On Africa

There is a lot of apologia for colonialism going around lately, and so I've decided to compile some history and human geography regarding these regions of the world. Now, to be clear before we start because I know there's inevitably going to be some butthurt reactionary bitching in the comments, I am not assigning the blame for past Imperialism on present-day white people; nor am I asking you to feel guilt or responsibility for the sins of your Fathers, because that would be fucking moronic. Instead, I want to help clear up some historical misconceptions, urge you to do further research on your own, and get you to stop embarassing yourselves by praising [colonial power]. Okay? Okay.

Africa (Oh Boy.)

So, this is probably going to be a long one, and thus split up into sub-sections. The reason for this is that the history and human geography of Africa is much lesser known in the west, and the worst colonial apologism is for the European rule in Africa. That said, I will try to keep it as brief as possible so that I don't get a horde of idiots strawmanning in the comments because tl;dr.

Geography and Environment

So, these are probably the factors most often ignored by the average person in history. So, I'm going to lay out some of the basic geography and discuss its ramifications on the development of African societies.

First, it should be noted that for the purposes of geography, Africa is often divided into a few basic regions. You have the Berber coast, also known as the Maghreb, which has fertile valleys that are suitable for agriculture and the high Atlas Mountains, home of the Berber peoples. Surprising, I know. It is also home to a large number of Arab settlers and a handful of French speakers descended from "Moroccan Jews" and the Pied-Noir. Also I heard that some Minoan dude called Herakles did some shit here.

As you go to the east, you reach Libya. Libya is often fought over, in the past mainly so that empires could link their Maghrebi and Egyptian territories. Nowadays, it's because of oil. Demographically, the indigenous population of Libya is Berber and Tuareg, though nowadays most of the population is Arab.

Finally, in the far East of Northern Africa is Egypt. Egypt has been one of the most coveted places on the face of the planet for Millennia. This is due to the lush farmland around the Nile, and especially the Mouth of the Nile. Additionally, for the last few centuries Egypt has been the controlled of the Suez Canal, one of the most vital trade-routes in the world. This, combined with a decent petrol reserve, makes Egypt a prime piece of real-estate indeed. Demographically, the indigenous peoples are the Copts and Nubians, though the majority of the population identifies as Arab nowadays.

Moving on to the South, you have the (in)famous Sahara. Perhaps the greatest barrier to communication between North-Africa and Sub-Sahara, it is the largest hot desert on earth. It is incredibly sparsely populated and a deadly place to the stupid or careless. It is the homeland of Tuareg and Sahrawi peoples. Also, Tintin did some shit here.

Immediately South of the Sahara is the Sahel. Also known as the Soudan, This land is more hospitable than the Sahara, but is constantly in flux and arable land is sparse. What is suitable for grazing one years could be sand-swept next year. This region is the source of Niger river, and home to the Fulani, Toukaleur, Hausa, and Malinké peoples, among others. This region is also famous for its great trading empires that sold Salt to the Morroccans, and later Europeans. These included Timbouktou, Songhay, Mali, Sokoto, and Ghana.

South of this is a region that includes the Pepper, Slave, Ivory, and Gold Coasts. For the sake of readability and my own fucking sanity these shall henceforth be referred to as the WA Coastland. This area is suitable for Agriculture, and is famous for its (rather ethically dubious), Cocoa and Spice exports. It is one of the most densely populated areas of sub-saharan African, and is home to Nigeria, which is one of the most populous countries in the world. Pre-colonial civilizations include the slaver-kingdoms of Lagos, Benin, Ashanti, and Dahomey. Most Slaves in the United States came from here. Ethnic groups include the Igbo, Yoruba, Cameroons, Akan, and Kpelle. On a side note, it is home to La Côte d'Ivoire, whose name is possibly the most fun to say out of any country. Position currently contested by Oman, Ozbekistan, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanautu, and Fiji.

Going south, we have the Congo Basin. This region may be the Urheimat of the Bantu peoples, and has possibly seen the worst strife out of all of Africa. Here occurred the Rwandan Civil War, Mau-Mau rebellion,First Congo War, Second Congo War/ Great War in Africa, the ongoing insurgencies in South Sudan, Uganda, and the DRC. It has also been haunted by the legacies of such destructive regimes as the Congo "Free State", Jean Bokassa, Mobutu's Zaïre, la Parti congolais du travail, and so on. Here the the arteries of this region are rivers like the Congo and Luabala. Ethnic groups include the Kongo, Luba, Mongo, Fang, and various indigenous "pygmy" groups. Perhaps the most famous ancient state in this region was the catholic Kongo kingdom, though it only controlled the mouth of the river it had an enormous influence on its neighbours.

To the east and significantly overlapping with the Congo is the African Great Lakes Region, or simply East Africa. This area is famous for its beautiful Savannahs, awe-inspiring coastlines, and ghastly genocides. It is home to the Hutu-Tutsi, Chewa, Swahili Super-ethnicity, and Somalis. Also home to the ancient kingdoms of Zanzibar, Kilwa, Rwanda, Buganda, and Burundi among others.

To the North East, we have the Horn of Africa. Here the region is currently struggling with drought and instability in Somalia and Ethiopia, while Eritrea and Djibouti languish in dictatorship. Home to the Abyssinian Empire, which famously kicked the Italians' shit in during the 1890s, and was also the only indigenous African State to survive the Scramble for Africa. Home to the Oromo, Somali, Amharic, Semien, Kaffan, Tigrayan, and various Nilotic peoples.

Finally, we arrive at the Southern African region. This area hosts a wide array of biomes, such as the Karoo Desert, the Savannahs of Bostwana and Zimbabwe, forests of Angola and Moçambique, and the Moutains of the Transvaal. This area was home to the Zimbabwe and Zulu empires, the latter of which famously kicked the shit out of the British in the battle for Isandlwana. Ethnic groups in this region include the Zulu, Xhosa, indigenous Khoisan peoples, Germans, Shona, Herero, Boers, Bastaars, and Namaqua.

Ramifications

Now, as you can see, Africa is fucking huge. What's more, communication is extremely difficult between the various regions, due to the multitude of natural barriers. The Sahara, the Horn's Mountains, the Karoo, the Congo rainforest, and the sheer vastness of the savannahs made it difficult for various kingdoms to interact with each other beyond trading. Additionally, much of the continent is unsuited for agriculture, making a sedentary society difficult to establish many regions. Combined with often unpredictable weather, this meant that much of the population was dependent on nomadic pastoralism until the 20th century saw increased urbanization in some areas.

This means that settled societies were often separated by natural obstacles or hundreds of leagues-worth of tribal and nomadic steppe-land that effectively isolated them in their own cultural spheres. This means that when, for example, the Zimbabweans develop advanced iron-working, their invention stays fairly localized instead of spreading throughout the continent. This severely slowed the technological development of sub-saharan africa in comparison to Europe, East Asia, or Mesoamerica.

Colonial History

So, since this post is quickly becoming a novella, I am regrettable going to need to fast-forward through the extremely long pre-colonial history of the region. We're going to start in 1884 with the Berlin Conference. This regulated the European colonization of Africa, as well as establishing the Congo Freestate as the private property of Belgian king Leopold (everyone involved would come to regret that particular clause in about twenty years...); and essentially institutionalized the era of New Imperialism. This saw the British and Germans commit horrible atrocities against the Boers and Namibian natives, the start of Belgium's infamous hand fetish, and also the British trading part of Hannover for Zanzibar.

Now, in the succeeding years there are two specific cases I want to draw attention to. German East Africa Federation, specifically the Rwanda-Burundi region, and the British Cape colony, later Federated into the South African Federation.

Starting with the Rwanda-Burundi case, as I find it particularly tragic and unnecessary, let's examine German colonial policy, which was fairly typical of the European regime and you can find analogues for in most colonies.

In these two countries, the Germans discovered three main groups, called by the natives the "Tutsi" nobility, "Hutu" peasants, and the indigenous Twa "Pygmies". The Germans got the notion in their head that the Tutsi and Hutu must be separate peoples, and that the Tutsi, with their fair skin and tall stature, must be from a superior conquering race. DNA and archaeological evidence does not really support this theory; but the Germans couldn't really know that at the time and went straight to work setting up a racial hierarchy because that's just what the Germans do in a new environment. This hierarchy went something like German > Tutsi > Hutu> Literal excrement >Twa. When the Germans were kindly told to fuck off by the Belgians post-WW1, the new colonists decided to essentially double down on the German caste system.

The Tutsi and Hutu had separate schools, separate villages, etc. Meanwhile the Twa got almost nothing, because they seem to be the African equivalent of the Jews. Their entire recorded history is suffering. A regime of segregation was strictly enforced by Belgians and race-mixing was essentially verboten.

When naked colonialism fell out of fashion and the world asked the Belgians to fuck off, they hastily gave temporal powers back to he traditional kings, proceeded to essentially take a dump on the living-room floor, and got the fuck out of dodge. Now, raise your hands if you think you know what happened next. Now put them down because I can't fucking see you. If you answered "unrelenting horror" then you win. Your prize is depression. Enjoy.

So, you can see that when the Europeans arrived, they aggravated an already shitty situation by convincing everyone involved that their status was racial, rather than social in nature. They convinced them that their situation was unchangeable because it was biological. You can see how when one groups is persistently fucking over the other that would lead to some issues when the group getting fucked over has descendants who gain power over the group doing the fucking-over's descendants.

Now, as for South Africa, I'm going to be discussing the Boers. To briefly summarize, Dutch discover Cape of Good Hope, Dutch East India Company (VOC) employees settle Cape, VOC brutalizes both natives and settlers, settlers develop non-Dutch, "African" identity, Dutch lose war and Britain confiscates the Cape. When they did this, they proceeded to piss off the rural portion of the dutch-speaking settlers, called Boers. They did this by restricting slavery and not being Boers. The boers promptly decided to fuck off to greener pastures and began the "groote trek", wherin they migrated to areas like the Natal, and later the Oranje Vrystaat and Zuid-Afrikaanische Republik (ZAR, or Transvaal). One Boer War later and the Boers are independent again (under British suzerainty and sans-Slavery, which royally pissed off the Boers). Then, near the turn of the century, precious minerals are discovered in the Vrystaat and ZAR. This made them incredibly rich, but it also meant they were fucked because now the British would be begging for an excuse to invade and annex them. That came in 1899 when a dispute over the ZAR's treatment of "uitlanders"(British immigrants) sparked the Second Boer War which was an unpleasant affair for all involved, but especially the Natives. Both sides engaged in naked and shameless terrorism against the other side's civilians, and the British created "concentration camps", in which thousands of Boer and Black civilians were interred under squalid conditions with little food, and many died.

After the war, conditions improved for the Boers, but they were still haunted by bitter memories of the war and continued to feel sleighted by British reign. After independence, the 1948 elections saw the electoral victory of the boer-dominated Nasionale Party, and the beginning of the brutal regime of apartheid and repeated massacres of the indigenous population.

Neocolonialism

While things have slowly started to improve, Africa is still plagued by the legacy of the imperial era. In much of Francophone Africa, the government and much of political life is dominated by French and Belgian businesses. Many regimes also engage in a kind of internal-colonialism, in which the central government engages in the repression and extraction of resources from the population and land to sell on the international market. Many countries, such as zimbabwe or South Africa are engaging in or appear to be on the cusp of engaging in Revanchist policies agains their white populations in "retribution" for their ancestors crimes during the colonial era.

This is the legacy of imperialism, and it is a ghost we will have to face for a long time.

Posted Mar 16, 2018, 4:20 PM UTC · edited

25119
TonyGazeBright from the dark pasts, shines the future forth•

TL;DR

ur just a cucked SJW and Settler Amerikkkan racist

12
[deleted]•

Kek

9
420cherubi•

Tl;Dr

Africa big imperialism bad

6
diezeitenOPCommunist•

p much

2
[deleted]•

king Leo

The og ancap

If you answered "unrelenting horror" than you win. Your prize is depression. Enjoy.

I lol'd

tl;dr: a native population needs to be wary of migrants from a different culture

5
diezeitenOPCommunist•

No, the TL;DR is that all human beings everywhere need to be wary of moronic nobility and adventurists with delusions of grandeur.

Also, thanks for quoting because otherwise I would've missed that typo.

16
[deleted]•

Diezeiten shitting on Trudeau: the comment

3
diezeitenOPCommunist•

yes

3
HeFlipYajust text•

send this to him so we can watch him cry

3
yhynyeAnti-Capitalist•

Yes, the OP definitely puts me in mind of contemporary immigration to the US or Europe.

4
diezeitenOPCommunist•

I wish I was 100% sure you were joking.

2
yhynyeAnti-Capitalist•

lol give me more credit than that at least.

1
Beej67(less government would be nice)•

Toto's Africa is the best song ever.

Fight me.

5
diezeitenOPCommunist•

I can never even remember what it sounds like tbh

-1
specterofsandersismPosadist•

I BRING THE RAINS DOWN IN AAAAFFFRICCAAA

2
SomeAsshatOnTheWebsNo ideology, just monika•

I thought it was "I BLESS THE RAINS DOWN IN AAAAAAAFRICCAAAAA!"

2
specterofsandersismPosadist•

O shit u right

1
ExOttoyuhrDistributist | Georgist | Catholic | Crowned Republics•

Not a bad post in the slightest! (Pretty sure this is my first time upvoting someone with a Communist flair...) But I was surprised that you started this so late in history.

Before the 1880s -- and before any significant white settlement in Africa, which started with the Boers in the 1700s -- the Christian and Muslim worlds had been using Africa as a source of slaves for about a thousand years. (Oman's and especially Zanzibar's wealth owed a lot to the slave trade; Angola and Mozambique were literally "feeder colonies," which Portugal conquered because they could provide plenty of warm bodies to ship to Brazil to grow sugar.)

High, reliable prices for slaves encouraged the development of slave-trading states in Africa proper -- countries/factions/etc. that didn't have much of an internal economy, but could raid one of their neighbors, and sell the prisoners to Europeans or Middle Easterners for enough weaponry for their next conquest plus a considerable profit. They could even do "sustainable harvesting" by raiding each neighboring tribe every sixteen years or so and not enslaving that many women.

Under these circumstances, capital accumulation was meaningless; a tribe that built a bridge over a river, or felled a forest for arable land, was just as likely to get enslaved and shipped off to who-knows-where as a tribe that sat around all day playing the flute. This didn't mean that Black Africa actively became less capitalist, but it did mean that it didn't become more capitalist; the memes (and genes?) that translated into success were warlordism and aggression, not patience and hard work.

The Middle Eastern slave trade was a constant, serious drain, which intensified around 900, when Russia converted to Christianity -- which meant that Christian states were no longer willing to transship Slavic slaves to the Islamic world. (Amalfi, for example, had gotten very rich off that trade, plus some opportunistic enslaving of their neighbors.)

With "just" the Islamic/Middle Eastern slave trade, Africa would've been held back badly, but it was Europe that really threw the continent into chaos.

The European slave trade had always existed on a small scale, but it really got going once sugar started being planted in the Caribbean. The whole world was eager to buy sugar, at extremely high prices; but early modern sugar production was unpleasant, dangerous work that required a lot of manpower. No one was willing to do this kind of thing for any wages that plantation-owners could pay and still make a profit; but, hang it all, there was money to be made! So, slavery. (The non-sociopathic plantation owners presumably sold out to their sociopathic neighbors.)

Europe tried enslaving the local Indians to grow sugar, but they all died. They enslaved defeated rebels and sent them to grow sugar in the New World, but the supply of defeated rebels was fitful and patchy, and also they all died. (Yellow fever made it to the New World surprisingly quickly.) Then they started buying black slaves, discovered that they were mostly immune to yellow fever in adulthood (if you catch it in childhood, you probably won't die of it, and it was endemic in the Gold/Ivory Coast), and then bought so many black slaves, for so long, that they destabilized the continent. (This is the period in which Portugal conquered Mozambique and Angola, to cut out the middleman and send Brazil a steady supply of slaves.)

Historically, Christianity and Islam both permitted enslaving unbelievers, if they were converted to the faith and allowed to practice it, but by the 18th century it was becoming painfully obvious in both communities that a lot of the slaves they were importing were already believers, that slavery wasn't really very good for converting people, and that no one was taking the obligation to let slaves practice the faith particularly seriously. Christian abolitionism needs no introduction; Bernard Lewis discusses Islamic abolitionism in What Went Wrong?, on the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

For the dynamics of the slave trade, especially from an ecological perspective, see 1493: New Revelations of the World Columbus Made, a book full of intriguing surprises. (If you grew up playing Samurai and Indians, for example, you weren't wrong.)

4
diezeitenOPCommunist•

Is there a way for me to tag your post at the top?

2
ExOttoyuhrDistributist | Georgist | Catholic | Crowned Republics•

Not that I'm aware of, but I'll post it as a standalone post. Thanks!

2
mphjackson7Socially Conservative, Economically Complicated•

Thanks for the refresher on African geography/modern history

3
diezeitenOPCommunist•

yw. I was more directing at the people who didn't know this. Because those are generally the people who think colonialism was top shit.

1
MoprollemsLiteral Caliphate•

You made an excellent post and I'd love to see you debate AltHype

2
diezeitenOPCommunist•

I think he's missing the forest for the trees. For instance, he attributes the increased wealth of certain nations to being colonized for longer. In reality, this is because the colonial authorities (i.e. the only people with sovereignty able to do such things), invested more into the infrastructure of these Areas. For instance, Algeria north of the Sahara was politically part of Metropolitan France, and received far more government funding, education, and physical infrastructure than a more remote territory administered as a colony might've. For instance, Algeria vs. Mali. Or, looking at South Africa, the British, and later Afrikaaners invested far more into areas with large Blanke populations, such as then-Kaapstad, Johannesburg, or Pretoria. Area withut significant white populations were neglected, and some were kept deliberately undeveloped in an attempt to kill off their population. For instance, the Bantustans were deliberately overcrowded and undeveloped in hopes that disease would control the population.

On another note, the idea that Colonialism alone is responsible for Africa's problems is overly-simplistic. As I noted in OP, Africa was already under-developed for a whole host of reasons, and though the Europeans certainly weren't much of a help. Ever since decolonization Africa has faced a whole host of barriers to recovery, such as corporate neo-imperialism, natural disaster, plague, economic recession, lack of infrastructure, in some cases a lack of education, and internal conflict.

Colonialism is only one major contributing factor out of many.

2
chewingofthecudFatherland. Family. Work.•

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your basic thesis seems to be this:

Europeans arrived, set up caste systems, took a shit on the rug, and left. No wonder Africa is fucked.

Caste systems are hereditary by definition, and so equally bad by your reckoning. You'll note that India has one. So does China. Both were colonized by the Europeans. All three got shit on, and all three recovered to varying extents. But one is now set to the world's biggest economy, the other is now a major geopolitical player and nuclear power, and the other is now being colonized by the former two.

It seems there's more to this story than "oppression".

1
diezeitenOPCommunist•

I'm aware. I'm referring to the fact that the Europeans took an already bad situation and made it worse by convincing them that it was racial. In my opinion this made reconciliation even harder.

Also, most of my post was talking about the bariers to development that sub-Saharan Africa faced for much of history, not just the bit about the Euros shitting the bed.

6
chewingofthecudFatherland. Family. Work.•

I don't think anyone would disagree that environment plays a role, especially over long periods of time. Even what you'd consider the most repugnantly reactionary race realist is fully committed to this--it's how he explains why Europeans were able to conquer Africans in the first place.

The upshot though, is that we ought not to be surprised when trends that have been stable for tens of millenia continue unabated. That is, low IQ, high time preference societies tend not be very capable of defending themselves, whether its their fault or not. Really though diezeiten, you and I have kind of danced around this topic before... but what's the alternative?

Surely it's not "nobody conquers anybody else". That's just not the way the world works, for reasons of natural law; aggression confers a survival advantage, and natural selection applies to humans and to societies too. This is nothing to be depressed about--the expansionary spirit of certain "primitive" peoples is ultimately why you're able to send your history lesson across space and beam it back down to me via satellite. The way nature is, is not only not a bad thing, but is the final source of whatever can be considered good, including notably the mammalian maternal bond which is the ultimate source traced back through remote biological history, of the socialist's pathological altruism.

2
diezeitenOPCommunist•

Your autistic levels of obsession with IQ portrays a person who never studied it. IQ is not a measure of intelligence. It is a measure of test-taking ability and ability to learn in a classroom at best.

The alternative is to execute the leaders who call for conquest.

6
randymarsh18Social Democrat•

I'd say more so just the test taking part.

1
UndeadRhodesianresident nazi•

Your autistic levels of obsession with IQ portrays a person who never studied it. IQ is not a measure of intelligence. It is a measure of test-taking ability and ability to learn in a classroom at best.

You should genuinely consider suicide after saying something that absurd.

1
JustHereToDebateYouVoluntaryist•

TL;DR

0
UndeadRhodesianresident nazi•

If colonialism is so bad, why is it that nations in Africa which were "colonized" for longer and by more Europeans have a higher GDP per capita on average today than nations which were "spared" colonization?

0†
diezeitenOPCommunist•

Why the fuck are you putting the word 'colonized' in scare-quotes you dickless little shit?

And that trend doesn't exist at all, as far as I can tell. The most recently decolonized nations, like Western Sahara, Angola, and Moçambique are much worse off than their neighbours who decolonized sooner, like Morocco, Tanzania, or Botswana.

18
narbgarbler•

Using 'dickless' as a pejorative is sexist and therefore reactionary.

7
UndeadRhodesianresident nazi•

Because outside of a slim few areas it wasn't really colonization. Europeans didn't flock en masse into lands to settle and end up replacing the native inhabitants, unlike what occurred in Australia, New Zealand, Hawaii, the Americas, and so on. In Africa the population remained the majority. The most heavily colonized area, South Africa, was only 1 in 10 Whites. It was also the richest.

You're responding with silly anecdotes. Literally all three of the nations you listed are worse off because of their decades-long civil wars, not colonialism.

If you want to talk about North Africa, great. The entire coast was heavily colonized by Europeans and its some of the richest territory on the continent.

-1†
TonyGazeBright from the dark pasts, shines the future forth•

The entire coast was heavily colonized by Europeans and its some of the richest territory on the continent.

This is a really bad argument, since coastal areas, as a general rule, all through-out history has been richer than the inland areas. Come with one landlocked country that, historically, has been richer than any country with acces to the oceans.

As a matter of fact, it still is the case, with a few exceptions. There is a reason Russia has, and always have had, a hard-on for Warm-Water ports.

8
YmirisHappyTurnismo/Cánovismo-Sagastismo•

Switzerland vs Iceland

2
UndeadRhodesianresident nazi•

Well yeah, of course it's a bad argument. It's anecdotal and doesn't involve other factors, like that North Africa was a civilized area that was conquered by Europeans (compared to SSA which was almost totally undeveloped). I want to avoid using anecdotes, but Morocco was brought up.

-1
kurokamifrTheocratic Neo-Feudalist•

The most heavily colonized area, South Africa, was only 1 in 10 Whites. It was also the richest.

It was 50% 100 years ago

6
diezeitenOPCommunist•

It was also rich before it was colonized be europeans, and is poorer now than it was before.

2
UndeadRhodesianresident nazi•

Actually no, not at all. Libya is poorer, but only due to the civil war. It was as rich as a European nation before that. There was even a few talks about them joining the EU's associate status, although that was never going to happen with Gaddafi in power. The rest of North Africa is still very prosperous. Morocco, Algeria, and Egypt are nearly first world countries. Tunisia is healthy too, especially compared to the rest of Africa.

0†
specterofsandersismPosadist•

Europeans didn't flock en masse into lands to settle and end up replacing the native inhabitants, unlike what occurred in Australia, New Zealand, Hawaii, the Americas, and so on. In Africa the population remained the majority. The most heavily colonized area, South Africa, was only 1 in 10 Whites. It was also the richest.

Settler colonialism and imperialism are not the same, although both are forms of primitive accumulation. In the former case, the settlers are not just straightup looting: he is invested in building a state and society for the settler population.

The latter is just straight up looting.

1
UndeadRhodesianresident nazi•

The African colonies actually lost money. Like, a lot of money. There’s a reason Europeans gave away their colonies so willingly after WW2; they could no longer afford them.

0
whatisabogo•

Because under capitalism, the ruthless exploitation and abuse of workers makes you a lot of money. It's that simple!

2
T0mThomas•

You forgot a very important aspect of the restructuring of Africa after colonialism if you want to know why they're still poor:

https://www.thoughtco.com/socialism-in-africa-and-african-socialism-4031311

0
chair0147Schrödinger's Socialism - it's only socialism when it works•

This is the legacy of imperialism

Then explain india for me as to why it isn't much of a shithole as Africa? India mind you has been colonized as fuck by the brits.

How about hongkong? singpaore?

How about the philippines when it was colonized by 3 fucking countries (spain, america, japan) and it still isn't much of a shithole as africa?

-1†
diezeitenOPCommunist•

Then explain india for me as to why it isn't much of a shithole as Africa

>land of designated shitting streets

>less of a shithole than morocco

boy watchu smokin

How about hongkong? singpaore?

Were mostly just ports left to go about their business, and didn't really have the resource-labour extraction. Also, the Europeans didn't get up to the same level of fuckery when it comes to demographics that they did in Africa.

How about the philippines when it was colonized by 3 fucking countries (spain, america, japan) and it still isn't much of a shithole as africa?

The Phillippines is actually an interesting anomaly, because it is the only example I ever found of a colonized state where conditions visibly improved under colonial rule. I've seen this attributed to the education policies the Spaniards implemented in the 1860s.

11
TonyGazeBright from the dark pasts, shines the future forth•

Yea, it's a general rule that the territories of the late Spanish Empire, meaning the period after the period of Hispanic American Wars of Independence(ending in 1833), are better off than the colonies of other countries. I guess it was because they were afraid to lose more colonies to rebellions, so they started to treat them better... But then some ship blew up in Cuba and Teddy Roosevelt rode a trip up a hill or something.

5
diezeitenOPCommunist•

Cuba and Puerto Rico never saw the improvements of the Spanish East Indies IIRC, though I have no idea why. The government used concentration camps and peonage to terrorize the populace.

3
NwahPogromModernity manifests; then destroys•

The Phillippines is actually an interesting anomaly, because it is the only example I ever found of a colonized state where conditions visibly improved under colonial rule.

Oh, so the Americas didn't improve? You'd rather live in a Amerindian tribe who barely have a command on basic subsistence farming than you would a Dutch colony or later British colonies?

Get the fuck out you lying bastard. Nobody actually believes colonialism didn't improve conditions.

1
diezeitenOPCommunist•

Yes. Because the Europeans would torture and hang me for not believing in their god and trying to shoot the king.

And if you look at Africa, colonization made a bad situation worse.

You've apparently never studied the pre-columbian history of the america's either, because the Indians of New England, the Mississppi river valley, and north-west US had a solid grasp of agriculture and had the beginnings of urban settlement.

5
NwahPogromModernity manifests; then destroys•

Yes. Because the Europeans would torture and hang me for not believing in their god and trying to shoot the king.

The Siberian savages would scalp you for being white.

And if you look at Africa, colonization made a bad situation worse.

Prove it. There has never been a successful country run by blacks. Colonialism improved Africa by every metric. Where would you rather live, Ethiopia or Cape Town?

You've apparently never studied the pre-columbian history of the america's either, because the Indians of New England, the Mississppi river valley, and north-west US had a solid grasp of agriculture and had the beginnings of urban settlement.

Indeed they had began to move beyond hunter-gather society, but they certainly never went through an agricultural revolution like that of the Europeans.

0
SomeAsshatOnTheWebsNo ideology, just monika•

land of designated shitting streets

less of a shithole than morocco

boy watchu smokin

Well since I'm a pajeet, I'm gonna go start autistically screeching.

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE SUPERPOOPER BY 2020 WE WILL OWN ALL THE BOBS AND VAGENE

1
diezeitenOPCommunist•

RIP

Indian nuclear missiles have street-waste warheads

1
Emoticone11•

India has a staggering child malnutrition rate of approximately 1 in 2. That's literally worse than North Korea. It's a beautiful country with beautiful people, and is becoming an economic powerhouse as well. But you cannot claim that it wouldn't be considered a "shithole" under the definition westerners use.

There are also plenty of highly developed areas in Africa which are only called "shitholes" by the same sorts of westerners who refer to "Africa" rather than specific countries. People from the rest of the world go on vacations there.

1
diezeitenOPCommunist•

Yeah, it kind of irritates me that I went through the trouble of outlining how Africa is split up into many different cultural spheres that were for most of history extremely isolated from each other, and then they proceed to ignore all of that and treat Africa like a monolithic entity.

1
AnnaUndefind•

Come on dude, you're asking rationality of irrational people.

All the same, thank you very much for the write up, it was pretty informative, do you have any resources you might recommend for more information?

1
diezeitenOPCommunist•

For the Congo specifically, I liked Ghost of King Leopold and Thomas Turner's Congo Wars.

I'll list some more sources as I think of them.

2
Hpunk98Liberalism is Fascism•

So fuck white people basically? I agree.

-1
diezeitenOPCommunist•

N...No. That was not the message of my post at all.

1
Hpunk98Liberalism is Fascism•

Lul ima still think it

1
BothWaysItGoesStateless, classless, moneyless fascism•

There is a lot of apologia for colonialism

Yeah, for example by Marx. I don't know his opinion on Africa. But his views on India are well-known.

Now, sickening as it must be to human feeling to witness those myriads of industrious patriarchal and inoffensive social organizations disorganized and dissolved into their units, thrown into a sea of woes, and their individual members losing at the same time their ancient form of civilization, and their hereditary means of subsistence, we must not forget that these idyllic village-communities, inoffensive though they may appear, had always been the solid foundation of Oriental despotism, that they restrained the human mind within the smallest possible compass, making it the unresisting tool of superstition, enslaving it beneath traditional rules, depriving it of all grandeur and historical energies. We must not forget the barbarian egotism which, concentrating on some miserable patch of land, had quietly witnessed the ruin of empires, the perpetration of unspeakable cruelties, the massacre of the population of large towns, with no other consideration bestowed upon them than on natural events, itself the helpless prey of any aggressor who deigned to notice it at all. We must not forget that this undignified, stagnatory, and vegetative life, that this passive sort of existence evoked on the other part, in contradistinction, wild, aimless, unbounded forces of destruction and rendered murder itself a religious rite in Hindostan. We must not forget that these little communities were contaminated by distinctions of caste and by slavery, that they subjugated man to external circumstances instead of elevating man the sovereign of circumstances, that they transformed a self-developing social state into never changing natural destiny, and thus brought about a brutalizing worship of nature, exhibiting its degradation in the fact that man, the sovereign of nature, fell down on his knees in adoration of Kanuman, the monkey, and Sabbala, the cow.

England, it is true, in causing a social revolution in Hindostan, was actuated only by the vilest interests, and was stupid in her manner of enforcing them. But that is not the question. The question is, can mankind fulfil its destiny without a fundamental revolution in the social state of Asia? If not, whatever may have been the crimes of England she was the unconscious tool of history in bringing about that revolution.

-1
diezeitenOPCommunist•

Marx was a cunt. This is well-known.

2
specterofsandersismPosadist•

bless u

2
diezeitenOPCommunist•

That doesn't invalidate Marxism. The man himself was just a bit of a cockstain.

1
specterofsandersismPosadist•

ik

1
NwahPogromModernity manifests; then destroys•

the indigenous people were copts and Nubians

WE

WUZ

KANGZ

-2
diezeitenOPCommunist•
4
NwahPogromModernity manifests; then destroys•

You're a dumbass. That's one dynasty, not all of Egyptian people. I guess I can also say that the natives of Egypt were Macedonian-Greeks now because of Cleopatra. You are not a serious person.

-2
diezeitenOPCommunist•

...Did you not read the background? It says that the Nubians originated in the modern day extreme North of Sudan and south of modern Egypt. The area south of Aswan was mostly Nubian.

You're not a historically literate person.

5
NwahPogromModernity manifests; then destroys•

You're not a honest person.

Niggers lived in Egypt. Niggers were the slaves and the underclass like they were every where. Niggers were not driving forth civilization with great inventions, arts, and politics.

Stop lying you wakandian larper.

-3