It wasn't "ravaged by imperialism" but if you know anything about it's history, it was ravaged by slavery instead. Basically, it was founded when the US settled freed slaves there and said "OK, go figure it out and lift yourself up by your non-existant bootstraps". But some basic international economics; economies don't develop in isolation and if your corner of the world isn't developing, it's hard for you to as well.
> it was ravaged by slavery instead> Basically, it was founded when the US settled freed slaves there and said "OK, go figure it out and lift yourself up by your non-existant bootstraps"You forgot one very tiny detail: those freed black American slaves upon arrival to Liberia decided to create segregation from Liberian blacks (as they saw them as savages) and later decided to enslave them in overall.www.brightworkresearch.com/.../Just a tiny detail.So to answer your original question: they were perfectly fine ravaging themselves & their life wouldn't be any different from the life they have nowadays -- which is shit. Heck, it wasn't "imperialists" who were hunting for slaves to begin with; Africans were gladly selling African slaves they caught themselves during raids on other tribes & their villages to "whiteys" for whatever goodies.
@Metallsturm No kidding, when you leave people with nothing they're a lot more inclined to take what they need from others which is why you have such a cut-throat culture in poverty stricken areas (part of why there is so much violence in Africa today).
Implying British criminals in Australia were educated and had a lot of resources to start with. And hey, they never implemented slavery, those damn whitey criminals. Not unlike those freed black slaves, who instead of wanting freedom simply wanted slaves on their own.
@Metallsturm There were waves of migration to Australia after the settlement of the convicts.
> There were waves of migration to Australia after the settlement of the convicts.So oddly white convicts turned out to be more benevolent than former Negroid slaves?> when you leave people with nothing they're a lot more inclined to take what they needNot necessarily they were left with nothing; not only they acquired plenty of gathering skills during slavery, there were also plenty of (and still are) resources in Liberia. So it's not about that, it's about Negroids being less likely to develop on their own, that's why the pinnacle of technology of natives in Australia at the arrival of the British was a stick. And hence why I'm saying that their lives in your "alternate history" would've been much, much worse than they are now.And Liberia isn't the only example:For instance, here's president of Zimbabwe saying some quite dumb shit:nationalfile.com/.../And here's an Asian man spitting some truth:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPt9pGfpmS0Get real.
@Metallsturm Australian convicts weren't more "benevolent" but other people migrated to Australia (who weren't convicts) after the first settlements. And the skills learned on the plantations weren't all that applicable in Liberia. Get your head out of your ass.
Plantations weren't the only things they did, so they had plenty of different skills, as skillless slave is useless. Besides, not all slaves were field slaves -- some even had education, as it depended on the household they were in, and some owners were quite nice to their slaves -- nice to such point that during the civil war (or just slave uprisings) some Negroid slaves defended their own white masters against other rebellious Negroid slaves solely out of gratitude and sense of being part of the family.But that's not even the main point; main point is that despite the fact of their background (being former slaves themselves) and having pretty much their distant cousins in front of them (other Negroids) and land free to use whatever they see fit, they turned to segregation at first and then outright slavery as second in Liberia. Over a century has passed, they still have civil wars over... well, whatever reason: I doubt most of them can explain logically what they're fighting for.Same goes for any other African country, with Zimbabwe (read the link I just gave you, where their president no less blames whites that they "haven't taught us economy" -- being completely incapable accepting the fact they took over Rhodesia themselves, expelled and killed whites and, as a result, were systematically fucking their own country themselves for decades) & Congo, where a Chinese is berating local for destroying everything Europeans left (with things such as railroads not even existing in China at the time they were built in Congo by whites) and having learned *nothing* from Europeans.Get YOUR head out of YOUR ass and get realistic.
@Metallsturm Field slaves were still the majority and skills that the house slaves had weren't exactly that useful for setting up a colony. The point is that even though Liberia wasn't ravaged by imperialism, it was still deeply impacted by the legacy of slavery. And why do you keep bringing up Zimbabwe, it WAS ravaged by imperialism; that's the point. Quit living in your fantasy land.
> Field slaves were still the majority and skills that the house slaves had weren't exactly that useful for setting up a colonyImplying British criminals had colony building skills lmao. And implying whites simply dropped off Negroids in Liberia. They gave them some resources and some basic knowledge. Negroids simply decided not to use it and enslave locals instead.> And why do you keep bringing up Zimbabwe, it WAS ravaged by imperialism; that's the pointIt was ravaged more by independence; they had more stuff while being a colony than being independent. As correctly pinpointed by an Asian in the video (although he's speaking about Congo instead of Zimbabwe, but it's applicable to both) they destroyed everything there was left by whites.So quit living in some delusion that Negroids are capable of being productive on their own and aren't at fault for their own failures; shit, you have prime example in your own country -- cities like Detroit. Once a motor powerhouse, it got populated by Negroids, Negroids took charge of the city on political level and the result is something I assume you can see. Question is whether you can take your head out of your ass to see with your own eyes something else than your own feces.
@Metallsturm You missed the part where there were later waves of immigration to Australia that weren't convicts. Zimbabwe wasn't "ravaged by independence" it was under-developed because it's riches were taken to make the British Empire rich so people had to fight for what was left over. Yeah, "Negroids" can't be productive which is why there wasn't Greenwood Oklahoma. But of course we know what happened there and people wonder why "Negroids" seem so unproductive. Seriously, wake up from your racist dreamland.
> You missed the part where there were later waves of immigration to Australia that weren't convictsSo they had colony building skills instead? How come convicts didn't turn place into a shithole before that?> Zimbabwe wasn't "ravaged by independence" it was under-developed because it's riches were taken to make the British Empire rich so people had to fight for what was left overRight. Not only they still have tons of resources ( www.azomining.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=90 ) -- which most definitely they should have skills to gather (as I doubt those "evil imperialists" were doing all the hard manual labor themselves), they also were very effective in taking farms from whites by force & violence and later realizing they can't farm for shit on their own -- and now beg white farmers to return.So this is how bad Negroids need whites who were a tiny minority. Now let's take your country and let's see if whites would miss Negroids if they all would leave at once.Oy vey, I'm totally positive folk in USA would surely miss these incredible things!Bottom line: if they fucked up so bad in 5 years, imagine what happened to more complex infrastructure they've inherited over decades.It was more developed as a colony than it is now during it's independence. Hence why those old enough to still remember it consider it to be better days. And now the Chinese are rolling in (and already getting mindfucked just how bad Negroids are at being productive & what kind of piss poor work ethnic they have). Perhaps you want to argue with them?> Seriously, wake up from your racist dreamland.You make it sound like as if being realistic on races is something bad. At least unlike you, I can see the issue more clearly.
Hmm, oddly for me pictures aren't clickable/enlargeable. If pictures are too small, here it is:https://imgur.com/Ddhtwo9https://imgur.com/EfvGXoJ
@Metallsturm In the early 1800s it Australia was a shit-hole and most of the manual labor was done by indigenous people in Zimbabwe but they were mostly barred (not incapable) of holding administrative positions and without those it's kind of hard to keep an industry going. And if most of the farmers leave their land, of course there's going to be a famine because you can't train people (regardless of the race) to replace them right away. The issue isn't that black people ran the countries, it's that during the colonial/imperial era, they let racist dipshits like you run them and we're seeing the harmful effects it had to this day (remember it was within living memory that the age of imperialism ended).
> In the early 1800s it Australia was a shit-holeAn interesting statement; so for *thousands* of years Negroids in Australia (who weren't discovered by "racist whitey imperialists") were unable to progress on their own, if by the time whites arrived it was a shithole? You kinda prove my point time and time again, you're simply incapable of seeing it.> And if most of the farmers leave their land, of course there's going to be a famine because you can't train people (regardless of the race) to replace them right awayAnd again, you prove my point, you're just incapable of seeing it; you pretty much agree that Negroids were so short-sighted that they expelled white farmers (probably thinking that crops grow on their own, like bananas on trees?) and only THEN suddenly realized they're incapable of farming on their own. All of a sudden reality (e. g. famine) ensues.If they're that retarded NOW (well, 5-6 years ago) to being unable to foresee it, how retarded were they back then century ago? Centuries ago?> The issue isn't that black people ran the countries, it's that during the colonial/imperial era, they let racist dipshits like you run them1.) So if Negroids ran Australia without any interference for thousands of years, why it was a "shithole" (as you said yourself) by the time whites arrived?2.) If they ran it so efficiently (which should be able to result into working infrastructure, defense systems, education etc.), then how come whites were able to colonize them so easily?You're unique case for any psychologist due to sheer amount of contradictory statements in your own head.
> we're seeing the harmful effects it had to this day (remember it was within living memory that the age of imperialism ended).Some of them got their independence over half a century ago. It took Japanese to recover their cities from nuclear blasts faster than that; shit, it takes Detroit to recover from Negroids than it took Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and those cities were basically leveled to nothing.Heck, we recovered after the collapse faster than that when whole country went to shit. Yet they, for odd reason, cannot recover at all -- moreover, they just destroy more and more stuff they touch.Ugh, for fuck's sake, arguing with some people is not possible; statistics, facts, historical analogies, common sense, common knowledge -- all of that tells nothing to them. You yourself keep giving me ammo (arguments) to shoot you with, but you're so braindead, it's as if they simply don't register.Bezmenov was right. This conversation is bluntly pointless.
@Metallsturm For most of human (pre) history progress didn't happen. We were all (regardless of race) hunter-gatherers. And Europe only began to advance when farming spread from the Middle East so most stone age societies don't "progress" until influence (but influence spreading doesn't have to mean conquest) from elsewhere spreads. Kind of like how your thought process can't progress when you're stuck in your echo-chamber. Yeah, most black people can't work a large scale farm without being trained; as VIRTUALLY EVERYONE CAN'T. And training takes time and resources, time and resources that the country doesn't have. Japan already had a foundation that wan't destroyed to rebuild it's cities on. Again, the imperial powers installed racist dipshits like you who have such a distorted understanding of how economics works and attribute and discrepancy to race; well we know why those countries were so under-developed.
You tried to turn my arguments against me but you just shot yourself in the foot with them instead.
> Yeah, most black people can't work a large scale farm without being trained; as VIRTUALLY EVERYONE CAN'TAnd that's why there's such a thing called "development" & "experience", when you take what others did/had before you, learn from it and and improve on it. Newsflash; nobody was trained in the beginning. Humans were developing by passing on experience. The sole fact that they apparently are incapable of passing it on, since it was heavily underdeveloped in both Australia (e. g. can't really blame "whitey imperialists" fucking them up in some way) and on African continent, when by the time Europeans, who were slowly but surely getting into physics and all the good stuff (that gave us everything we have right now) during renaissance, Negroids were mainly raiding each others' tribes for slaves with sticks and stones. There wasn't much recorded about their history as there wasn't much to record to begin with. Now compare it to ancient Egypt, for example, which does hold a very rich history, records and some stuff being discovered still to this day.> well we know why those countries were so under-developed.Oh yes, we both do. Besides, if as you said Europe didn't progress until the influence of Middle East / Africa, it means they had a head start. If so, how come they didn't progress further than handicapped "imperialists"?; It's logical to assume that if they would be capable of developing on their own, those "imperialists" would never be able to colonize them.> You tried to turn my arguments against me but you just shot yourself in the foot with them instead.They actually hit something that's apparently incapable of comprehending it was hit -- that's your brain. If anyone's is in echo chamber, that's you.
@Metallsturm Actually during and before the Renaissance (i. e. during Europe's dark ages), there were many prosperous Kingdoms in Africa (Mali, Ghana etc..) that you just write off as "squabbling tribes". And no the underdevelopment of Australia pre 1800s was due to the lack of any contact from the outside world. And Europe only advanced further than other civilizations over the past 500 years over the 6000 year history of civilization. As for Zimbabwe, you're too dumb to understand that the issue was that they couldn't gain that experience fast enough to replace the white farmers and meet the demand for food which would have been true of any race in that situation."They actually hit something that's apparently incapable of comprehending it was hit -- that's your brain. If anyone's is in echo chamber, that's you." No, it's just that I use logic and reason so I'm immune to BS. And because that's all you're going to spit, I'm done wasting my time with you.
> And no the underdevelopment of Australia pre 1800s was due to the lack of any contact from the outside worldEveryone started it this way; and it isn't that far off from Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines etc. So reason must be something else... I wonder what though...> No kidding, when you leave people with nothing they're a lot more inclined to take what they need from others which is why you have such a cut-throat culture in poverty stricken areas (part of why there is so much violence in Africa today).And how many times that has happened in Europe throughout the history? Plenty of times. Yet every time we somehow recovered and moved on.> that you just write off as "squabbling tribes"If they were so "prosperous", how come they had jack shit by the time whites arrived?> And Europe only advanced further than other civilizations over the past 500 years over the 6000 year history of civilizationI love it how you completely wrote off ancient Greece and ancient Rome.> As for Zimbabwe, you're too dumb to understand that the issue was that they couldn't gain that experience fast enough to replace the white farmers and meet the demand for food which would have been true of any race in that situation.Thousands of years isn't long enough?I'm not sure whether you're actually retarded or just trolling, as nowadays it's really hard to tell them apart.
And Europe wan't a utopia before the age of imperialism but it was made wealthy by plundering the countries that they colonized.
Europe became a force to be reckoned with because they had great inventions and innovations. Colonies played a small part. If it wasn't for those innovations European countries would never have gotten those colonies. And it's not like the number of colonies is a measurement of how well a country is doing.
Europe became a force to be reckoned with because of the colonization of the Americas and the wealth that it provided which took little effort because smallpox wiped out 90% of the natives. It was that wealth that allowed great inventors to come into being from Europe.
What the hell are you smoking? The USA and Canada got rid of Europe centuries ago, besides what wealth did they have? The gold rush was decades after the US became a sovereign country. What wealth did the natives have that the Europeans stole? Turkeys? I'm sure that Newton benefited from the American continent. Galileo benefited from the American... grizzly bear.
There were plenty of resources brought back to Europe via the triangular trade and this was going on for centuries before the colonies gained independence.
What inventions, what wealth, what resources did the Europeans get?
Gold, crops, the kind of stuff that went from the Americas to Europe in the triangular trade.
So the gold and the crops made the Americas rich how? Somehow I don't think that they had much use for the gold and when it comes to crops they grow back. Besides gold was only discovered in the US in the 19th century.
But would Africa have been underdeveloped if it wasn't exploited by foreign powers?
Good point actually. But I don't think that directly connected to the slave industry in the old us
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
The only opinion from girls was selected the Most Helpful Opinion, but you can still contribute by sharing an opinion!