No because it was fucking horrible. Genocide, conquest, and forced labor galore. Some modest gains towards the late colonial period, but even those were largely because people raised a stink in the metropole about how brutal colonialism was.
>>55379 The reason rwanda happened had nothing to do with hutu or tutsi (mostly interbred and massive hutu on hutu violence up north). Had everything to do with super high pop density in a primarily agro society
>>55284 No. A great part of the social problems that exist today in Africa, such as hunger, is a direct or indirect consequence of European colonialism.
Even Ethiopia, which was never colonized by Europeans, was affected by it, because Europeans feared its development and so decided to finance revolutionary groups, which established a pseudomarxist dictatorial regime that destroyed the country's economy.
>>55284 >Can we agree that European colonialism was the most peaceful and progressive era sub Saharan Africa has ever seen?
Peaceful? Maybe. Progressive? It depends on the case. This was true for the German and Portuguese colonies, for example. But it was not the case for the Belgian and French ones. And the British had very mixed results, but rarely good.
>A reduction of the population of the Congo is noted by all who have compared the country at the beginning of Leopold's control with the beginning of Belgian state rule in 1908, but estimates of the deaths toll vary considerably. Estimates of contemporary observers suggest that the population decreased by half during this period and these are supported by some modern scholars such as Jan Vansina. Scholars at the Royal Museum for Central Africa argue that a decrease of 15% over the first forty years of colonial rule (up to the census of 1924).
>In the absence of a census providing even an initial idea of the size of population of the region at the inception of the Congo Free State (the first was taken in 1924), it is impossible to quantify population changes in the period. Forbath claimed the loss was at least 5 million; Adam Hochschild, and Isidore Ndaywel è Nziem, 10 million; However no verifiable records exist. Louis and Stengers state that population figures at the start of Leopold's control are only "wild guesses", while calling E.D. Morel's attempt and others at coming to a figure for population losses as "but figments of the imagination".
>Hochschild cites several recent independent lines of investigation, by anthropologist Jan Vansina and others, that examine local sources (police records, religious records, oral traditions, genealogies, personal diaries), which generally agree with the assessment of the 1919 Belgian government commission: roughly half the population perished during the Free State period. Since the first official census by the Belgian authorities in 1924 put the population at about 10 million, these various approaches suggest a rough estimate of a total of 10 million dead. To put these population changes in context, sourced references state that in 1900 Africa as a whole had between 90 million and 133 million people.
Why don't we ask the Africans themselves. Not the Westernized elites that had a interest in independence because it meant political power for them, I mean the common men who lived and worked under these supposedly repressive governments and then had to enjoy the "freedom" of decolonization.
>"The river is the artery of Congo's economy," he says. "When the Belgians and the Portuguese were here, there were farms and plantations — cashews, peanuts, rubber, palm oil. There was industry and factories employing 3,000 people, 5,000 people. But since independence, no Congolese has succeeded. The plantations are abandoned." Using a French expression literally translated as "on the ground," he adds: "Everything is par terre."
>"On this river, all that you see — the buildings, the boats — only whites did that. After the whites left, the Congolese did not work. We did not know how to. For the past 50 years, we've just declined." He pauses. "They took this country by force," he says, with more than a touch of admiration. "If they came back, this time we'd give them the country for free."
>Before the 1960s, colonial governments and companies fought malaria because their officials often lived in remote outposts like Nigeria’s hill stations and Vietnam’s Marble Mountains. Independence movements led to freedom, but also often to civil war, poverty, corrupt government and the collapse of medical care.
Of course the notion that officials lived in remote outposts is absurd. Europeans fought malaria because they are actually lawful good people who went to Africa to help their fellow brothers.
>take up the white man's burden and reap his old reward: the blame of those you better, the hate of those you guard
Western medicine, introduced at the time, set the state for many of Africa's current problems. Childhood mortality went way down and life expectancy went up way way way faster than cultures (which had traditionally pumped out as many babies as possible in the expectation that most would die) could change.
>>55284 >Can we agree that European colonialism was the most peaceful and progressive era sub Saharan Africa has ever seen? Yes... except the Congo region in general.
The Belgian people turned out to be even worse than the Dutch at maintaining colonies in a sane way that didn't completely disadvantage the locals. Meanwhile, the British really were pretty good to locals, plenty of decent historians believe the natives of the Americas would have been better off if Britain won the war of independence.
I think the only real problem with colonialism is how modern westerners view it. As always, needing to blame EVERYTHING on western society, they equate an absence of wealth that never existed with something westerners "stole." In reality, what westerners did was build ports, create trade and make deals with one another about keeping out of each others way: thus, colonialism.
>>57658 >I think the only real problem with colonialism is how modern westerners view it. As always, needing to blame EVERYTHING on western society, they equate an absence of wealth that never existed with something westerners "stole." In reality, what westerners did was build ports, create trade and make deals with one another about keeping out of each others way: thus, colonialism. this
>>57434 It wasn't genocide, it was brutal, but they didn't wipe out the natives and they didn't even try to.
The only time in history actual genocide was tried and more or less successful was: -British extermination of the Tasmanians, completely as in they are no more an actual genocide. Also we can consider -the German Herero and Namaqua Genocide. -Western powers extermination of Amerindians, and that was mostly accidentally through disease. Had the Amerindians had immunity to the diseases their lands would have still been taken at a much slower pace, but there would have been a lot of mixing genetically, also the cultural genocide would have still happened.
It should be noted that the British killed 15,000 Tasmanians and the Germans killed about 100,000 Africans, less than the population of my city. Pretty small numbers when you really think about it. But these were pre-agricultural people.
>>58155 MOISE IS MY HUSBANDO I POSTED HIM ON INT BUT EVERYONE IGNORED HIM
LOOK AT HIM, MY BEAUTIFUL BEACON OF HOPE
Patrice meant well and would have done great but didn't realize nothing would have worked because France and the US wouldn't let it and basically casted his people to the wolves for moving out of line sadly.
Same with Sankara and most revolutionary leaders who aren't that sell out in Angola.
No Ethiopia like many African countries during the Cold War was a casualty of the politics of the era. Despite never being colonized the country was fucked over by machinations between the US and the USSR.
>>55284 I wouldn't say so. Perhaps the most stable era, though.
Turning most of them into semi-self governing colonies instead of giving full independence would probably have been a good idea. That would have allowed more western guidance, but that assumes the west wanted a strong, successful Africa which is a laughable notion. (This isn't 'whitey keeping the black man down' either, it's just how things play out.)
How much of a kek do people need to be to even pretend that colonialism was in European interest?
It was a money sink from day one. In all these years, there was barely any time when colonial empires were actually profitable.
The most die hard opponents of colonisation were the ebil classical liberals, in small part because of legal arguments but mostly for economic and financial reasons. See for instance Gustave de Molinari : >De toutes les entreprises de l'État, la colonisation est celle qui coûte le plus cher et qui rapporte le moins >Of all state undertakings, colonization is the one that costs the most and gives the least
The states and a few state sponsored companies were the only one taking any form of profit from it. It's impressive how the French, British, and all, taxpayers literally threw money and capital at the rest of the world only to be despised for it later (when there is anything left of their money). Worst investment ever.
I'm speaking of Africa and Asia. Older colonial empires in America, and then Oceania were best investments ever.
>>61417 Germany turned the native population into one of the most effective fighting forces of the time period. Read up on Paul VonLettow-Vorbeck. The guy was a national hero and he did it by inspiring complete loyalty in his troops
Which is the result of white colonialism Before whites arrived, they lived like literal monkeys and died at 30 The reason they're so numerous is because the whiteman improved their living conditions but unfortunatly their brains didnt adapt
There will never be a peaceful time in africa. Honestly colonization and the agricultural revolution basically doomed africa forever. Their population is exponentially increasing without the resources to advance themselves into the first world. They are doomed.
At the start of the century there were as many europeans as africans. Now the african
>>55692 Europeans did not fund revolutionary groups because their was any fear of some African countries. The USA and USSR funded revolutionary groups because Africa was a whole continent of new countries that could be proxy warred over.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at email@example.com with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.