Disnee
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
70 comments displayed.
#17 to #3
-
thesoulseeker (05/08/2015) [-] 
The point was proven already, no point in reminding everyone of the suffering we went through.
#112 to #10
-
miscarriage (05/09/2015) [-] So my friend told me one day, the reason why rappers lie in their songs is because rap in Swahili is "lie".
It sounded believable at first, but a few weeks later i looked it up and it ******* wasn't.
He lied to me.
It sounded believable at first, but a few weeks later i looked it up and it ******* wasn't.
He lied to me.
#130 to #10
-
Visier ONLINE (05/09/2015) [-] Now i finally understand, "takatakatakataka" - this guy is ***********
#2
-
scootabot ONLINE (05/08/2015) [-] To be fair, white people weren't the only evil ones back in the day.
So, not really world history, more like... selective world history.
So, not really world history, more like... selective world history.
#18 to #9
-
thesoulseeker (05/08/2015) [-] Yeah it's so terrible that the evil white man has brought science and technology to pretty much everywhere.
How could the white man destroy all that glorious tribalistic medicine with his evil?
How could the white man destroy all that glorious tribalistic medicine with his evil?
#27 to #18
-
nought (05/08/2015) [-] this is the typical response by european imperialists themselves.
The reality is, while they brought some education and ended "backward practices" (india is a notable example), much of the purpose of being there was resource exploitation. There were some hospitals, roads, etc. built, but citing that as the main purpose of expansionism (these poor tribes need christianity and western culture) is really a guise of clear efforts by monarchs to ensure their economies and prevent rival nations from taking power. Suggested reading: speilvogel for more on the topic
The reality is, while they brought some education and ended "backward practices" (india is a notable example), much of the purpose of being there was resource exploitation. There were some hospitals, roads, etc. built, but citing that as the main purpose of expansionism (these poor tribes need christianity and western culture) is really a guise of clear efforts by monarchs to ensure their economies and prevent rival nations from taking power. Suggested reading: speilvogel for more on the topic
#29 to #27
-
shadowkingdr (05/08/2015) [-] china is exploiting the **** outta africa only they are not developing it ;p
#53 to #30
-
thegrimgenius (05/09/2015) [-] >China has mineral rights to almost every country in Africa
riiight.
riiight.
#80 to #73
-
thegrimgenius (05/09/2015) [-] China has mineral rights, mines entire country to **** , country destroyed
vs.
English/French/German/Spain/et cetera go to country, take resources, build infrastructure, set up laws and hospitals, see: India, et cetera,
You're right, it's not imperialism, it's something worse.
vs.
English/French/German/Spain/et cetera go to country, take resources, build infrastructure, set up laws and hospitals, see: India, et cetera,
You're right, it's not imperialism, it's something worse.
#81 to #80
-
nought (05/09/2015) [-] do you seriously believe this? that china mines an entire country to **** ?? name one country that has been "mined to **** ".
all because you're not willing to accept that colonial powers ravished countries. why are african countries so poor? because while goods were taken, infrastructure wasn't set up. colonial powers did introduce new technologies, but in an arrogant, brutal, way specifically to avoid competition of "emerging markets". try reading a book. I suggest Fieldhouse, The West and the Third World, Headrick , tentacles of progress or someone who has acutally done research
all because you're not willing to accept that colonial powers ravished countries. why are african countries so poor? because while goods were taken, infrastructure wasn't set up. colonial powers did introduce new technologies, but in an arrogant, brutal, way specifically to avoid competition of "emerging markets". try reading a book. I suggest Fieldhouse, The West and the Third World, Headrick , tentacles of progress or someone who has acutally done research
#82 to #81
-
thegrimgenius (05/09/2015) [-] So that's why Rhodesia and South Africa are so poor right? You know, until Mugabe took over. Or maybe that's why resource rich Nigeria is the 21st in the world, ahead of big bad whitey Sweden. Tell me why countries that were left almost entirely left alone by big powers are still dirt poor. Tell me why Brazil and tons of South America are prosperous.
#84 to #82
-
nought (05/09/2015) [-] I can't tell if you're defending Mugabe, one of the most hated men in African politics, but that is not the point.
In fact, the history of Nigeria is lengthy and exceptions do not make a general trend invalid. Curiously, Brazil and many South American countries NEVER had strong colonial control and were able to get independence quickly.
What I am saying is the truth, not some FJ white circlejerk. I am not taking my information from liberal professors who make up white guilt. The evidence comes from actual plans of European colonial powers, first hand accounts by the populations living under the control
In fact, the history of Nigeria is lengthy and exceptions do not make a general trend invalid. Curiously, Brazil and many South American countries NEVER had strong colonial control and were able to get independence quickly.
What I am saying is the truth, not some FJ white circlejerk. I am not taking my information from liberal professors who make up white guilt. The evidence comes from actual plans of European colonial powers, first hand accounts by the populations living under the control
#106 to #84
-
sursum (05/09/2015) [-] Coming from someone who has lived in multiple countries in Asia (China, Singapore, Hong Kong and India) my experience is that European control was extremely beneficial. Hong Kong and Singapore are some of the best places I've lived and can't compare to the mess that China and ESPECIALY India are in. Yeah you can look at these countries from a broad international/economic point of view but when you get down to living in either of them they are both so ass backward it's mind boggling. No place in the city in India I was living in had any decent quality footpaths for gods sake. Not to mention the god awful caste system and the frivoulous culture of both Chinese and Indian middle class. It's a mindset of status, my neighbour has a lexus thus I need a newer lexus. Charity is something that is so conflicting with the culture of the two that it is almost exclusively a religious run thing or a foreign one.
I know what I wrote wasn't necessarily concise or historically based but If the question is whether colonised countries were benefited more or damaged more then I draw from my life experiences the preceding conclusions.
I know what I wrote wasn't necessarily concise or historically based but If the question is whether colonised countries were benefited more or damaged more then I draw from my life experiences the preceding conclusions.
#86 to #84
-
thegrimgenius (05/09/2015) [-] I was making fun of Mugabe. Because Rhodesia was a prosperous, modern nation. But then the natives came back. Also, South Africa, Rhodesia, and Nigeria all had very large colonial control, yet all are/were prosperous. Also, if you can stop being so pretentious, mind saying where your evidence comes from instead of acting like you are the truth in a sea of lies? All you've done is quote Fieldhouse, who was a professor at Cambridge, not someone who's a primary source. In addition, Headrick's argument that bringing tech to Africa made them weaker is stupid. Look at the prosperous countries I've mentioned, look how they're doing, yet they were given tons of tech. Mind showing me some these "plans of Europeans colonial powers"?
#149 to #27
-
thesoulseeker (05/09/2015) [-] Here's the thing dingleberry yes the European powers did make colonies for resources.
And yes the infrastructure, laws etc. all the good stuff they did was secondary.
But of course it ******* was secondary. Saying that countries are evil because they want more power is as stupid as saying that major corporations are evil because they care mostly about profits.
And yes the infrastructure, laws etc. all the good stuff they did was secondary.
But of course it ******* was secondary. Saying that countries are evil because they want more power is as stupid as saying that major corporations are evil because they care mostly about profits.
#99
-
youraveragesupport ONLINE (05/09/2015) [-] Nah, that guy from ratatouille wasn't a tumblr user, these guys were
#42
-
kurbeh (05/08/2015) [-] They literally named literally him literally garbage, literally I literally am literally crying. Literally.
#59
-
gibroner (05/09/2015) [-] Interesting fact, when Pocahontas met John Smith she was 12-14 and he was 26, but it's okay because she didn't marry him she married some 50+ year old tobacco Planter in Virginia named John Rolfe who brought her back to England where she died from Smallpox 3 years later.
#60
-
amonahan (05/09/2015) [-] White people aren't the only ones who did slavery.... we were just eh best at it.
#137 to #60
-
anon (05/09/2015) [-]
>95% of Atlantic slave trade went to latin america
>White people blamed for 100% of all slavery that ever happend in all of history
>First full time North American slave owner that didn't free his slaves after the 7 year time limit was black.
>White people were just eh best at it.
>White people blamed for 100% of all slavery that ever happend in all of history
>First full time North American slave owner that didn't free his slaves after the 7 year time limit was black.
>White people were just eh best at it.
