Topic: Colonialism is always bad just look at Hong Kong
Informant started this discussion 3 weeks ago #135,983
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 37 minutes later[^] [v] #1,444,060
Hong Kong greatly benefited from colonialism, just like everywhere. Your picture is just a side effect of how densely packed behavioural sinks effect chinamen in particular and is everywhere in the mainland asswell.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,091
@previous (B)
> Hong Kong greatly benefited from colonialism, just like everywhere.
Do white people feel embarrassed when you say such obvious lies? You have to know what you’re saying is dumb.
> Hong Kong greatly benefited from colonialism, just like everywhere.
Do white people feel embarrassed when you say such obvious lies? You have to know what you’re saying is dumb.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 37 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,092
Like oh yeah this place benefited from colonialism. Yeah, right.Anonymous B replied with this 3 weeks ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,095
Mr. Bloody Lemonade replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,097
Mr. Bloody Lemonade double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,098
Obviously, there’s also good stuff in Hong Kong, but I’d rather give props to the people who actually live there for their own success.
(Edited 8 seconds later.)
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,101
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 21 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,102
@1,444,092 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
> Like oh yeah this place benefited from colonialism. Yeah, right.
Those are like dog kennels. Hong Kong has backslid since being retaken by China. Regardless, you’re talking about the 10th most densely packed city in the world. 75% of the area consists of mountains and parks. You’re making a false statement, unless you show that Britain is somehow responsible for packing 26,000-29,000 into each habitable square kilometer.
> Like oh yeah this place benefited from colonialism. Yeah, right.
Those are like dog kennels. Hong Kong has backslid since being retaken by China. Regardless, you’re talking about the 10th most densely packed city in the world. 75% of the area consists of mountains and parks. You’re making a false statement, unless you show that Britain is somehow responsible for packing 26,000-29,000 into each habitable square kilometer.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,104
Colonialism is just inevitable in the same way war is. Certain countries like France still technically have colonies. The only reasons were not starting new colonies is because it's not worth it anymore. Cheaper to just trade with a country
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,112
@previous (F)
Not really. France’s former colonies in Africa are pro Russian military dictatorships now.
Not really. France’s former colonies in Africa are pro Russian military dictatorships now.
Anonymous G double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,113
Apparently French speaking Africans didn’t like the whole idea of being western colonies, so they decided to partner with Russian mercenaries and now there’s this whole pro Russian pro Chinese authoritarian populist movement in Africa.Anonymous G triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 4 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,114
Tbh that’s one of the problems with racism though. If America is racist against black people, the next most powerful countries after America and our allies are Russia and China. There seems to be a weird dismissal in the US about caring about African politics. Like, oh they’re a bunch of poor people they don’t matter. But Russia and China both have low birth rates, and they’re trying to win over African countries that have high birth rates for economic and military reasons. China is more interested in infrastructure and Russia is more interested in backing authoritarian militarism.
Anonymous G quadruple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 5 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,115
A few years ago Nigeria tried to create an alliance against the pro Russian military juntas and threatened to invade to restore democracy, but then the military juntas called Nigeria’s bluff.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigerien_crisis_(2023%E2%80%932024)
Then Trump did the smartest thing ever and bombed Nigeria when it was Nigeria that formed the coalition against the Russian backed military juntas in favor of western style democracy. But Trump doesn’t give a shit because they’re all black people and he’s stupid.
Anonymous G quintuple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 4 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,116
His air strikes on Nigeria were also ineffective, because the United States only has one permanent military base on the African continent and it’s in Djibouti. We used to have an airbase in west Africa in Niger before the military junta backed by Russian mercenaries took over the country. You know what we did with the airbase? We abandoned it!
Basically all I’m saying is the west is actually losing a lot of influence in Africa, because the right is rising in the west and the right is racist so they think Africa doesn’t matter because Africans are black, and it’s creating the perfect recipe for realignment with our enemies.
Basically all I’m saying is the west is actually losing a lot of influence in Africa, because the right is rising in the west and the right is racist so they think Africa doesn’t matter because Africans are black, and it’s creating the perfect recipe for realignment with our enemies.
Anonymous G sextuple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 7 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,117
…which is also why western governments pull foreign AID from Africa is really stupid because even though it does help Africans the actual point of it is to make Africans think that we have good will so that we have soft power and they’ll align with us if given the choice. But if they think that’s not the case, given the historical memory of colonialism, ideologically Russia and China can exploit that narrative to their advantage. Which is bad because in the future those countries will have a lot more people than they have today, and it would be better if they’re allied with us.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,118
Like if you think about Japan for example, we nuked Japan, why do they like us, why did they forgive us? Because we gave them billions of dollars to rebuild their country and made them a wealthy democratic nation so they could look past that. In Africa it’s like, okay, the west enslaved them, and ruled over them, then gave them independence, then what? Did we respect them? Did we help them rebuild anything? They’re not stupid, if they see they’re getting a bad deal they’re going to look elsewhere.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,136
@1,444,092 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
A lot of people would have never even been alive, their parents would have been too starved to reproduce.
It's colonialism that brought wealth and propserity, but there's always going to be some r-selected groups that reproduce to the max and some people end up poor.
A life as a poor beats nothing.
A lot of people would have never even been alive, their parents would have been too starved to reproduce.
It's colonialism that brought wealth and propserity, but there's always going to be some r-selected groups that reproduce to the max and some people end up poor.
A life as a poor beats nothing.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 7 hours later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,169
@previous (I)
The only way you could possibly have that opinion is if you know nothing about Chinese history at all and you’re completely stupid.
The only way you could possibly have that opinion is if you know nothing about Chinese history at all and you’re completely stupid.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,170
It’s also stupid because you’re misusing biological terms. R selection applies to animals like insects and fish. It refers to when a species has hundreds of offspring, most of them don’t survive, and the parents don’t invest any effort in raising their children. No human population matches that description. It’s retarded to say that.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,171
I mean, you can’t honestly look at the world and say the British were a positive influence for anyone except the British. Even the wealthier Asian countries are poorer than western countries, and African countries are poorer still. To say somehow Britain benefited the world is idiotic. They helped out in World War Two, but the British Empire killed 100 million people, it’s fucking evil to pretend that what the British did was good.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade quadruple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,172
And it’s not even just Africa and Asia, look what the British did in Ireland, the British killed so many Irish through starvation that the population of Ireland still hasn’t recovered from its peak population 200 years ago. Don’t lie to me and tell me the British Empire was good. You know that isn’t true, you only say that because the truth makes you uncomfortable and you’re emotionally weak.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade quintuple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 49 seconds later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,173
The United States doesn’t exist because the British Empire was benevolent, the Irish didn’t spend 800 years fighting the British because the British Empire was benevolent. Nobody except British people would ever be stupid enough to think or say the British Empire was good.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade sextuple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 15 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,174
I especially don’t see how anyone could ever say the British Empire did anything positive in Africa. They burned cities, raped, murdered, and enslaved people, took away human rights, then they left without contributing anything. They didn’t build any infrastructure, any roads, any schools, they didn’t create any industry, they did nothing except steal. How can you say a thief benefited the world? There’s no evidence Britain did anything good.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade septuple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,175
There are even writing systems that went extinct because the British forced Africans not to write. They didn’t do anything good.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade octuple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 4 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,176
Arguably the British Empire wasn’t even that spectacular of an economic success. It was an extractive empire, it wasn’t innovative. The percentage of global GDP that belonged to the British Empire was directly proportional to how much of the world they controlled, they maxed out at 25% of global GDP because they conquered 25% of the land and had about 25% of the population. The US reached a maximum of 40% of the global economy, the United States is far more impressive than the British Empire ever was comparatively.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade nonuple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 52 seconds later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,177
The US never had anywhere near the resources that the British Empire did or the population it did, but we far exceeded the economic output of the British Empire because our system is far superior.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade decuple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,178
I mean, literally right now with 4% of the world’s population we’re as powerful economically as the British Empire was at its height and we’re not enslaving or colonizing anything.
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,192
@1,444,176 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
> Arguably the British Empire wasn’t even that spectacular of an economic success. It was an extractive empire, it wasn’t innovative. The percentage of global GDP that belonged to the British Empire was directly proportional to how much of the world they controlled, they maxed out at 25% of global GDP because they conquered 25% of the land and had about 25% of the population. The US reached a maximum of 40% of the global economy, the United States is far more impressive than the British Empire ever was comparatively.
Do you factor in technology? Britain was a “cartel” for coffee, tea, tobacco, opium, whatever. The East India Company and friends were chartered monopolies. U.S. economic growth tied to world wars and to the Industrial Revolution.
As an aside, Portugal was a sad have not considering Angola would have made them fabulously wealthy if they had done oil exploration or chartered more mineral surveys or focused on ag export.
> Arguably the British Empire wasn’t even that spectacular of an economic success. It was an extractive empire, it wasn’t innovative. The percentage of global GDP that belonged to the British Empire was directly proportional to how much of the world they controlled, they maxed out at 25% of global GDP because they conquered 25% of the land and had about 25% of the population. The US reached a maximum of 40% of the global economy, the United States is far more impressive than the British Empire ever was comparatively.
Do you factor in technology? Britain was a “cartel” for coffee, tea, tobacco, opium, whatever. The East India Company and friends were chartered monopolies. U.S. economic growth tied to world wars and to the Industrial Revolution.
As an aside, Portugal was a sad have not considering Angola would have made them fabulously wealthy if they had done oil exploration or chartered more mineral surveys or focused on ag export.
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,208
Mr. Bloody Lemonade joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 4 hours later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,250
@1,444,192 (K)
Britain did industrialize first, but Germany and the US caught up and surpassed them pretty quickly.
Britain did industrialize first, but Germany and the US caught up and surpassed them pretty quickly.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 6 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,251
The weird thing about industrializing though is that since it gives you exponential improvements in efficiency, you’d think it would be hopeless to catch up if you’re industrializing later in history, but that’s actually not the case. China for example experienced incredibly rapid economic growth because they industrialized so late that other countries had effectively already perfected almost everything, so instead of having to invent everything they could just copy techniques other countries had developed decades ago and their GDP grew way faster than any country ever before that.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,444,253
The only issue is they’re a little bit too good at it so now other countries have put tariffs on Chinese vehicles so their own car companies don’t go out of business.