intentions showed up? pffft This land belongs to the africa race, you will never set foot on Zambia again.

>>3291501
>explain these terms like you would to a ten year old
Universalists (more properly, moral universalists) believe that morality is absolute. What is right here today was always right and is right everywhere. They believe morality is unchangeable.
Relativists (more properly, moral relativists) believe that morality is relative. What is right here today might have been wrong yesterday, could be wrong tomorrow, is maybe wrong elsewhere. They believe morality depends on a variety of changeable factors.
>inb4 it's more complez than that
He said explain to a ten year old, feel free to expand yourself you cunts. If anon wants more:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

>it seems like you know what you're talking about
Eh. You're on 4chan buddy, at best I know what I'm talking about relative to board average.

>>3291505

>No one today is affected by the conquest of the Gauls or the viking raids, but the aftershock of colonialism is still present

That's simply a matter of one thing happening more recently. The fact remains: Europeans enslaved and butchered each other for centuries. The African experience of being conquered is not any worse than the same experience which was felt by the innumerable European cultures which were conquered by other European cultures. The experience of Algeria being conquered by France is not so different than what the Lithuanians would have felt when they were invaded by Teutonic Knights.

Tbh Africa for Africans, Europe for Europeans, Asia for Asians, Americas as a giant wild life reservation free of any human inhabitants.

>>3291537
>Americas
America* for Americans* (no united statians)

>>3291530
>That's simply a matter of one thing happening more recently.
Then you completely grasp the extent of my argument. I have literally nothing else to say.

>>3291537
>europe for europeans
lol no
You have to get invaded now. It's your turn.

>>3291530
Not the guy you're responding to, but you'll never get anything worthwhile out of history if you only look at it as a way to buttress your own preexisting ideological leanings. Your argument is one facile false equivalence that pre-moderns forms of state violence are directly comparable to its modern forms.

>>3291546
There are no real Americans left, they're all 1/6212 something fakers.

>>3291473
>Exactly. There is absolutely no reason why colonization of Africa is somehow magically worse than Caesar enslaving the Gauls.
But it was worse, precisely because of that racial component. An enslaved Gaul would frequently be freed and become a Roman citizen with all the rights of one. A black slave in America could at best be a third rate citizen, but would probably die a slave.

>>3291560
More natives than cumskins, yes. America for the real Americans (no united statians allowed).

>>3291553

>I have literally nothing else to say

Honestly, that's a good thing. I already debunked your entire argument, but I'll do it again. The African experience of being conquered is not any worse than what the Irish suffered at the hands of Cromwell and his minions, nor do they exceed the atrocities that the Gauls experienced from Caesar and his legions. The only difference is that the African experience of being conquered is more recent in memory. It's not some special form of victimhood that God chose to inflict upon Africans and nobody else. Get over it.

>>3291523
I dont care about your shithole, like I said I not even american or european, also this is the best opportunity to show to the world the african people not need those racist hateful colonialist to help them.

>>3291523
>african race

There exist an asian race too?

>>3291582
So you won't ever set foot on Zambia again? Then case closed.

>>3291562

>A black slave in America could at best be a third rate citizen, but would probably die a slave.

Compare that to what happened to the Africans who were taken by the Arabs. They were castrated. And the Arabic slave trade lasted FAR longer than American slavery did. In fact, the only reason why the Arabic slave trade stopped is because Europeans ended it.

>>3291583
Irrelevant. This land doesn't belong to the cumskin race. Go back and never return.

>>3291587
Are you refering to african americans or the people who stayed on Africa?

>>3291574
>The African experience of being conquered is not any worse than what the Irish suffered at the hands of Cromwell and his minions, nor do they exceed the atrocities that the Gauls experienced from Caesar and his legions. The only difference is that the African experience of being conquered is more recent in memory.
I'm not disagreeing with you though. That's exactly what I'm trying to say, that other atrocities are being downplayed because they aren't relevant to the lives of modern people. I'm sure the atrocities of Roman imperialism were being downplayed by Europeans when Vikings started roaming the seas.

>>3291574
no you didn't lol

>>3291364
Most people who are anti-colonialism don't think it's fine that Europeans conquered each other for centuries.

>>3291537
Australia for australians?
>Americas as a giant wild life reservation free of any human inhabitants.
lol

even you don't know when to start the clock exactly

>>3291590
>>3291582

Return to what I don't even white.

>>3291598
Yet somehow it's either fine that non-europeans did the exact same shit, or they just don't bother criticizing everybody equally, showing an agenda in their complaints.
Let's face it, anticolonialists aren't intellectually honest.

>>3291348
I bet your teacher isn't even aware of the Arab slave trade which lasted longer and took more humans out of Africa (estimates that I trust are about 18 million, versus 13 million for the European).

Anyway, you simply have to point out that your teacher is moralizing and not being objective, and missing the point that in the 1800s, modern concepts of human rights didn't exist. Of course we realize it's ethically wrong today, duh. Judging the past by modern standards is always shooting fish in a barrel, and it'll surely happen to us someday too.

As for the other part of your question, well... for example, European buyers DID buy sugar, cotton, tobacco and other products made with slave labour. It's not like they had a choice to buy fair trade instead, that's not how the world was. Should they blamed for it? No. Ask your teacher if he always buys fair trade coffee, chocolate, cotton, and if (predictably not) why he tacitly supports modern-day indentured servitude and so on.

>>3291609
Yes because that's not relevant in todays political climate

>>3291614
That's basically an admission that anticolonialism is not in any way legitimate and only political tool to further certain agendas.
You're supposed to deny it anon, else you're just agreeing with me.

>>3291614

A class teaching world history shouldn't be focusing on "today's political climate." Look, I'm not saying that people shouldn't be taught about all the screwed up shit that happened when Europeans colonized Africa. What I am saying, is that it should be put in proper context. The Arabs also practiced slavery against Africans, and they have never apologized for doing so. Yes, Europeans conquered and exploited Africans, just as Europeans had already been doing to each other for centuries.

>>3291626
>just as EVERYONE had already been doing to each other for MILLENNIA
ftfy

>>3291348
Anyone have that screencap about missionaries->soldiers->civilizations that explains the colonization of Africa. It wasn't some overt scheming, it's just kind of a thing that happened, where one tribe asks to be the lackey or more power, and need for the Europeans caused the competition and race for Africa.

Africa is not one unified place and people, so it's an oversimplification along the lines of saying that the white man killed the native american.

>>3291624
>You're supposed to deny it anon, else you're just agreeing with me.
But I am agreeing with you.

>>3291626
I agree.

I'm merely explaining WHY it's happening, I care little about whether it's right or not.

>>3291503
Well, apart from all those Herero and Namaqua stuffed in concentration camps and/or genocided...

Tanganyika was already a trade hub for several centuries when the Germans became the corporate owners. You'd have to be a real dummy not to wring money out... I think there was also some "enemy of my enemy is my friend" stuff going on, RE: the British.

>>3291557
>you'll never get anything worthwhile out of history if you only look at it as a way to buttress your own preexisting ideological leanings

So the teacher is also wrong

>>3291647
Yes. Congratulations. You can be wrong together.

>>3291411
I have a (surprising) number of Africa African classmates at Uni. Studying geography and environmental engineering... A bunch from Malawi (total bros), Zambia (including a third-gen guy of Portuguese ancestry), a couple from Zim, Mozambique, Namibia. One thing they all have in common is that they hate Chinese.

At least, they don't like what the Chinese government/resource extraction companies are doing in their countries. They aren't stupid, they understand exactly what's going on. Chinese build a road, sure, but only from the mine to the airport, and they ship in Chinese to do everything. Very little benefit to the locals, as any funds returned to the state are sure to slosh around only among the ruling elite.

I've seen that docu about the Chinese workers in Congo, but congo is a special kind of shithole. Southern Africa is not quite as bad...

Imperialism in Africa was worse than similar instances that came before it because the scale on which it took place was much larger and the intensity of the work was much worse than it was before.

Whites in Africa are only as bad as Muslims in Europe.

>>3291667
Do you honestly believe that colonialism was larger scale than countries getting enslaved and moved away wholesale during antiquity? Whole cities and regions in the middle ages?
Do you honestly believe that intensive agriculture and mining in Africa was any more intensive than ergastuli and roman salt/iron mines? Than being a galley rower? Outright sexual slavery?

No anon. European colonialism at its worst was merely par for the course when considering what came before it.

>>3291672
muslim isn't a race
middle easterners are white however

>>3291694
Except European colonialism leaves land unusable and strips away natural resources at a much greater rate. Not only that but the death toll was much greater, millions of people uprooted from there homes in the course of 200 years, the effects of which are still felt today. Are you really going to say slavery in antiquity was worse? Do you really think that?

>>3291742
>Are you really going to say slavery in antiquity was worse? Do you really think that?
Yes. The intensity at worst is the same, and the scale is undeniably smaller proportionally to the size of populations involved. Millions of people over 200 years is peanuts compared to 20% of all gaul enslaved in ONE WAR. Or the turks enslaving sacked cities wholesale. Did european colonialism ever reach 20% to 100% losses of african regional population in 10 years or one war?
You might have a point about mineral resources, but that's just better tech, certainly no greater aggressivity towards the territory (the romans levelled fucking mountains in Spain, come on).

>>3291742

>Are you really going to say slavery in antiquity was worse?

That depends to a large extent on who captured you, and why. But yeah, slavery always sucked. It wasn't something that was reserved for Africans.

>>3291742
I don't think you understand the full extent of influence and damage wrought upon others by the likes of the Romans and Mongols.

>>3291793
>the likes of the Romans and Mongols
It's not like they were exceptional either. They only really shine through because by being stronger they could do more damage. But they were pretty much in line with most everyone in their timeframe.
Well the romans were anyway. I'm unsure whether the extreme fear mongols generated was due to force difference of particular brutality, I'm not well read on the subject.

>>3291742

Hell, do you even know what groups like the Bantu did to other African groups? Do you? Do you think there was no war and no exploitation in Africa until the evil white men appeared over the horizon and enslaved everybody? I once read in a book that described Shaka Zulu as "The African Hitler."

>morally right
Nonexistent thing

It's not Darwinism, it's general progressivism. This term is ignored because it means criticizing the notion of 'progress'.

>>3291348
>He claims that Europeans did not have the "right" to conquer Africa.
your teacher is indeed wrong and doesn't fully understand history. he is unable to put himself into the place of the Europeans at the time. when you are the powerhouse of the world and you see an opportunity to get money or more power you take it, by force if needed. the rule of the strong used to apply all around the globe untill the 90s, nowadays the rule of the strong still applies but it has kinda faided away since the strong have become weaker and it has been a while since real force and might were used as a tool to achieve things.

>>3291446
So one sort of colonialism is fine, but the source of it (Rome raping the Gauls) is perfectly fine?
Fucking progressives.
>>3291505
But that's wrong, there are only a handful of people able to see that they have been colonized. Every burgerfat adores Rome.

No, we are not fucking 'past it'. We will never be past it until we stop jacking eachother off over how our massahs had the greatest civilization ever.

This mindset lead to all other instances of colonization. What fucking empire wasn't trying to imitate Rome?

>>3291822
>it has kinda faided away
Only if you're dumb enough that you can't think "force" without adding "of arms" in your mind. The foremost modern school of thought in international relations states that power is the most important factor in international relations.
Nowadays economies are so intertwined that armies have to take a backseat and make space for soft power, but application of soft power is still fucking force.

>/his/ is literally high schoolers
Not surprised desu

>>3291813
Don't paint me out as a strawman, I don't believe that whiteness is the sole evil of the world and I know that atrocities were comitted by Africans unto other Africans. I just believe that European imperialism is the worst there has been. All your doing here is making yourself look like an idiot.

>>3291869

>European imperialism directed towards Africans is arbitrarily worse than European imperialism directed towards other Europeans

>Also still ignoring the Arabic slave trade

>>3291879
Mamalukes, who were all slaves, had tons of political power to the point that they had their own nations.

>>3291879
In the Americas, specifically Brazil and the Caribbeans, slaves died at such a rate that the only way to maintain the population was to import.

>>3291934

And in Arabia, slaves were castrated so the only way to maintain the population was to import.

>>3291943
Except not every slave was castrated, mostly the ones used to guard over women

>>3291793
I'll admit I'm not as familiar, if you could explain why these examples are as bad or worse it would help me understand

>>3291348
As a history teacher he should know that you cant judge historical people through modern social views.

>>3291934
Life expectancy for caribbean plantation slaves was 7-9 years.
Life expectancy for roman quarry slaves was 7 years.
Roman quarries were considered far more lenient on a slave's health than mines too.
Let it go anon, there was nothing exceptional about colonization. Human brutality is the same the world over, since the beginning of times.

>>3291963
It's ironic because he literally started out the year with us making am "identity chart" where we had to put stuff down like our socioeconomic status, gender, race, friends/family etc and he used that as an explanation as to where our political biases stem from.

Guess he talks the talk but won't walk the walk. Either that or if he gets called on his shit he can always say "we all have biases and we even covered that"

One other student said something about how we can't judge both sides from a 21st century lense in a discussion, I think he didn't dig deeper though and don't remember exactly

>>3291968
That's wrong though. It's pretty obvious that the demographic changes such as the 90% death of diseases for 2 centuries+, the murdering of priviledged class to nobles, the assimilation of the remnants of the noble classes, and the constant toxic exposure of all natives from mines for 4 centuries until they drop dead.

It's pretty obvious the same demographic changes should occur to the europeans, don't you think?

>That image
I can understand you having that opinion about imperialism, but how come only Africa got explored? What about South America? India?
Consistency is good.

>>3291985
I don't think the artist is trying to say it was just Africa, that's just what they're focusing on

>>3291978

At some point you just have to accept that public education is almost always shit and you have to read history books on your spare time if you want to escape it. Read African Kaiser if you want an example of a book that handles the colonization issue very well. It's mostly about WW1, but the background information about German colonies in Africa is very good and I would recommend it just for that.

The difference between the Mongols and 19th European empires is that the European successor states still exist today. Britain and France still have overseas territories and Spain and Portugal only gave up theirs 40 years ago.

>>3291348
>I don't understand how his 21st century American point of view system of "rights" could have existed in the late 1800s without rule of law
Read the Declaration of Independence.

>>3292011
>public education
My tuition is over $20,000 a year, I've never had a teacher that makes their political biases apparent besides an English teacher around November 2016 (hmm) who quickly shut up
I enjoy heated discussions and I sort of like the guy but I don't wanna get a bad grade by exposing him. Not that I could even articulate myself well enough anyways. So yeah, you're right, it just is.

>>3292018
That's not what relativism means
Greeks had democracy thousands of years ago, yet a lot of the world is still not very democratic

>>3291982
Your post is written so badly I can hardly understand what you're saying, but I think you're telling me that there haven't been plagues, widespread aristocracy resets and pollution damage in Europe, or at least not due to warfare and conquest.
Do I even need to write how retarded such a concept is?

>>3291832
>But that's wrong, there are only a handful of people able to see that they have been colonized.
Except the places that were colonised recently. That's the point. No modern European looks at a Italian and think of an oppressive advanced society but there are plenty of Africans who Westerners that way.

>>3292049
The consequences of the demographic changes such as the 90% death of diseases for 2 centuries+, the murdering of priviledged class to nobles, the assimilation of the remnants of the noble classes, and the constant toxic exposure of all natives from mines for 4 centuries until they drop dead, all of these events morphed the native population to what is today.

You have to suffer what you did to the amerindian race.

>>3292052
>they dont think of it so it clearly isn't that way
The most severe oppression is that which is hidden in plain sight.

>>3291694
Read about the Ottoman slave raids into Ukraine. They employed Mongols to raid villages and kidnap slavs and bring 'em to the Black Sea coast. But first, anyone over 60 would be killed. Any who couldn't keep up, sick or injured, were killed. Older women had some value as household help or farm serfs, but younger women as sex slaves (no doubt raped at will by the Mongol traders first) was the bigger deal. Younger men were often castrated, sometimes conscripted as sword fodder, or used as farm/construction labour. Mutilation and branding and such was common to mark slaves and make runaways obvious.

This went on for centuries, and helped empower the Cossacks. The Sultans also blanda upp like mad.

>>3292061

>>>/po/

>>3292068
>>>/po/

every time hahahhaha

File: 213454321.png (262KB, 497x494px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 497x494px

This has been the basis of human civilization since time immemorial. Both the Africans and the Native Americans were killing each other way in the most cruel ways imaginable way before the whitey came to "their" lands. The Aztecs, the Malis, the Zulus and many more were all conquering the weaker tribes/nations before they were even discovered.

At the end of the day even though Native Americans got massively fucked by colonziation (mainly from the unpredictable diseases that the Europeans brought with them), Africa was better off being colonized. Africa was a no-man's land before being discovered and now even though it's an absolute shithole it's still something - they have access to medication, to food, to European technology, they just don't know how to use it. Unfortunately Europe are the final losers in the end as fixing the African problems to such a degree has made Africa the fastest growing continent in the world which means nothing good will come out of it in the future.

>>3292095
The basis of civilization dictates that europeans are getting invaded and soonly mongrelized. Do you agree?

File: mexico_evil_plan.png (62KB, 795x642px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 795x642px

>>3292114
yes.

>>3292118
Cumskins will go back to yurop to you know?

Okay, now that the dust is somewhat settled, am I right? Or is my teacher right? Explain in a few sentences. Why? And if I'm right how am I supposed to defend the wrong side come Monday?

I haven't had much free time to read any posts that don't directly quote me but I'll get to it soon. Whenever there aren't very many it's a good sign of derailing but I'll have to take a look first.

Moral relativism made some sense but I ultimately got lost with the rest of the thread.

>>3292126
Sorry I don't speak ebonic, what do you say Brotha?

>>3292157
Cumskins will go back too yurop to you know?

>>3292165
t. white polturd

call me when you are ready to vacate australia and the americas and not africa that has native whites in the north of the continent north of the sahara, not to mention south africans are basically native as well

but straya especially

File: 1485463193558.png (348KB, 876x493px) Image search: [Google]

348KB, 876x493px

>>3291348
>tribal pseudo-state peoples have an alienable right to resources they never used or even knew were useful.

What the fuck were the Europeans suppose to do? Teach them about industry? Subsidize their infrastructure so they can trade on an even reciprocal playing field? Colonialism was the easy way from point A to point B. Most the peoples were left unmolested, of course the Belgians were cocksuckers to the Congolese.

>>3292182
It's easy.

The consequences of the demographic changes such as the 90% death of diseases for 2 centuries+, the murdering of priviledged class to nobles, the assimilation of the remnants of the noble classes, and the constant toxic exposure of all natives from mines for 4 centuries until they drop dead, all of these events morphed the native population to what is today.

You have to suffer what you did to the amerindian race.

>>3292206
Oh god, too such cruelty to those noble and pacific cultures. well at least worth it.

>>3291654
Not even him. Dont be so smug and you might not be ostacized by your peers.

>>3291822
His teacher actually does understand and could put himself into the place of the Europeans if he really wishes. He subconsciously chooses not to because it makes him uncomfortable.

>>3292247
So you agree? Great.

>>3292206
Again. What the fuck were the Europeans suppose to do?

Also native disease death was going to happen regardless of who touched down in the Americas. You think two continents were going to be quarantined?

>>3292277
>what is sarcasm

Oh man you are hilarious, of course I don't care about them, what about you? you seems very attached to them, what are your reasons?

File: 1391577079141.jpg (47KB, 226x199px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 226x199px

>>3291348
Honestly, you should just read Thucydides.
The Athenians went about justifying their conquests the same way that later imperial powers did, they ruled by virtue of being stronger. (Spreading Christianity and civilisation comes into their rhetoric a lot later)
Basically, Thucydides spends most of the later part of the book pointing out that this attitude is not only wrong, it's detrimental to the people that puts their faith in it. Athens loses not just because eventually the Spartans get enough money from the Persians to destroy their navy, but because they were fighting a war against both external enemies and the "weak" states inside their own enemy. It created a sense of invincibility that deluded them into thinking that because they had succeeded in the past they would succeed in the future, leading to the disaster at Syracuse.
So what should we do instead? Stay at home, don't be greedy and let Greeks enjoy their inalienable rights as Greeks.

>>3292145
I'm having trouble understanding just what you're trying to argue. Are you saying from a more legal standpoint Europe had the right to conquer Africa?
On the other note, from my understanding moral relativism is saying that there is no such thing as an objective moral lens. For example from a modern perspective European colonialism is terrible but from the perspective of someone who was doing the colonizing it was justified. History shouldn't be viewed from a moral lens because it gives way to bias, which leads to misinterpretation.

>>3292353
Yes, that's what I'm trying to say in terms of how you described moral relativism. My teacher is apparently a moral universalist.

>>3292353
>History shouldn't be viewed from a moral lens because it gives way to bias, which leads to misinterpretation.
The scientific study of history should be free from bias, but I don't think history should be approached scientifically all the time. There are many moral lessons we can learn from history, and unlike university, school should be a place where students are educated to become good citizens, not just academic historians.

File: 1470530485317.jpg (149KB, 1024x741px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 1024x741px

>>3291348
Once you leave HS you will quickly learn not debating these types.

Your teacher has a fixed worldview and is (ab)using his position to influence the youth. You can ask him to give you an opportunity to present your side of the argument so that everyone has a balanced view.

>"right" who tf cares about rights in history?

>rights are made by a specific society and if the society in question deemed colonialism their right it certainly was a right

>laws are tools made by a society, sure there is the opposing view of a natural law, ask your teacher to explain this natural law and too show you a rule that ALL human civilizations followed

>ask him whats the difference between roman expansionism and european imperialism, if he plays the race card point out that in reality this shit was far more complex and that the romans integrated the conquered tribes later on (just like colonial subjects where sometimes integrated into the european home country later down the line)

>ask him about the genuine believe of some colonizers that they were advancing africa and that to a certain degree africa as a whole profited from the influx of capital and new technology (ALWAYS point out the individual horros yada yada BUT then point out how shitty the societies before the colonization were)

>point out that the africans did an awful lot of the work for the colonizers and that the colonizers often just used pre existing conflicts

>point out arab slave trade and show that the pre existing conflicts were used in just the same way before the european colonialism

>talk about the chinese quasi imperialism of today in the same way

>actually show that the europeans abolished a lot of bad stuff like outright slavery etc.

>>3292375
Well yeah, I was just about to point out highschool isn't really the kind of place to argue this since its main purpose is to socialize kids. And sure there are moral lessons to be gained from history, but viewing certain factions as evil can lead to closing off understanding. For example, the holocaust was pretty evil, but the average Nazi German citizen I'd argue isn't evil, so just saying its evil and leaving it at that will close you off from understanding how normal, good people would end up taking part in ethnic cleansing.

>>3292379
The best parts of Africa today were the parts that were the most heavily colonized...

>>3291489
Belgium didn't make much from the Congo but Leopold did.

>>3292411
Well the kids in school but in a more private discussion you could always point out Rhodesia and the sorry state it degenerated too.

You always have to keep in mind though that the colonizing powers obviously were more interested in th rich parts of africa too.

See there are 2 sides...

>>3291348
> 18
> Still in high school
* Breathes in *
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Time to grow the fuck up Jethro. Argue when your opinion means something. For now, tell the fucking teacher anything he wants to hear to get that diploma. Then his SJW bullshit can kiss your ass on the way out.

You need to be at least 18 to post on this site

>>3291661
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/12/04/5-myths-about-chinese-investment-in-africa/

Question, why do people engage in whataboutism whenever the problems of European colonization and slavery come up?
>Slavery was bad
>arab slavery was worse
Who gives a fuck? This bullshit Soviet deflection technique has become the go-to bullshit rhetorical strategy of every ideology these days. Just because there's someone worse doesn't mean everything your particular nation did is okay.

Besides, it's a silly deflection because we know that a lot of these places are now backwards theocratic shitholes where proper human rights don't actually exist. Meanwhile, western europe is built upon enlightenment values. When your defense of the crimes of supposedly enlightened nations is
>but those utter fucking savages were worse
then you've basically given up on actually being better.

>>3291963
That's your personal opinion. I have a master's in history and I think judging the dead is more than fine.

>>3292500
good post

File: white boi gets boned.png (137KB, 3840x2560px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 3840x2560px

Right and wrong is a fallacy.

There is only desire and ability.

File: ed2d884c22a7e94a2f3ff4cbd41d66f9.jpg (95KB, 736x976px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 736x976px

>>3292500

>Just because there's someone worse doesn't mean everything your particular nation did is okay.

No one is saying that. The argument is to show that the mindless criticizing of european colonialism stems from a biased perspective. To see an exceptionalism for european colonialism is just wrong.


>Besides, it's a silly deflection because we know that a lot of these places are now backwards theocratic shitholes where proper human rights don't actually exist. Meanwhile, western europe is built upon enlightenment values. When your defense of the crimes of supposedly enlightened nations is but those utter fucking savages were worse then you've basically given up on actually being better.

See thats the point. Its not 1901. I don't think western nations are inherently superior. Just more successful. Why the fuck would I even try defending a version of my nation that existed back then. I don't have some weird white guilt issue where I am responsible for what my forefathers did.

>>3292300
>>3292571
>what were they suppose to do
Let's do the same to the european population; centuries of slavery later let's ask the same.

>>3292586

>muh morality
>muh europeans had the golden ticket and never had to suffer

Ultimately you are just trying to prove your ideology with history. That's not uncommon but not really fruitful for a productive discussion.

File: 238944342.jpg (755KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

755KB, 2048x1536px

>>3291348
>In this situation might DOES make right, although not necessarily morally right.
It was morally right according to the standards of the time. Go back to him and explain that judging past people by his standard is the same as judging the culture of anyone currently living. This is textbook ethnocentrism (ethno coming from ethnological, not ethnic).

>>3292596
That's not implied. This is the thing:
The consequences of the demographic changes such as the 90% death of diseases for 2 centuries+, the murdering of priviledged class to nobles, the assimilation of the remnants of the noble classes, and the constant toxic exposure of all natives from mines for 4 centuries until they drop dead, all of these events morphed the native population to what is today. TODAY.

Is it that hard to comprehend that europeans should get the same treatment?

>>3292603
>90% death of diseases for 2 centuries+

Sure about that number bud ? And the Europeans are hardly to blame there. Not like they were going around infecting people on purpose. Contact was bound to happen at sometime.

>Is it that hard to comprehend that europeans should get the same treatment?

Yes.

a) If we go back to an essentially might makes right situation in which Africa is going to be fucked over again. There won't be some magical form of judgement.

b) Tf again I haven't committed the stuff my forefathers did. Implying that I should suffer for that shows what a depraved mindset you have.

File: JBPRN3W[1].png (758KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

758KB, 1280x720px

>>3291348
Welcome to the club kiddo. It only gets worse from here.
This is why I don't take history classes.

>>3292612
>might makes right situation
That's relative. The same as the morals. The same as the laws.

All morals, laws, or any social constructs only have relevance over the people who accept the imposition of the state/entity/person who is pushing these rules.

Conquest and war is always happening. Infiltration and replacement of population is happening too nowadays. Yet that's not the same as what I explained here.>>3292603

It's probably true that europeans didn't know about the nature of diseases, yet the consequences to the population are still there.

File: 4dc[1].jpg (46KB, 600x706px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 600x706px

>>3291348
>rights
>existing

>>3292625

>It's probably true
>probably

How deep down the Rabbit hole are you?

>Yet that's not the same as what I explained here.

Yes it is just because your favorite side was on the receiving end it isn't special.

>>3292642
>receiving end
That's the trivializing point I'm making. Every point of view leads to the treatment the europeans made to the amerindians, to be made to themselves, as the consequences are still felt heavily today.

People have had motivations and planifications of recovering stolen land or returning violence against the people who have slaughtered them for centuries. This events that are happening today will be "history" 100 years later. And the same kind of dialogue "what can we do now, it's already done" will appear all over again.

I repeat myself, no matter the way you observe this situation, its solution is nothing more than putting europeans under the same treatment.

You are delusional

>>3292586
Do you ever hear the Bretons weeping about the genocide their people went threw at the hands of Romans? The Welsh towards the English? Copts to the Arab Muslims? The Albanians and Greeks to South Slavs? The French towards the Germans? The Romance people to the muslims? The East Slavs to the mongols? The East-Iranians to the Swedes?

White people have been getting got as much as anyone. People get over it when their is no political advantage to bringing it up.

>>3292686
People get over it, and people don't get over it. What's your point? Situations?

It's enough that a wave of discord develops over time an anti-european sentiment, as several groups on mexico are. These cases will have the right to exist because they are also the same as the examples you listed! They will be another situation!

>White people have been getting got as much as anyone. People get over it when their is no political advantage to bringing it up.
It's irrelevant, as the consequences of the obliteration of native population is still felt today.

See how every point of view leads to the same claim?

>>3292114
Unfortunately that was the side effect. IMO Europe should have never colonized Africa nor used them as slaves the colonies were both unprofitable and not all that needed concerning trade. Unfortunately they could not predict what would have happened in the future so here we are.

>>3291348
Yeah, I guess you can say that.

>>3292500
Slavery wasn't bad for the Africans, I mean it wasn't exactly morally wrong, but life as a slave for 99% of the blacks was way more enjoyable than life in Africa and what that entails usually.

>>3293425
no it wasnt you dumb shit.

Whiteys argueing slavery wasn't bad because the blacks would have been enslaved at some point anyway is like a Murderer argueing he didn't really kill anybody because people are going to die anyway sooner or later.

In my opinion the problem is that your teacher is oversimplifying the situation, and you seem to understand that the reality is just way more complex.
I would just try to explain that to him. Euro did plenty of bad things but everyone did and blaming white more than anyone is a little too simplist for an historian.

>>3292441
Some countries have a 13th grade in high school anon, for student aged 18-19, mostly college-bound. Italy, Germany and New Zealand amongst others. Canada used to have the same thing.
It's not really weird.

>>3293439
It wasn't? Did you know how Africans lived in Africa you fucking moron? Death by various diseases, starving to death, death by some wild animal, sold into slavery to the Muslims. You think that is preferable to having a good roof over your head, food, nice clothes while the only thing that was expected of you is to work and help with the various chores in the house?

Lawl such a fucking bad life compared to the African one... Go fucking kill yourself.

>>3293492
>doesn't know jack shit about pre-colonial africa

>>3291661
Wrong, they are stupid. If it wasn't for China all those valuables would just be sitting in the ground.

>>3293492
>we had to enslave them to save them from other people enslaving them
>we were actually helping them
That is...one perspective.
>preferable to having a good roof over your head, food, nice clothes while the only thing that was expected of you is to work and help with the various chores in the house?
That might be enough & humanities for the night.

>>3291598
Proofs?

>>3293492
This is some potent bait

>>3293524
Teach me on pre-colonial Africa then, retard. What the fuck did I get wrong?

>>3293542
It's the only perspective. Slavery is morally wrong, but was good for almost every African that was brought as a slave.

>That might be enough & humanities for the night.
No arguments

>>3293552
No arguments again. Wtf is wrong with this board? Does anyone of you here have any idea what you're talking about? Why don't you cunts just go back to /r/politics where you can jerk yourself on the mindless bullshit that you spew.

>>3292474
>5 myth about Chinese investment in Africa
>1) It's true, but...
>2) It's true, however...
>3) It's true, though...
>etc...
Chinese propaganda in 5 lessons.

>eurangutan colonization of Africa
>1) It's true, but...
>2) It's true, however...
>3) It's true, though...
>etc...
You will never ever set foot on Zambia again. Bye bye.

>>3293535
China is just more desperate to get the goods, so its willing to pay the cheapest amount to get them immediately. It's not pretending to develop other infrastructure in the country, or hire locals, as western interests might do.

>>3293589
>You will never ever set foot on Zambia again
wtf?

>be backwater yuropoor
>get lumped in with the lucky few who had the means to extract wealth from colonies by force simply because you kind of look like their ancestors
fucking muritards

>>3291364
Colonialism was as wrong as agressive expansion into another sovereign state's territory is wrong. It's basically the same thing, except European countries generally had the tools to fight back. I know this is gonna attract 'might makes right' edgelords, but I've accepted that.

>>3293630

>European countries generally had the tools to fight back

Yeah man, those Irish had all the tools they needed to fight off Cromwell and his minions. They just chose not to use them.

>>3293630
All those Poles and Finns had the tools to fight Swedish imperialism :^)

>>3293630
>I know this is gonna attract 'might makes right' edgelords, but I've accepted that.
You're posting in a thread where the OP literally is a highschooler that presupposes that in the third paragraph, although he doesn't even have a consistent concept of rights in the first place.

>>3293688
>>3293694
But the conquering of Ireland and Finland IS seen as one of those conflicts where one big power picks on a smaller helpless one, just like in colonialism. There's definitely more focus on non-european colonisation though since we have this ethnic debate raging today which is politicizing it.

>>3293709
>But the conquering of Ireland and Finland IS seen as one of those conflicts where one big power picks on a smaller helpless one
No they aren't. They are little more than a footnote and never get mentioned in the same context as African colonialism. In fact, Finns and the Irish often get moralized for being "complicit" in colonial crimes by American historically illiteeate faggots.

>>3291348
European Colonialism was a problem, not because it was conquest (despite conquest in itself being rather unethical) but because it left in it's wake bad governance, governments that were prone to despotism or civil war, before decolonization you can argue the psudeo despotic governership system of the UK was bad governance.

There's nothing inherently wrong with taking over a less advanced civilization.

There's certainly something wrong with taking over a less advanced civilization, leaving few economic improvements, allowing famine to ravage it, supress dissent with violence, treat the conquered as second class citizens, commit atrocities against them, and rob them of good governance.

>>3293713
>Finns
No they fucking don't. Sweden had like one shitty
small colony in west india that no one cares about. Colonialism outside of Europe is not talked about in scandinavia because we had no part in it.

>>3291348
>the idea of rights originated in America in the late 1800's
Holy fucking shit, read a goddamned book, preferably the Magna Carta.

>>3293740

>There's certainly something wrong with taking over a less advanced civilization, leaving few economic improvements, allowing famine to ravage it, supress dissent with violence, treat the conquered as second class citizens, commit atrocities against them, and rob them of good governance

Every single one of those points applies to Ireland.

>>3293750

It goes further back than that. The idea of citizenship with a bundle of associated "rights" can be traced to the Roman Republic.

>>3293753
Yes, yes it was, what's your point? BEcause the irish also experienced the horrors that arise from awful governance the awful governance imposed on the africans meant nothing?

>>3293776

The ENTIRE question of this thread is whether or not Europeans had the "right" to conquer and colonize Africa. My answer to that question is that Europeans had already been doing that kind of thing for centuries before they turned their attention to the African continent.

>>3293776
The point is that its hilariously retarded to call it "European" slave trade, since many people in Europe also suffered under imperialism.

>>3291395
>>3291446

Europeans never had equal levels of tech. even today they still don't.

>>3293688
>>3293694
I stress 'generally'. Thanks for pointing out that there was essentially no dofference between the situations you two described and colonialism, it makes my argument even better.

>>3293815

Yeah, the people who seem to think that European nations are all equal in relative strength are fucking brainlets. Was Belgium equal in strength to Germany in 1914?

>>3293828

"Generally" doesn't help it because it is still fucking wrong. Newsflash, NOBODY initiates a war unless they think they're going to fucking win, so wars tend to be imbalanced by default. The premise that wars are "generally" fair is completely and utterly wrong.

>>3293828
If it's not a "fair fight" it's not a war, simply an invasion/take-over/conquering/etc.

>>3293828

I'm not sure what your argument is. How is attacking a country that is able to put up a fight more morally justified than one who can't? If anything, it just means more bloodshed for potentially the same end result.

>>3293920
>'murica is the world
Every time.

>>3293926
If you imbeciles would read my original post you'd know that i am stating that there is no inherent difference and that both are morally reprehensible.

>>3293713
The reason ireland can keep up their really harsh anti-anglo rhetoric and be more nationalistic than other european nations is specifically because of this reason. And the reason why african colonialism is more touchy apart from the ethnic political crap is because those people were enslaved. That kind of matters here.

tl;dr Might make right. If you can't understand this you have a shallow vision of history, society and humanity as a whole.

>>3293828
Most European countries were not equal militarily or technically. For example in WW2 Poland was fighting tanks with horses.

>>3294124
So you agree with europeans getting replaced by mexicans and muslims?

>>3291364
Euros didn't have a casus belli. They just marched in and said "this is mine". It never worked that way in Europe.

>Omg this is the worst thing that ever happened
Death toll of well over 20 million, a similar number enslaved and widespread economic and political instability even 70 years after the end of colonialism writ large. It's way up there with the worst things that ever happened.

>>3294151
The European have the right and duty to fight back.
The failure to do so, is a cultural as well political one. Democracy has proved to be a weak political system.

>>3294157
>It never worked that way in Europe.
You actually think this, don't you?

>>3294247
>right to fight back
Nope. There are no rights.
>cultural, political
Wordplay. All sides had complex matters and traitors. Time to get extinct'd.

>>3293740
>allowing famine to ravish it
do you think europeans have magic famine reversing powers? why did the dustbowl happen if they do?

>>3294259
>Nope. There are no rights.
I never said that. The right of property IS a consequence of the strength to uphold it. A right that African people also had, but failed to.
>All sides had complex matters and traitors.
Yes, those are weaknesses.

>>3291348

>It's way up there with the worst things that ever happened.

Lol.

>a similar number enslaved and widespread economic and political instability

Cause wars in Europe never caused economic and political instability.

>Death toll of well over 20 million

Considering how huge Africa is, and the length of time, that's not actually that much. Yeah, its sad, but no more than any other war. 15 million Europeans died in WW1 in a much shorter time frame, again proving that Euros bullied each other just as much as they bullied Africans.

>>3294269

Europeans actually are responsible for famines in Africa because they introduced modern medicine to the continent, causing the population to exceed the food supply. Africa never had famines before the Europeans showed up because natural hazards kept the population low.

>>3294300
One of the natural hazards for an agrarian society is crop failure so I don't see how you could claim famines never happened.

>>3294300
>>3294319

top kek

but hes got a point tho, mass vaccination campaigns and agrarian reforms in colonial africa were a bad, bad, bad idea

it just followed the modernist logic dominant at the time, how can you argue AGAINST eradicating a disease or increasing agricultural output, its called progress

>>3294300
yeah, those natural hazards being famines and diseases. but you could argue that because of european technologies the number of people affected by these things has increased dramatically. 200 years ago probably only a couple of thousand africans died every of starvation, now its in the millions.

>>3291348
What is right and what is not ? Fact is that people take chances when opportunities arise, if the Africans had the advantage on us they would not hesitate. Just look at the Mongols, did they have rights?? Such a dumb and general thing to say, it is just so subjective and opinionated

>>3291348
>I guess what I'm trying to say is this: the horrors committed by Brits/Belgians/other Western Europeans in Africa were morally wrong on all accounts, but to claim they didn't have the "right" to do those things is absurd.
You're absurd for doubling down on your personal morals and not getting it.

Both stances part from a base arbitrary axiom with none having any more intrinsic merit than the other. When it is said that they had "no right" it is said that they lacked these rights because the speaker departs from a fundamental axiomatic stance based on his personal sensibilities. When you say they did you do the exact same thing and both stances can be ignored through denying that funfamental axiom which is at its heart an arbitrary designation of the speaker. In this situation popularity is very important, stupid.

>>3294395
I'm not that smart, can you rephrase this? Sorry

>>3291446
Colonialism caused racism to come into existence as a way of explaining why different peoples under the same governments/conditions/culture end up different.

Racism didn't justify colonialism. Colonialism justified racism.

>>3294300
>Africa never had famines before the Europeans showed up
I demand proof

>>3294431
kys cumskin /pol/fag

>>3291348
>I don't understand how his 21st century American point of view system of "rights" could have existed in the late 1800s without rule of law.
Did he say that though? As far as I understand, your teacher only said
>"some shit happends during colonialization"
>"according to our modern moral values, that shit was wrong"

>>3294431
I don't think it has been documented in subsaharan Africa (no writing system...) but it happened in ancient Egypt. Bad weather is a thing everywhere, it's reasonable to assume there were famines in Africa.

Africa should ben thankful that colonists brought them from the Stone age to the modern era and ended cannibalism and infighting between tribes, it was An era of peace for africa

>>3294398
Technically speaking both pov are right and both can be dismissed as nonsense. Since the discussion of rights fundamentally departs from a moralistic stance. In the event that it is a legal question there can be a right or wrong side that, in the systems discussed, must still be put up for arbitration. What matters now is how widely the assertion is accepted not how the legal systems of the time would have viewed the act.

File: IMG_0054.jpg (166KB, 345x450px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 345x450px

>>3294490
Except most of the civil wars going now stem from colonial era meddling, divide and conquer, bad borders and propping up of bad leaders. Pre-colonial West Africa had systems that worked for them.

>>3294490
>cannibalism
They were in the iron age, there's nothing wrong with tribal warfare that isn't wrong with warfare in general and what is wrong with cannibalism?

>>3294534
>colonialism is to blame for wars started due to decolonization
kys, naive leftist BS resulted in Africa falling apart and suffering for 100s of millions, both due to the war and the lack of development

do you really think they'd remain colonies forever? decolonization was about handing power to native warlords who immediately set about exploiting and butchering their own, but because they shared a skin color that makes it ok, just like >>3294539 actually believes

>>3294539
>there's nothing wrong wit nuthin
there I was thinking you had a point, technically they were in the iron age, I concede that

>>3294576
>there I was thinking you had a point,
What is wrong with tribal warfare that is not wrong with colonial warfare? makesis it about fighting under a european flag that makes warefare "good"?

Why is eating the people that wanted to kill you "bad"?

>>3291348
>I don't understand how his 21st century American point of view system of "rights" could have existed in the late 1800s without rule of law.
"the system existed" as in it was enshrined in law?, as in people believed in it?
On both those counts I think what he was saying was that it *should have been* not that it *was*
>In this situation might DOES make right, although not necessarily morally right.
What? What other kind of right is there?

>Another thing he does that annoys me is he refers to those who carry out Africa genocide as "white people."
>Collective blame
How is mentioning historical details collective guilt?


>>3291364
I reckon that's a strawman. If you are willing to continue claiming it then you can back it up by doing a comprehensive search of papers and comments on the subject.
Also, the only thing inherent in something called 'anti-colonialism' is being against (hence 'anti') colonialism. That's just how words ought to work, otherwise you're tarring a whole group of people with the same brush.


>>3291395
>Your teacher has cought a case of "is-ought" syndrom. Conflicting his ideas of the way things are and the way they "should" be. Most people have it and it's really hard to break out of.
Actually, the is-ought distinction is the idea that no idea on what ought to be can come from an idea on what is. Look it up.


>>3291614
>>the rest
Blaming people for what their ancestors did in not relevant to any thing or OK in any political climate.


>>3291633
True that


>>3291557
>Your argument is one facile false equivalence that pre-moderns forms of state violence are directly comparable to its modern forms.
I would say that that's only true because they (pre-modern people) couldn't, not because they wouldn't if they could (virtue ethics).


>>3291590
I think what >>3291583 was trying to say is that Africa is like Asia such a general term for such a large land area with such diversity of peoples that there is no single African race

>>3291661
>A bunch from Malawi (total bros), Zambia (including a third-gen guy of Portuguese ancestry), a couple from Zim, Mozambique, Namibia. One thing they all have in common is that they hate Chinese.
If they blame an entire country for the crimes of only a portion of it's people then how are they in any sense bros?

>>3294635
>Africa is a general term
Cumskins don't belong to africa. Go back to europe.

File: battle_with_the_darkness.png (2MB, 1077x738px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1077x738px

>>3294643
Great! you your brothas needs to go too

>>3294157
>Didn't have a casus beli
Um, they finished the expansion tree, duh

>>3294599
Tribal warfare is continuous and wrecks a country for years, a short decisive war is better for progress. The only exception might be Portugal's stubborn attempt to cling onto Angola when it was a lost cause by that point (because of the blunders of other colonial powers).

>>3294684
Nope. It's your turn to get invaded and mongrelized.

>>3291348
>How do I get my point across without coming off as a racist /pol/tard?
There's no way to do it, as your argument IS a racist /pol/tard one

File: Black_genocide.jpg (335KB, 1204x1885px) Image search: [Google]

335KB, 1204x1885px

>>3294784
you too brotha, protec your wominz

>>3291348
you can't he is part of the matrix. if you challenge his conditioning in any way he will begin hysterically shrieking. keep you opinions to yourself, plot in secret and when you see your opportunity, strike. Ask Anders Brevik, he knows.

>>3293746
>What are danish virgin islands slave colony in caribbean
Apologize whiteboi

File: 13439176_113022319148635_1458788318000984426_n.png (1MB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 960x960px

>>3291348
>claiming there is an objective universal moral
>denouncing /pol/
>I'm not even white
>Lolbertarian
surprise

>>3294715
Colonial wars don't have to be short or decisive, tribal wars don't have to be long or abstract.

>>3291348
>I don't understand how his 21st century American point of view system of "rights" could have existed in the late 1800s


The US Constitution and to a lesser extent the US Bill of Rights were directly inspired by the English Bill of Rights 1689. So that's how.

You're teachers still full of shit though.

If the European Empires didn't have the right to take their colonies they wouldn't have been able to.

>>3291395
>One is battle with enemies of relatively equal culture/technology and shared history. The other is direct exploitation of progressively inferior societies

so they should have had the prime directive? but they hadn't even made first contact with the vulcans yet

>>3291395
>. One is battle with enemies of relatively equal culture/technology and shared history. The other is direct exploitation of progressively inferior societies.
Vegetarian thinking of a thoroughly pampered and domesticated modern person.

Read the melian dialogue in Thucydides' "History of the Peloponnesian War". it will help explain Realism

File: 1503442569109.png (152KB, 335x495px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 335x495px

>>3291348
>defends Africans
The Black deserved punishment for being such niggers
>mfw Africa is too much nigger to even defend itself lmao

>>3291526
Hey, not that anon but props for actually replying to their request instead of saying"spoon feeding." You're doing a good job and I would give you a gold star. We should all aspire to the example you're setting, especially on /his/

>>3291348
They didn't have the right 'cause it wasn't their land
>social Darwinism
Spencerism*

File: xx-1272x400.png (355KB, 1272x400px) Image search: [Google]

355KB, 1272x400px

>>3291348

Ignore the shitposting and listen here for a minute, OP. It's all very simple. Your teacher even gave us the answer.

The colonizing European powers of the 19th century (not "white people") believed in Social Darwinism, well before this term even existed. Social Darwinism states that just as only the most successful species survive in nature, so does this apply to human races, ethnicites, nations etc. This ideology was closely connected with contemporary ideas about Capitalism (rich people deserve their wealth; poor people deserve their poverty)

Colonization was viewed as moral by the European colonizers, because for them, Social Darwinism was system of morality in itself. It gave them the right to conquest, because they saw it as the natural order of things.

It should be noted, however, that Social Darwinism was not the only justification for colonization. There was also the belief that this was a humanitarian mission; that the colonized peoples needed to be "civilized" to improve their livelihood and morals.

>>3295361

>Darwinism is just a natural force and not an ideology

But Social Darwinism is.

>>3295361
That's an ideology. Might is right.

>>3295372
How right was created through might:
There can't be right without might.
>Ruler has army to protect an area from outer and inner threats (monopoly on violence in that area)
>Ruler collects taxes to sustain army + profits
>People who don't pay taxes are not protected by law
>Ruler enacts further laws to increase inner stability, get more profits and expand army
>to expand territory of his protection and gain even more profits + glory + inner satisfaction for uniting "his" people
>the "inner stability" aspect is what is forced through the might of the people (mostly)

>>3291348
>high school history teacher
You have to be 18 to post here.

>>3295162
Wrong. Social darwinism was just a meme circulating among a few foppish intellectuals and was blown out of proportion in modern propaganda.

>>3294157
Worst thing that ever happened? Even to humans? No. It's pretty horrible, but not the worst.

>>3294642
I mean they, the guys from Malawi, are bros in general.

As I said, they aren't stupid and know exactly what's going on. They hate the "Chinese" as a selfish and corrupt power of influence in their country. These are the educated upper-middle classes, and they DO want rule of law, transparency, and an end to corruption. The Chinese don't give a flying fuck about any of that.

Still, I don't think any are going out to bash individual Chinese or whatever. And the Chinese involvement in Africa is heavily top-down from the CPC. There is no key industry in China that isn't state controlled at some level.

>>3295468
>inb4 underage. Nope, high school senior, just turned 18
You have to be able to read to post here.

>>3291348
>"I don't know if he does that to simplify it for stupid American high schoolers or if he's genuinely that stupid."

MODS

>>3291348
>He claims that Europeans did not have the "right" to conquer Africa

But what if we were given those lands and made towns in unhinabited places?

From Capetown, to Luanda and Lourenço Marques these were all towns made by whites

>>3296260
Same with south american towns that you made?

It's not a discovery if there's people living there.

>>3292012
this

>>3292012
Mongols raided with the goal of spreading the blood of the great Khan and they did.

>>3293562
I want to be you jesus christ

>>3292656
>putting europeans under the sams treatment

An eye for an eye eh?

How does bringing the same treatment that past ancestors commitited fix anything today?

Youre are completelty immoral and its even more damning that you believe that all morals are subjective. I hate this dicodimy that all whites should be held responsible for slavery, that all whites should be held responsible for the crimes of the old when it was our own societies that freed the slaves and progressed and continue to progress while other countries held down any form of progress to preserve their own feudal powers. We cannot simply reverse the bad and ills of the past. To do so would be complete chaos, and i dont even think it is possible to trace whom and where oppressed who and how they should be punished. Its an absurd thought and i find it repulsive that people are considering shit like this. All that we can do now is make good on our society. And the west has done great things for the world as awhole, exceptional, i would like to think. But because of people like you we are regressing. Because of guilt europeans feel they must relinquish crimes that will never be quenched. Not by the victim or the oppressor. You are a deep enemy of the west and i hope your thoughts will be snuffed out with a change of heart

>>3293420
Is it wrong to say that the places that were colonized ended up with an advantage in the long run?

>>3291348

History is not about reviewing stuff to come up with a list of good guys and bad guys and/or to establish moral arguments to justify/unjustify on moral grounds.

Did the Romans have the 'right' to btfo and conquer all those people and clay? Did the mongols have the 'right' to blahblahblah and etc?

History is about understanding the whys and hows, and since the Romans, the Mongols and the XIXcentury nigger-conquering Brits were totally different people with totally different societal, economical and cultural structures the whys and hows are radically different. And so is the morality of their actions if you want to go into that.

>>3291587
Agree!

>>3294534
Yea, and those succsesfull socities and civilisations enslaved lesser tribes. And they built empires trading slaves and raw resources to other european/middle east empires

>>3292500
>Question, why do people engage in whataboutism whenever the problems of European colonization and slavery come up?
>Slavery was bad
>arab slavery was worse

Because only one of these groups are getting shit on for it. Try asking one of these white guilt faggots to condemn the arabs for their slavery and see what happens.

File: 1494275105487.png (125KB, 293x341px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 293x341px

>>3291348
>Today my HS history teacher

HE"S UNDERAGED YOU FAGGOTS WHY IS THIS EVEN UP

>>3294157
>They just marched in and said "this is mine"

So they were using African standards? You really think the zulu used casus belli to rampage through southern africa?

>>3291364
Kill yourself

File: large_large_qm46OQ7IRq5wOna8Ssl0j15zqj7.jpg (64KB, 400x613px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 400x613px

Neocolonialism is real! I'm too lazy to explain so I'm gonna recommend this movie.

>>3291742
Why is it never discussed that Africans sold other Africans to the Europeans. They were making money in all of this as well.

>>3296541
It's simple.

All that is happening now will be "history" years later. The same "it's done, what can I do now?", "do i have to make up for what my grandad did?" questions will be made and it will give the same answers as nowadays.

>moral
As you said, might is right. There won't be morals if there aren't persons who complain about it later. Don't worry progress will keep going, but europeans won't be on the majority by then.

>>3296997
History will be controlled and used by those who seek power. And those who allow themeselves to be victimized by the sins of the old will be used and disinfranchized by their masters. There may be similiar discussions. But the tolerance for, and rate at which those discussions will be had may be few, in the future

I did not say "might is right" i said that the west built the foundation for our societies. And i believe it is the duty of the citizens of any western country that holds up enlightment values to honor those values and to live by them. I personally dont care how much demographic changes. Just so long as the next generation can uphold the values that created some of the most free societies that have exsisted in the world. They will be european in my eyes

>>3291505
What about the fact that the Irish population still hasn't recovered from the famine? Or that due to strict nature of England's language ban only 18% of the Irish population can actually speak their own language

>>3296713
he's 18. you're the one who has under age reading comprehension at the vey keast.

White guilt is being taught. Kids are being indoctrinated to become good little progressive "liberals". Fuck this gay earth

>>3296795
Don't provide a counter argument, that would break my fucking heart.

>>3297788
Yeah but the ones who have critical thinking skills rise above it and the normies go wherever the wind blows.

>>3296826
Africans want to have their cake and eat too. They can't be isolated from the world but gain economic strength. It's one or the other.

>>3291563
Native Americans should have to go back to Asia, that's where they came from.

>>3297820
Amerindians belonging o asia is the same as modern europeans going back the middle east. America belongs to the amerindians. Prepare your luggage.

>>3297515
Unfortunately that's something pretty much outrageous for a lot of people.
Having these low IQ individuals >>3297788 among your population is pretty amusing, as the amerindian races and mongrels have been going under all kinds of self "deprecation" indoctrination for centuries. Unless a pacific eugenics program takes place to recover the past pre-spaniard conditioning with disease resistance and the advance of archeological evidence showing completely the actual process of conquest, the anti-white sentiment will always be latent. Mongrels don't even have an identity and support slightly the ignorance of the amerindians until they get the actual facts and get more anti-white generally; the USA influence also helps to develop this ideal.

File: SS Nappa.jpg (44KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 500x375px

>>3291364
Both are bad
Anti colonialists know this
Some focus on minorities more because it's more historically recent, and Idpol is still relevant and important in many situations, even if it takes a back seat to economics.

>>3296826
Nigga looks like some shit from Xavier Renegade angel lmao

File: 9f9[1].jpg (28KB, 613x533px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 613x533px

>>3291364
How many layers of American fat do you have to be hiding under to think Europeans think it's "fine"?

File: JxE3xXjiQn6qtIN590zM0hKJla_DGpjRCtnCEjBQ_h4.jpg (57KB, 750x558px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 750x558px

>>3291418
>So when Caesar enslaved the Gauls and Celts he wasn't "exploiting" them?
Of course he was.
>Nope, there is no reason why European colonization in Africa should be arbitrarily treated as worse then every other conquest in human history.
It's not worse, necessarily (this is difficult to measure) it's more pressing, and more recent.

Chinese Imperialism in Africa is also relevant. I see people use that "Empire of Dust" clip of that Chinese dude chewing out that African laborer for being lazy, etc. all the time on 4chan, but never is it given the proper context of colonialism, imperialism, and Capitalism. It is merely used for people's racist agenda of "The blacks deserve to be dominated and have their labor power exploited because they're lazier."

>>3291667
Dude there are dozens of completely wiped out ethnic groups, many that the Bantu personally took care of. Africa was not better before colonialism.

>>3296568
Depends. India and the Native Americans got fucked, but it was mostly good for the rest.

>>3296899
Because if the narrative changes from "Europeans were the slavers of the world" to "Europeans bought into massive existing slave trades that they themselves were also victims of and then eventually put a stop to it at gunpoint" then white people end up looking the least guilty.

People start asking questions like "wait, who ran the slave trade then?" or "If those slaves were bought from Africans, shouldn't those Africans have gotten massively rich? Where did the money go?"

>>3297945
The context was the man's culminated frustrating with trying to work with Africans who kept stealing, ripping him off, destroying equipment, never showing up on time or sometimes at all, etc. His whole point was that the Chinese had just as much if not more instability and didn't even have what they had and managed to get it together in less time.

It doesn't get better with context. It gets much worse.

>>3299143
Yeah, those two fucking ports we took from the chinese is totally equal to foreign overlordship over the entire continent, imagine the sheer damage those two ports did the china, how will they ever recover, i mean of course, the europeans developed and then returned those two ports as a trading hub and gambling capital of asia but TWO WHOLE PORTS, WHAT TRAVESTY HAS THE WEST DONE TO CHINA, WHAT POWER, TWO PORTS TWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO POOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRTTTTTTTTSSSSSSSSS

>>3299151
I was referring the the very long period of constant civil war, strife, famine, and insanity China went through in the pre WW2 and WW2 era.

China suffered horrifically for a very long time.

>>3299165
Internal instability without major foreign intereference is fundamentally a different beast to instability caused in the wake of massive foreign interference in one's affairs, China's suffering was by it's own hand.

>>3299182
How does it make a difference in terms of rebuilding? If anything, civil strife should make it harder because of bad blood between neighbors, where as externally caused problems should unify populations more.

>>3299194
>How does it make a difference in terms of rebuilding?
Because foreign interference has a fundamentally different character, the developed nations on which growing economies depend on are more likely to have bad blood with your nation, thing like this:
http://siliconafrica.com/france-colonial-tax/
Can happen without as much a international fuss, in addition, China had a practically autocratic ruler (peoples tutelage/communism) whilst africa is ran by despotic governments with the mask of democracy, Africa, as aresult of being a very splintered place was more prone to cold war power playing, and without a large enough farming sector, the benefits of communist dictatorship (rapid industrialization) didn't occur.

Lots of reasons, nations aren't built because everybody in the nation pulls up their boot straps and does their darn best, they succeed based upon the whims of power players, Belgium as a state likely wouldn't exist without being under british protection.

File: flavortown is over.png (583KB, 536x598px) Image search: [Google]

583KB, 536x598px

>>3297788
White guilt is being triggered every time someone mentions that Anglo Americans are responsible for keeping the system of slavery alive in America. If you didn't feel guilt, that fact wouldn't bother you.

>>3291557
this

>He claims that Europeans did not have the "right" to conquer Africa. I can clearly see where he's coming from, but I disagree a little.

Might makes right. It's the only thing that matters.

>>3292441
Most americans are 18 in their last year of high school

>>3301118
Then you must be happy that muslims and mexicans are replacing europeans on america and europe.

>>3291348
Having the "right" to do something is entirely subjective.
Wherefrom would any sovereign state derive the right to do anything? Rights are those privileges you can claim, whether by your own power or by someone else's. The right to free speech is guaranteed only so far as those that guarantee that right will grant and protect it. The right to freedom of religion exists so long as the greater power (the state) guarantees it.
The right to conquer and exploit countries existed for as long as sovereign nations had the power to do so.

Might makes right. Not necessarily morally right, but Might gives one the right to do as he pleases as long as nothing mightier stops you.

That is what 'rights' are. It is what you are allowed to do.
Europeans conquered Africa. They could do this because they were mightier than Africans and because none mightier than they chose to stop them.

>>3291348
wow there's a SHIT ton of replies, anyway, he doesn't mean to imply that ALL white people committed the atrocities, He was saying that it was exclusively white groups doing it.

>>3294003
So you're just angrily agreeing with OP then. Good going.