Economis benefits of Imperialism and colonization

There is nothing racist with this post. Colonization by european countries made life much better. It certainly made Africa much better. Can you imagine what Africa would be like today without European colonization? There would be no infrastructure or modern amenities.
The issue is the various European colonists left those African countries thinking they can just pass the torch to the natives and have them continue running their countries. They just cant seem to do it without heavy European influence. The natives are killing one another and there is widespread corruption.

This is complete horse shit and yes your content is racist. The whole world has progressed throughout history except guys like you are lagging your community. You're ignorant. You really need to shut up and know your lane but you are too stupid to do so.
 
India has intelligence.
Africa has great music and dance moves.
Biden has none of that.

Average IQ in India is 81. The Indians you see in the west are the cream of the crop, obviously there are very bright people in a population of 1.4 billion but they're outliers.

Those colonizers weren't exactly benefactors with kind intentions. They came and exploited the colonized nations mercilessly. They didn't give them railways, hospitals and schools out of good intentions. This place is filled with too many naive Karens.

Merciless exploitation is human history. The strong took what they could, however they could. Those rules actually still dominate in poorer 3rd world countries as I've experienced myself - you bribe, cheat and lie throughout life, there are no hangups about morality or principles. There's no hint of European style rule of law with rigid implementation.
 
This is complete horse shit and yes your content is racist. The whole world has progressed throughout history except guys like you are lagging your community. You're ignorant. You really need to shut up and know your lane but you are too stupid to do so.

That's your whole argument - "that's racist"?
 
The Congo is primitive, but why? It's a crazy rich region, full of minerals bought by... civilizing Europeans whose concern for their minerals trumps their concern for the peoples welfare.

Resource exploitation was primary but you cannot turn a very primitive and low intelligence society into a modern capitalistic one, it has never worked especially by using democracy.

Venezuela is a great example, their dictator made deals which weren't very favourable for Venezuelans but still afforded Venezuela to be the wealthier nation in Latin America. When the nationalisation/populism wave hit Venezuela, everything was squandered. This is a patterns with low intelligence countries, democracy only works with intelligent populations, for the rest a fairly smart dictator is the best option - that's what the Saudis and UAE have.
In 3rd world countries it's just too easy to spend $20 million to buy votes and then earn billions through corrupt deals, very high risk/reward. The voters can be bought at every election cycle with ease, I've witnessed it myself.
 
Those rules actually still dominate in poorer 3rd world countries as I've experienced myself - you bribe, cheat and lie throughout life, there are no hangups about morality or principles. There's no hint of European style rule of law with rigid implementation.
You could say, however, this wasn't always the case until the Western imperialism came knocking at their door. It was the westerners (or rather their hypocritical one-sided western democracy) who brought greed and corruption, as well as merciless exploitation. And this was the result.
 
You're quite hung up on the notion of intelligence and IQ levels. Eugenics is what the nazis used to justify the extermination of Jews and other minorities and the supremacy of the German race.

Venezuela is the perfect example? Seriously, from the beginning of its existence to the late 1960s Venezuela was ruled by armed militias and dictators. What made Venezuela wealthy? Oil extraction. It made a small segment of Venezuelan extremely wealthy, and the economic activity supporting the oil industry and other extraction industries created a small viable middle class of local and western foreigners who left Europe after WW2. But the majority of the nation was made up of very poor people. Instead of working towards developing strong democratic processes and developing the nation to minimize the huge disparity between the rich and poor Venezuela returned to violence and dictatorships.

https://www.britannica.com/place/Venezuela/The-independence-movement

Smart dictators like Saudi Arabia? You mean the country that executed a journalist because he criticized the ruler? The country that still can't get around to letting women drive and forces them to be covered head to toe? The country the builds ridiculous buildings to their glory and abandons them when boredom sets in?

You're good, real good.
 
You're quite hung up on the notion of intelligence and IQ levels. Eugenics is what the nazis used to justify the extermination of Jews and other minorities and the supremacy of the German race.

I cannot find anything to confirm that the Nazis claimed Jewish IQs were low. It's also pathetic to immediately jump to Godwin's Law.
IQ tests at present are the best measure of intelligence. If you invent something better and do appropriate research, I'll use that. Until then, IQ is what we have.

Venezuela is the perfect example? Seriously, from the beginning of its existence to the late 1960s Venezuela was ruled by armed militias and dictators. What made Venezuela wealthy? Oil extraction. It made a small segment of Venezuelan extremely wealthy, and the economic activity supporting the oil industry and other extraction industries created a small viable middle class of local and western foreigners who left Europe after WW2. But the majority of the nation was made up of very poor people. Instead of working towards developing strong democratic processes and developing the nation to minimize the huge disparity between the rich and poor Venezuela returned to violence and dictatorships.

You didn't seem to read what I wrote or are arguing using strawman arguments.
Venezuelan collapse started in the mid 1970s with a democratically elected president who started nationalisation. The previous leaders, although dictatorial, ensured that the country was doing at least economically well.

You could say, however, this wasn't always the case until the Western imperialism came knocking at their door. It was the westerners (or rather their hypocritical one-sided western democracy) who brought greed and corruption, as well as merciless exploitation. And this was the result.

This is not the case at all if you read how the societies worked before Europeans arrived. Slave trade in Africa for example was thriving way before any Europeans arrived. Few people know that the Africa-Arabia slave trade was far bigger than the European-North American one. Arabs didn't allow slaves to breed though, the male reproductive organs were removed. This is why there are few black people in the Middle East.
Sincerely, in case you haven't, I recommend you try living in third world countries long enough to understand how things work. You'll see that most of the corrupt practices have nothing to do with western values or traditions.
 
This is not the case at all if you read how the societies worked before Europeans arrived. Slave trade in Africa for example was thriving way before any Europeans arrived. Few people know that the Africa-Arabia slave trade was far bigger than the European-North American one. Arabs didn't allow slaves to breed though, the male reproductive organs were removed. This is why there are few black people in the Middle East.
Sincerely, in case you haven't, I recommend you try living in third world countries long enough to understand how things work. You'll see that most of the corrupt practices have nothing to do with western values or traditions.
I'm not going to pursue this subject any further since politics is not my cup of tea. However, I should note that I have lived in a third world country back in the 70s and 80s so I can definitely relate to many of the things you mention. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: d08
Sorry, I replied but for some reason when I posted my message didn't go through. It was long enough that I don't want to redo it. :thumbsdown:
 
Resource exploitation was primary but you cannot turn a very primitive and low intelligence society into a modern capitalistic one, it has never worked especially by using democracy.

Venezuela is a great example, their dictator made deals which weren't very favourable for Venezuelans but still afforded Venezuela to be the wealthier nation in Latin America. When the nationalisation/populism wave hit Venezuela, everything was squandered. This is a patterns with low intelligence countries, democracy only works with intelligent populations, for the rest a fairly smart dictator is the best option - that's what the Saudis and UAE have.
In 3rd world countries it's just too easy to spend $20 million to buy votes and then earn billions through corrupt deals, very high risk/reward. The voters can be bought at every election cycle with ease, I've witnessed it myself.

That was very well said. Great point .
You can also look no further than some of our own inner cities.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top