The answer that OP and the ilk on this thread are looking for is what Steve King says. But finally, even GOP couldn't take his racism anymore. Looks like some Trumpsters here on are still hanging on to Steve King's style of thinking. Its so sad its bigly sad. The avalanche of 2020 election results will bury such thinking for some decades to come.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But.... the British colonized so much of Africa, why isn't it doing better????!!!

I'm waiting for OP to answer this, too.

OP, please learn so European history, then come back to this thread.

Do you really want to know? Because Africa, although blessed with tremendous resources, is and has been comparatively primitive.

Read "Guns, germs and Steel". You are too simple to understand complex evolution of societies. But atleast make an effort to learn.

Africa didn't have usable land for large empires to evolve. Africa is either desert or thick equatorial forests for the most part. Africa doesn't have predictable rainfall or arable land on fertile river plains. Thats why big empires came in India/China with large, fertile, river fed plains. Europe came later on but empires never came out of sweden or Finland(too cold). They still came out of the german plains and northern italy which is flat.

Africa only has famine because of politics, not because of lack of food or land.

What Empire came out of Germany?

There were Scandanavian empires as well as the German empire, not sure what the previous poster is referring too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But.... the British colonized so much of Africa, why isn't it doing better????!!!

I'm waiting for OP to answer this, too.

OP, please learn so European history, then come back to this thread.

Do you really want to know? Because Africa, although blessed with tremendous resources, is and has been comparatively primitive.

Read "Guns, germs and Steel". You are too simple to understand complex evolution of societies. But atleast make an effort to learn.

Africa didn't have usable land for large empires to evolve. Africa is either desert or thick equatorial forests for the most part. Africa doesn't have predictable rainfall or arable land on fertile river plains. Thats why big empires came in India/China with large, fertile, river fed plains. Europe came later on but empires never came out of sweden or Finland(too cold). They still came out of the german plains and northern italy which is flat.

Africa only has famine because of politics, not because of lack of food or land.

What Empire came out of Germany?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But.... the British colonized so much of Africa, why isn't it doing better????!!!

I'm waiting for OP to answer this, too.

OP, please learn so European history, then come back to this thread.

Do you really want to know? Because Africa, although blessed with tremendous resources, is and has been comparatively primitive.

Read "Guns, germs and Steel". You are too simple to understand complex evolution of societies. But atleast make an effort to learn.

Africa didn't have usable land for large empires to evolve. Africa is either desert or thick equatorial forests for the most part. Africa doesn't have predictable rainfall or arable land on fertile river plains. Thats why big empires came in India/China with large, fertile, river fed plains. Europe came later on but empires never came out of sweden or Finland(too cold). They still came out of the german plains and northern italy which is flat.

Africa only has famine because of politics, not because of lack of food or land.

You need to understand the historical context why Africa didn't develop. And development is cumulative. If you haven't developed for centuries due to poor geography, climate, lack of resources etc, you can't suddenly develop or create sustainable institutions.

The politics can't suddenly get better when they suffered from colonialism and apartheid as recent as 2-3 decades ago. You are a simpleton expecting a simple explanation to complex evolution of humans and human culture(anthropology).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, I think countries like France and Britain had a little something to do with that. And then another country like the U.S. had a little something to do with that....

Horrible Britain, spreading law and democracy and PLUNDERING wealth and success in its wake.

Fixed it for you.

Indeed.. even my British DH admits that the British empire raped and pillaged its way to greatness.

Is ^PP claiming that when the British colonized some country that they instituted democracy? That's got to be a joke. Was the US considered a democracy during British rule or was the US under the sovereign of mad King George?

The countries that the British empire colonized were not democracies, nor did they want to bring democracy to their colonies. Whatever local government existed was destroyed by the British empire during its reign. They appointed local leaders.

What about wakanda tho?

Anonymous wrote:How about French Indochina?

Dien Bien Phu took care of that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread just makes me wish we had better, or at least accurate, history books for K-12.

It is embarrassing.

Sadly US education preaches the mythical exceptionalism and greatness of the white man and the west WITHOUT truly critical and evidence based analysis of our history along with world history. The reason for this is if we teach the kids the truth then we should also tell them about the horrors unleashed by the Europeans: the genocide, the plunder, the slavery, the murders and rape by millions. History is ofcourse replete with both the good and the bad but we don't want to talk about the bad. And that is the problem. We produce people believing in a history that is so truncated it just becomes an outright lie.

They DO teach all of that, at least since the 1990s.

Even at least since the 70s, in my experience, in both Catholic and public schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But.... the British colonized so much of Africa, why isn't it doing better????!!!

I'm waiting for OP to answer this, too.

OP, please learn so European history, then come back to this thread.

Do you really want to know? Because Africa, although blessed with tremendous resources, is and has been comparatively primitive.

Read "Guns, germs and Steel". You are too simple to understand complex evolution of societies. But atleast make an effort to learn.

Africa didn't have usable land for large empires to evolve. Africa is either desert or thick equatorial forests for the most part. Africa doesn't have predictable rainfall or arable land on fertile river plains. Thats why big empires came in India/China with large, fertile, river fed plains. Europe came later on but empires never came out of sweden or Finland(too cold). They still came out of the german plains and northern italy which is flat.

Africa only has famine because of politics, not because of lack of food or land.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But.... the British colonized so much of Africa, why isn't it doing better????!!!

I'm waiting for OP to answer this, too.

OP, please learn so European history, then come back to this thread.

Do you really want to know? Because Africa, although blessed with tremendous resources, is and has been comparatively primitive.

Read "Guns, germs and Steel". You are too simple to understand complex evolution of societies. But atleast make an effort to learn.

Africa didn't have usable land for large empires to evolve. Africa is either desert or thick equatorial forests for the most part. Africa doesn't have predictable rainfall or arable land on fertile river plains. Thats why big empires came in India/China with large, fertile, river fed plains. Europe came later on but empires never came out of sweden or Finland(too cold). They still came out of the german plains and northern italy which is flat.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, I think countries like France and Britain had a little something to do with that. And then another country like the U.S. had a little something to do with that....

Horrible Britain, spreading law and democracy and PLUNDERING wealth and success in its wake.

Fixed it for you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And then I look over to europe and see that as bad as the UK and France are doing, they are a lot better off than Spain & Portugal.

Is there something just inherent in Spanish and Portuguese culture that lends to more dysfunction when it comes to general economics and government administration?

If the British colonized mexico and south america, I don't think we would have the same issue we do today.

I think this split reflects Northern European culture vs Southern European culture.

I once heard that the regions further away from the equator are more successful, and while there are exceptions, there is a lot to it. Northern v Soithern Europe, as you mention, and Canada/US vs Mexico/CA, but many others too.

The theory is that ancient people needed to be more resourceful to live in colder climates, and thus the population was self-selecting as to whom ventured from the warmer areas, where humans originated, to colder climates.

Thats all BS based on white man myth. China and India are for the most part tropical countries and they have been the human history's two longest surviving continuous civilizations. India and China also were the two largest economies throughout human history until about 1800s when plundered resources from Americas and Slave labor brought their economy down. The two Asian giants are back to being the top economies this century, rightfully claiming their place in the top.

Yours is just as mythic but not more accurate.

You are wrong. India and China have the largest arable land outside the USA. And they have resources to feed their 1 billion people. And when that 1 billion people are educated and are productive they have internal market that is tough to be beaten by any one else.

Why do you think Russia or UK or Egypt or Persia or Greece or France or Rome not able to sustain themselves for thousands of years YET China and India are always around in the same shape or form? NO ONE BUT THEM have sustained their own culture, language, religion for 5000 years. Europe has been christianized, Christianity is Middle east religion. Rest of the world including Africa, Americas,Middle east are all either Christian or Islam, two foreign religions.

Only China and India have not been fully conquered by any foreign powers. They have been invaded(especially India) UT never ever forced to change their culture, religion or language. WHY NOT? Because of their huge size the ones going from outside get absorbed and become part of them.

India is catching up in part because of the legal, administrative, economic, and transportation systems the British left behind. Lucky India. Without the British, it would have remained a patchwork of scores of princely states and languages, often locked in conflict.

That is hypothetical. Why did India FIGHT BRITISH AS ONE and not as multiple princely states IF THERE HAD NOT BEEN ONE ENTITY CALLED INDIA. And more importantly Why is India continuing as united?USSR or Yugoslavia or even Czechoslovakia didn't survive as one. India is united because there is a cultural, historic and geographical cohesion. This is possible only because there was a historic united India. Otherwise nations don't stick around and people don't stick around. India is as complex and as big as Europe BUT unlike EUrope India has had united empires for centuries and hence share the same religion, food, culture. THAT IS THE BIG DIFFERENCE.

Learn some history before posting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It has to do with technological superiority. Europeans were able to colonize when they did due to technological advantages in ships, weaponry, farming, etc. In the post-Enlightenment period, Europeans somehow managed to gain a technological advantage over competitors in the Middle East, Asia, North America, and Africa. For much the previous millennia, Europeans had actually lagged behind much of the world when it came to technological revolution.

The big question: why did Europe have a sudden leap in technological improvement while other continents did not? It's still a bit of a mystery. I would say that the rise of sophisticated and centralized religious institutions - such as the Catholic Church and Church of England, plus the creation of universities affiliated with such religions - may have contributed to the concentration of European intellectuals. This, in turn, allowed them to more easily acquire knowledge and gain technological breakthroughs at a much faster pace than in previous centuries. Still, other continents also had sophisticated university systems that were even older than Europe's.

There's no straight forward answer. I honestly believe it was mostly a combination of favorable geography, temperate 4-season weather, and a strong dose of luck.

More myths and lies. Europe was nowhere near as technologically advanced as China until 1500s. China was the one that invented gun powder and had ships 4 times the size of the Ship Columbus sailed. India was also sailing the SE Asia for centuries before that.

The explanation for bolded above as to the mystery of how Europe became more advanced than China is, the Plundered resources from Americas and slave labor. The two Asian giants simply couldn't muster enough resources from within to match the plunder from Americas and lil later Africa. Then there was 200 years of slave labor that killed textile industry in Asia because not only they were outdone by the plunder BUT ALSO BY FREE SLAVE LABOR. SoChina suffered a long decline and India's decline was lil faster than China's.

The straight forward answer is New resources from the new continents, slavery, geography, climate, arable land, in other words, All of the above.

But now that there are no more plunder from new land and slavery is no longer passe, you see CHINA and India with huge Internal resources back as worlds top economies.

If you say so. Your facts are nicely chosen.

You need to stop believing the myth the white man built to hide all the atrocities committed while making it seam like Europeans are advanced because they are smarter. That is nothing but bull as can be seen by the mighty UK built on PLUNDER is now just reduced to being a small island nation.

This is going to be how the world economy will look like by 2030 as per pwc. China at the top followed by US and India very close to each other with UK on the way out of top 10 and France outside the top 10.

https://www.businessinsider.com/ranked-pwc-predicts-the-most-powerful-economies-in-2030-2017-2

Is this Howard Zinn? I though you were dead!

Anonymous wrote:Europeans conquered most of the New World and India before the Atlantic Save Trade really got going, though I doubt they would have been able to conquer China.

India was not a nation until the 20th Century. Prior to the British imperialism, India was a collection of "princely states" that shared some cultural ties, like European states, but were not a single nation. Discussing India as if it was a nation in 1600 is anachronistic.

There is no question that the British Empire benefited enormously from India. I'm not sure if the US really benefited that much from slavery. The South was economically backwards and weaker than the North, despite the slavery. It's a bit like the Middle East and oil. The easy oil makes people lazy and suppresses innovation and hurts them in the long run. It only "helps" the wealthy aristocracy who own everything.

This is BS. India was never conquered by the BRITS because a conquered country everywhere in the world loses its culture, language and religion. India was too big for brits or anyone to fully conquer. Thats why India is still over 80% Hindu with its own culture and Language. The west was conquered by middle eastern religion Christianity AND TODAY there is no remnance of Pre-christian culture in Europe. THAT IS CONQUERING.

India is the size of Europe. India had empires stretching from Afghanistan to the south. The Mauryas, Guptas, Moghals united the North and the south was mostly controlled by cholas and chalukyas. At times of transition these empires broke into smaller units only to be united later on by another empire.

Atlantic slave trade has been going on since the 1600s. India was part of British empire only in 1850s, around the end of slavery. So Your chronology is way off.

China would not have been conquerable at all because it was more united than India for sure, and bigger than India for sure. China also has deep hinterland and so no China is simply unconquerable. And yes the US benefited a lot from slavery because China was the leaders in textiles and other industries and India in spices. Indeed it was the need to find trade route to India's spices that triggered the discovery of Americas to begin with. So centuries of slavery and free plunder from Americas did collapse Chinese economy and the Indian economy(whether one entity or northern and southern entities the economic effect was the same).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It has to do with technological superiority. Europeans were able to colonize when they did due to technological advantages in ships, weaponry, farming, etc. In the post-Enlightenment period, Europeans somehow managed to gain a technological advantage over competitors in the Middle East, Asia, North America, and Africa. For much the previous millennia, Europeans had actually lagged behind much of the world when it came to technological revolution.

The big question: why did Europe have a sudden leap in technological improvement while other continents did not? It's still a bit of a mystery. I would say that the rise of sophisticated and centralized religious institutions - such as the Catholic Church and Church of England, plus the creation of universities affiliated with such religions - may have contributed to the concentration of European intellectuals. This, in turn, allowed them to more easily acquire knowledge and gain technological breakthroughs at a much faster pace than in previous centuries. Still, other continents also had sophisticated university systems that were even older than Europe's.

There's no straight forward answer. I honestly believe it was mostly a combination of favorable geography, temperate 4-season weather, and a strong dose of luck.

More myths and lies. Europe was nowhere near as technologically advanced as China until 1500s. China was the one that invented gun powder and had ships 4 times the size of the Ship Columbus sailed. India was also sailing the SE Asia for centuries before that.

The explanation for bolded above as to the mystery of how Europe became more advanced than China is, the Plundered resources from Americas and slave labor. The two Asian giants simply couldn't muster enough resources from within to match the plunder from Americas and lil later Africa. Then there was 200 years of slave labor that killed textile industry in Asia because not only they were outdone by the plunder BUT ALSO BY FREE SLAVE LABOR. SoChina suffered a long decline and India's decline was lil faster than China's.

The straight forward answer is New resources from the new continents, slavery, geography, climate, arable land, in other words, All of the above.

But now that there are no more plunder from new land and slavery is no longer passe, you see CHINA and India with huge Internal resources back as worlds top economies.

Thank you. It amazes me how few people recognize the way in which SLAVE LABOR affected world economies. White washing at its finest.

—White Woman

Slave labor ended generations ago in the west.

Heck in this country, it wasn't slave labor that was responsible for the northern economy.

It certainly was a major part of it. How stupid are you?

Pre- civil war, the northern economy was not slave based, nor could it have been numerically.

There were only around 250k African Americans living in the north out of a population of 18 million people.

To be fair, Northern bankers, traders, textile manufacturers, and shipbuilders benefited from the cotton trade with Britain.