Was colonization good or bad in the long run? Should we really

pic--hnngg

>>140487624

The slave trade was a bigger blow to Africa's development than colonization.

>>140488189
Africa developed kingdoms based on the slave trade, though.

>>140487624
Nothing on that scale ever happens for a single reason, there were many factors and agents that made it possible for different, sometimes contradictory reasons. There were winners and losers then and we're still paying the price for it.

Proper colonization didn't last that long, from 1884 until the mid 1960s, European sank a lot of resources building up the infrastructure there, providing education and healthcare and public order for nogs. Companies that exploited resources there did very well and usually still do, nogs benefited more than they will ever admit and everyone else had to pay for this nonsense.

We did what we had to do to secure the resources we needed, we should have let the nogs fend for themselves instead of trying to civilize them, all we had to do was bribe a couple of warlords.

>>140487624
There's a reason why South Africa has water parks while the rest of Africa is jungles, deserts, and mud huts

>>140487624
Very bad for both of us.

>>140488189
Tell that to the King of Dahomey. They made a killing selling off anyone that annoyed them. Nogs have been killing and enslaving each other since forever, you'd be naive to think they would have turned out any better if we never went there.

>>140487624
Bad, the african population explosion would of never of happened if it were not for colonization.

Its like the blacks here cry about being genocided yet their population grew by 200% in on century because of whites.

>>140487624
you mean your peoples colonization of Sweden Ahmed ?

>>140487624
Bad.
Civilizations need to be allowed to make their own horrific missteps.
How would Europe feel if Zimbabwe kept getting in the middle of Hitler and Churchill? It's patronizing.
If we're going to consider them "equal" colonization is horrible.
It only works in the sense that they're animals that need to be civilized which was the mentality back than.

>>140487624

Africa was still in the stoneage when Europeans arrived, they didnt even have writing just scratch makes let alone any civilization as we understand it...life expectancy was the lowest on the planet by a huge margin.

you decide.

>>140488069
shut up designated

>>140488338
desu jungles are prettier than water parks and in jungles and mud huts blacks didn't reproduce so rapidly as today. How do you stop their natality boom now? At this rate they will suffocate every other specie from Earth

>>140488259
>>140488605

Africans always valued people as commodities, it's selling them away from the continent that put them in the doghouse.

>>140487624
>Should we really have left africa to it's own devices?
Yes, you really should have. As much as I hate niggers whining and we wuzing, they have a point about this. Europeans did exploit Africa for the resources and wealth and they did treat the native population like shit. Now they have to deal with the consequences.

>>140487624

Just look at her face. Doesn't even look human.

Fucking alien looking Niggers.

>>140487624
Decolonisation went too fast,niggers werent ready for carrying their own government
point in case, Congo

>>140489310
>and they did treat the native population like shit
Not really though, Europeans dragged them kicking and screaming in the modern age, imposed law and public order but didn't go out of their way to mistreat them. If we did, there would be barely any nogs left.

>>140487624
They never should have bought slaves from the muslims. All the blacks would still be in Africa.

>>140489158
Fear not, a Malthusian solution will present itself.

Why show a negroid with straight hair you racist

>>140489647
>go out of their way to mistreat them
I never implied that. The mistreatement was mostly a byproduct of the economical exploitation. Still, it doesn't make it any less real.

>>140487624
There is no such thing as "leaving people to their own devices. "
If we didn't colonize it someone else would have,exactly like empires have since the days of Mesopotamia
The same goes for North America. Natives are retarded to think they would have been left alone by the Hispanics, Russians or Asians if the Ebil White Man didn't move in and are even more retarded if they think they would have been treated better by anyone other then the Anglo

>>140487624
Yes.

Never should have set a damn foot on africa, then they wouldnt even know we exist.

File: IMG_0458.jpg (57KB, 520x884px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 520x884px

We should have done periodical raids and committed to nigger containment. Anytime they built a boat, we should have sunk it down. Anytime they started developing a working society, we should have pitted them against each other. Anytime they appeared to make any progress we should have gone there and burnt it to rubble. Keep them at nomadic retard level, deny them civilisation, and meanwhile, extract all valuable resources from the land.

Colonisation was right, except it helped African countries enormously, and showed them there existed a better world, a world they could pillage and leech from. We should have been ghosts, appearing on the coast on ironclads, unloading with our dreaded "deathsticks", completely overrunning any settlement and disappearing again before anyone knew. They would have learned to fear us as demons come from frozen unhinabitable lands, and Africa would remain isolated.

>>140487624
Judging by the consequences: no.

imagine if europeans never colonised africa and we were living just as we are now,

while all of them were still doing the whole tribal ooga booga shit. alot of africans still living like they were in pre colonial times.

>>140487624
>Should we really have left africa to it's own devices
yes, but Scandinavia had no significant part in it anyway, unless you're a nigger you would know that.

>>140487624
Do you really think there'd be a billion chinks, poos, and niggers if colonialism didn't happen? They owe us a debt of gratitude, instead they're our future executioners!

>>140487624
Colonialism was good for Africa in the long run. Sure, there were genocides and massacres and ruthless exploitation, but the colonial powers built all their industry, infrastructure, major cities, schools, ports and political structure. All that, Africa owes to colonialism. It´s not our fault that they are utterly inept at running the things what were left behind for them. However, while it might have been for their gain, it is very clear that it is to our disadvantage today that we ever developed their societies to some degree of civilization in the first place. We should have just left them alone to ooga booga by themselves in the jungle to be honest.

>>140494721
So my Swedish cuck friend - what would happen if white man didn't colonize Africa at all - where would it be today?