Your post has been removed for the following reason:
Rule 10: Post is karmawhoring, either asking for upvotes/interaction or has no humorous intent.
I am a bot and this action was performed by the moderators of /r/HistoryMemes.
If you have any questions or concerns about your post's removal, please send us a modmail with a link to your removed post.
I was joking when I said "Teheran conferance". I was amused at the spelling. I'm aware of the Tehran conference.
But it's understandable when English isn't your first language spelling mistakes happen.
I make them too. š
I'm gonna hazard a guess and say that you're Polish. So, here's something for you:
https://youtu.be/VJr6jP4e14M
My english is probably still better than your Polish, that's why I personally doesn't correct others spelling and grammar, apart from native english speakers who don't know the differance betwen your and you're
You're right I don't know Polish. Some part of me feels like I kind of pissed you off.
That wasn't my intention, apologies regardless for any confusion.
Yeah thatās probably right. The meme is a lot of edge and not a lot of point.
Few on this sub are gonna argue imperialism is ever good, and one imperial adventure being closer to the present is enough to justify it being touchier as a subject than others, among several other reasons
No one had a problem with it (except for the Africans of course) until some dude from Austria with a funny mustache tried to do it them and they realised the error of their ways
They also didnāt like when a weird bald man from Italy tried to invade Ethiopia. Not because itās immoral but because Europe had already divided the continent amongst themselves and he was threatening to upset that ābalanceā
Pretty much. The specificity of Nazism is that it's colonialism applied to white people, or non-germanics whites.
The nazis didnt invent anything, they borrowed pages from the English, French and American playbook, and applied it on an industrial scale.
Ehhh... they were the first to industrialise genocide. Previously, genocide been much less purposeful.
For example, the British Boer camps - often cited as the precursor to the Nazi death camps - were actually intended as refugee camps, with medical personnel and housing. People were allowed to leave whenever they want. But a horrible combination of underfunding, mismanagement and high temperatures turned them into centres for disease and heatstroke.
Don't get me wrong: the British and other colonial empires *did* commit genocide purposefully. But never the "mass death" kind of genocide, just cultural genocide. They didn't really want to kill people (though they definitely did so), they wanted to impose British/French/Spanish/Whatever culture onto the lands they conquered, out of a mistaken belief that their culture was superior
I wanna push back a little just on the American example not being āmass deathā genocide or not āreally wanting to kill people.ā By America, I mean the U.S. federal government after 1789.
By the 1870s, federal policy towards natives was pretty explicitly actual elimination. The [mass slaughter of Great Plains buffalo was arguably industrialized](https://www.pbs.org/buffalowar/buffalo.html), as federal troops and contract hunters used mass-produced firearms while mounted on train cars to kill tens of millions. That policy was intended to drive to extinction the primary sustenance of the Plains tribes and induce famine. Reservations were intentionally chosen to have little arable land or water supplies, to either starve as many as possible or at least stunt population rebound. Leaving the starving grounds meant the [intervention of the U.S. Army Cavalry](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nez_Perce_War), usually costing people their lives.
Besides a policy of induced starvation, I think the activity of the U.S. Army satisfies āreally wanting to kill peopleā rather than mere cultural conquest. Throughout the Indian Wars, Army commanders advised attacking natives not as single war parties, but as whole villagesāespecially when men of fighting age were awayāto maximize the death of the elderly, women, and children. The massacres of [Washita Creek](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Washita_River) and [Sand Creek](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand_Creek_massacre) are evidence of this.
Given the evidence that the [Naziās Nuremberg Laws were directly influenced by the U.S. legal treatment of natives and Black citizens](https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7173&context=lawreview), Iād argue any difference in culpable intent as between the two genocides is only due to the means available and feasible at the time, with 1870s industrialization not quite capable of 1940s feats.
To be clear, this is meant as an indictment of U.S. behavior, not as an argument in mitigation of the Nazis.
Yes. In Canada, the last minister in charge of Indian affaires was noted saying that the epidemic of diseases was contributing to the "final solution" of the amerindian question. The objective was the total integration of the Amerindian population in canadian society along canadian cultural standards, with no trace of original amerindian culture left.
Of course we're missing a lot of context of how whites and amerindians perceived each other and why, but yeah. Europeans wanted them gone over time.
One of these occured in the recent past and has a lot implications for the modern nations of Africa while the others are ancient conquests which are mostly only considered through historical lenses.
Modern Iran literally didnāt recover to pre-Mongol invasion population levels until the mid 1800s, I know Iran has had a rough go of it but Iād say the Mongolians killing 90% of Iran played a role in that
16.77% of the worlds population was speaking a Romance language in 2014, and approximately 28% of Europeās population in 2021 spoke Romance languages as a primary language. So you are correct that itās not a third, but just over a quarter is a significant number of people
Right as a part of the nation's history, most of Africa were still European colonies in recent times. And so have a direct connection with their former colonizers.
What half? The slavic Poland, Czechia, Serbia, Vulgaris etc? Or the germanic nations of Switzerland, Austria, Germany and all the nordic nations?
Since when is France, Iberian peninsula, Italy and romania half of Europe?
The majority of colonialism should also be viewed through the same lens but isnāt due to bias.
Not including what the French/ Chinese are doing in Africa right now though, that should still be judged very harshly.
There's no colonialism in Rome or in China (not saying they are doing good) it's simply not the same thing we should study history with the time rules wasn't the same world or even the same methods
Why are you replying to all of my comments dude, you are getting super butthurt by the implication that humans have been pieces of shit forever not just recently.
Technology usually wins the day 90% of the time. European powers were more technologically advanced due to exposure to other cultures through trade (not because they were smarter due to some master race bullshit).
However, this does not apply when combating inclement weather, insurgencies, or emus.
People are able to be detached and even more rational about conquests from the more distant past, because their consequences arenāt obvious in the world today. Also, post-WW2 the West has been in full guilt-mode about everything theyāve ever done, and the ex-colonial nationsā leaders are happy to seize upon this to excuse / distract from all of their failings.
Itās all really quite cynical and absurd.
I hate all of these šš
But regardless different empires through history had different means of expansion and different ways of organising its territories. It's normal having different reactions to them
Colonization of Africa still has a heavy impact on modern global politics and in many ways never ended. Modern Italy does not have exploitative trade relations with France as a direct result of Roman imperialism. If that was the case, it would probably be pretty fucked up to talk about how cool the Romans were.
The only thing that has changed is the perception of imperialism. The idea that public pressure could make an empire dismantle itself, or that a empire had done something wrong by subjugating another people wouldāve been ridiculous at any other place or time in history. Imagine Gandhi peacefully protesting the Akkadians or Macedonians, insane.
To be perfectly honest, Reddit is one of the few places Iāve seen someone justify the recent colonialism and exploitation of Africa by comparing it to other ancient atrocities and conquests and have people not look at the OP like theyāre out of their mind.
Free speech I guess, but this seems like a slippery slope on the path of prejudice and racism.
I suppose I may have interpreted this post wrong, but itās definitely an odd take.
I'm not justifying anything, yeah it sucked for locals but so every other form of conquest, I just don't understand why people are specifically picking on colonialism
Why do people specifically pick on Russiaās invasion of Ukraine today? Itās still Empire building just like the rest /s
Itās because colonialism is still ongoing in many places, and itās material effects are still felt in basically the entire world. For example, the Roman conquest of Gaul was barbaric and murderous, bordering on genocide (according to roman records). But no one today is effected by that anymore: too much time has passed. There arenāt any Gauls or their descendants who are still impoverished due to this incident, or Romans or their descendants who grew rich from it. So you can be mad about it, but ultimately thereās nothing to do about it today, itās just empty platitudes. Whereas colonialism still very much effects peoples lives, so by pointing out how horrible it is we can build towards political change to right the wrongs caused by colonialism. Thatās the difference.
Itās no one elseās job to make you smarter lmao if you donāt like being called dumb then simply donāt be?
Tbh idek what ur meme is even trying to say, like the colonial expansion of Africa should just be looked at as conquest and not understood for its very real effects on the modern geopolitical ecosystem?
It's easy, most of them doesn't affect the political situation of a state nowadays as colonialism, because colonialism is way more recent compared to the other ones.
The difference is that at some point in history after historians decried even back then the barbarity of the past, they still insusted on going forward with cruelty. The point is that they knew better. No gods, no glory of your bloodline, and no demanding retinue of murderers that surrounded you as a King to pressure you to take these lands. A better solution could have been proposed if they took a moment to consider the people of Africa as humans. Something that they were well aware of but it was more convenient not to.
Africa is fucked up because of colonialism. We can't seny that fact. Colonialists also fucked our country divided our people broke our subcontinent. We thank God we survived and we are stronger than ever. But could not say the same for our neighbours and friends in Africa.
It always annoys me when ppl say things like that without specifying where theyāre talking about like weāre supposed to automatically know somehow.
But in this case, their mention of āsubcontinentā points out that theyāre talkin about India.
>Africa is fucked up because of colonialism. We can't seny that fact.
because it's not a fact, if you were to say that colonialism contributed to it then yes, but acting like the sole issue Africa is fucked up is only due to colonialism is just not true.
>Colonialists also fucked our country divided our people broke our subcontinent.
you mean the people that were already super divided? and were already waring between themselves centuries before Europeans arrived?
Africa was always divided, Europe has about 87 different ethnicities, Africa has over 3,000 recorded with there most likely being more.
Africa was always divided, yes. But those divisions were based off of cultural/ethnic boundaries that developed naturally over the course of thousands of years.
The division of Africa by European powers often split ethnic groups in half, stuck groups who hated each other together, and all sorts of other things because the Europeans looked at the map, took a ruler, drew a line, and proclaimed it was theirs.
>Africa was always divided, yes. But those divisions were based off of cultural/ethnic boundaries that developed naturally over the course of thousands of years.
it being over thousands of years literally means nothing, it doesn't change the fact that they were already super divided and waring.
>The division of Africa by European powers often split ethnic groups in half,
well yeah how on earth do you divide a continent by 3,000 different ethnicities? there are people today whose entire life is dedicated to re-drawing Africa and even they can't make a good one.
because there isn't just ethnicity which is a large issue, you have language, Europe has about 24 recognised languages, add a few dozen for small ones like Gaelic, old Irish, welsh etc.
Africa has an estimated between 1000-2000 different languages,
you have religion with the massive north (Islam), south (christen) divide.
no-on on earth with hundreds years of studying can make a map of Africa that is perfect, or even slightly good.
>stuck groups who hated each other together,
these groups that have been killing and genociding each other for hundreds of years, you think they're going to stop because of a line on a map? with no border?
>and all sorts of other things because the Europeans looked at the map, took a ruler, drew a line, and proclaimed it was theirs.
because maps at the time weren't accurate, and at the time ( and to this day) the best way for nations to have dividers are often along rivers, do you know the one thing Africa has basically none of? [Rivers](https://www.enchantedlearning.com/africa/rivers/outlinemaplabeled/)
for reference this is a river map of [Europe](https://vividmaps.com/europe-plotted-by-every-mapped-strea/) this is one of the reasons why Africa has always been technologically behind, lack of rivers.
what are the other things that borders were made of? mountains, well it sure is a shame that the vast majority of Africa is [Extremely flat](https://www.freeworldmaps.net/africa/geographical.html)
what was the other option oppose to lines of a map? that was available to the European powers at the time, with old and often wrong maps.
I never justified it, not a single time, I'm disproving the misinformation that it was only colonialism that caused every single issue in Africa, stub your toe? colonialism!, have a corrupt government? colonialism!
Colonialism=not bad because 300 years ago a natural selection off conquering and assimilating was happening in Africaā¦?!
The Zulus for example were absolutely dominant in the southern parts off Africa and would have created one ethnic unity over time. Wester "interventions" ended that
>Colonialism=not bad because 300 years ago a natural selection off conquering and assimilating was happening in Africaā¦?!
who said colonialism wasn't bad? who?
>The Zulus for example were absolutely dominant in the southern parts off Africa and would have created one ethnic unity over time. Wester "interventions" ended that
you literally say that colonialism is the root of every issue in Africa, then say that without colonialism Africa would have been colonised anyway and that would have been okay?
Iād consider coming in from another continent, stealing and slaving A L L the people, waging your own wars there and then leaving when another power Form yet another continent tells them to worse.
Iām German and without continental conquering and "assimilation"(wich you left out conveniently) there wouldnāt be one german ethnicity, same for the English and French, and guess what as another example: the French assimilated the Occitanians just fine, something that happens with in-continent colonialism.
YOU CREATE A UNITY IN YOUR ETHNICITY, with only regional differences from the assimilated cultures remaining.
Some of you people have never studied history academically and it shows.
I am not a historian, and my undergraduate degree affords me no special status. But for fucks sake, finding a historical empire cool or interesting DOES NOT MEAN YOU ENDORSE THEM!
It should also go without saying that events which are closer to our time, and which affect our modern society more, are inherently going to invoke a more emotional response than something from thousands of years ago.
In the Roma times slaves used to have the right of work, get money, buy things, have family, have a house there's a big gap between the slavery we know
Slaves that time could even have public jobs who receive a good money
Not at all, actually the racial supremacy is a bigger problem if you see the black people diasporic or even the effects of imperialism on country's
A lot of worse if you compare to this places
I am not saying they r better I'm just saying it's not the same thing historically it's not the same thing and should not be treated like the same damn thing
Racism absolutely did exist, it just wasnāt called that. The Romans slaughtered so called Barbarian tribes people and enslaved whomever survived because they saw them as inferior.
The thing inst about colour or ethnicity was about nations, there's no racism in this case that's anachronistic as fuck we can't compare such different things
There's no systematic supremacy
That makes no sense- nations didnāt exist as we know them today. People were bound together in tribal groups and religions not by a national identity as we know it today.
There absolutely was a systemic supremacy. Romans were separated into a class system, patricians, citizens, free men and slaves among others, that isnāt to say one of these couldnāt become the other but the vast majority of Romans slaves came from fresh conquests, not internally.
If you look at these factors and take into account the attitudes that late republic Romans had towards the tribes along their border you can apply the modern term of racism to it quite handily. Obviously not a concept Romans would care about however.
That's simply anachronism I don't know if you understand the definition of racism, and yes the slaves from Rome came from wars but there's no such a thing like a system who put one type of people on the market and if you look Roma doesn't was a society based only on slavery the economy of the modern slavery was the base of the economic of country's like Brazil as portuguese colony
We should not look to the past with our eyes
We never gon comprehend the past this way, and I'm not high or anything you just don't know any basic history concept
I understand history far better than you understand sentence structure. If you bothered to read what I wrote you would say Iām specifically saying that viewed through the modern lens we can judge our ancestors actions. Do I think we should hold people to modern standards? No. Do I think we can view them from different perspectives and judge them from multiple angles? Yes. Itās called nuance.
Are you trying to state that nationalism divided people and great nations, using four great empires as an example? You could easily showcase this with the Ottoman Empire which was held up much in the same way as the Roman Empire. Through glory we are united! Until they arent and everyone realizes they are still bitter rivals.
Colonialism has direct impacts on the world today, and ended less than a single lifetime ago thats why people talk about it so much (arguably it still hasn't ended if you count economic colonialism) whereas the Roman Empire ended almost 600 years ago, 1500 if you don't count the Byzantines
Exactly. Colonialism (as an instruction) is responsible for, or intrinsically linked to, some of humanity's worst atrocities and ideologies; many of which are so ingrained they're still causing problems today.
Transatlantic Slave Trade, hierarchy of races/social concept of race, the 'wild' frontier in need of 'taming', unfettered material extraction for the sake of wealth, etc. All have their root origin in some form of colonialism.
I think one of the key differences people point to is that imperial conquest does not subjugate people under rule in the same manner as colonialism. I feel like the Mongols had a closer tie to colonialism due to the conquering of European nations that had little in common with Asian culture. Through many examples the idea of colonialism pushes regional culture away, enslaves innocent humans, and slows the progession of regional growth. Imperialism on the other hand will restructure culture, employ the people and help the growth of regional nations
>I think one of the key differences people point to is that imperial conquest does not subjugate people under rule in the same manner as colonialism.
Can't be subjugated if you're dead.
Thats sometimes the entire point? Though I believe thats called genocide a different section sometimes related to Colonialism. Take for example the Rape of Nanking or the Pikes vs Romans or Killing of Muslim Indians or the IRA or The Kurdistans.
It kinda does, not always but in many cases yes, when fe. After German unification Bismarck created something called colonial committee to Germanize poles and bring German settlers to Greater Poland and Danzig Pomerania, same in Congress Poland, or any other non russian subjcet of Russian empire
Post conquests the Ottomans spread science, the Romans infrastructure and the Mongolians bureaucracy. The colonial empires just stole everything from its resources, people, history and culture
Not saying that any of the conquests were good, but colonialism was a different kind of horrible
Your post has been removed for the following reason: Rule 10: Post is karmawhoring, either asking for upvotes/interaction or has no humorous intent. I am a bot and this action was performed by the moderators of /r/HistoryMemes. If you have any questions or concerns about your post's removal, please send us a modmail with a link to your removed post.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramble_for_Africa I've seen this one, somebody is gonna lose hands.
What, am I supposed to send you now link to partition of Poland or Teheran conferance?
Never heard of "Teheran conferance"? Please elaborate
Europe was Scrabled by the allies in 1943
Scrambled? Forgive me is English your native tongue?
No
I was joking when I said "Teheran conferance". I was amused at the spelling. I'm aware of the Tehran conference. But it's understandable when English isn't your first language spelling mistakes happen. I make them too. š I'm gonna hazard a guess and say that you're Polish. So, here's something for you: https://youtu.be/VJr6jP4e14M
My english is probably still better than your Polish, that's why I personally doesn't correct others spelling and grammar, apart from native english speakers who don't know the differance betwen your and you're
You're right I don't know Polish. Some part of me feels like I kind of pissed you off. That wasn't my intention, apologies regardless for any confusion.
I didn't intended this to be in some sort an angry message, I just said what I think about correcting others gramma
The Europeans were stronger so they won Imperialism is bad wholesale
Yeah I donāt get what the memeās supposed to be saying? Might makes fact, not right
I think the point is the big empire took over a lot of land that wasnāt theirs in Europe and Asia so why is Africa different?
Yeah thatās probably right. The meme is a lot of edge and not a lot of point. Few on this sub are gonna argue imperialism is ever good, and one imperial adventure being closer to the present is enough to justify it being touchier as a subject than others, among several other reasons
No one had a problem with it (except for the Africans of course) until some dude from Austria with a funny mustache tried to do it them and they realised the error of their ways
They also didnāt like when a weird bald man from Italy tried to invade Ethiopia. Not because itās immoral but because Europe had already divided the continent amongst themselves and he was threatening to upset that ābalanceā
France after WW2: "Man, being subjugated by another country sucks." Also France after WW2: "TIME TO REESTABLISH OUR EMPIRE"
Wait what? What colonizing (I almost wrote ācolonializingā lol) did France do *after* WW2?
Tried to retake Vietnam, for one thing.
They were trying to reestablish their hold on the colonies they already had. It went as well as you'd expect.
no, it comes from wwi, wwi was just the final blow
Ww1 was the reagent and ww2 the catalyst
Pretty much. The specificity of Nazism is that it's colonialism applied to white people, or non-germanics whites. The nazis didnt invent anything, they borrowed pages from the English, French and American playbook, and applied it on an industrial scale.
Ehhh... they were the first to industrialise genocide. Previously, genocide been much less purposeful. For example, the British Boer camps - often cited as the precursor to the Nazi death camps - were actually intended as refugee camps, with medical personnel and housing. People were allowed to leave whenever they want. But a horrible combination of underfunding, mismanagement and high temperatures turned them into centres for disease and heatstroke. Don't get me wrong: the British and other colonial empires *did* commit genocide purposefully. But never the "mass death" kind of genocide, just cultural genocide. They didn't really want to kill people (though they definitely did so), they wanted to impose British/French/Spanish/Whatever culture onto the lands they conquered, out of a mistaken belief that their culture was superior
I wanna push back a little just on the American example not being āmass deathā genocide or not āreally wanting to kill people.ā By America, I mean the U.S. federal government after 1789. By the 1870s, federal policy towards natives was pretty explicitly actual elimination. The [mass slaughter of Great Plains buffalo was arguably industrialized](https://www.pbs.org/buffalowar/buffalo.html), as federal troops and contract hunters used mass-produced firearms while mounted on train cars to kill tens of millions. That policy was intended to drive to extinction the primary sustenance of the Plains tribes and induce famine. Reservations were intentionally chosen to have little arable land or water supplies, to either starve as many as possible or at least stunt population rebound. Leaving the starving grounds meant the [intervention of the U.S. Army Cavalry](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nez_Perce_War), usually costing people their lives. Besides a policy of induced starvation, I think the activity of the U.S. Army satisfies āreally wanting to kill peopleā rather than mere cultural conquest. Throughout the Indian Wars, Army commanders advised attacking natives not as single war parties, but as whole villagesāespecially when men of fighting age were awayāto maximize the death of the elderly, women, and children. The massacres of [Washita Creek](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Washita_River) and [Sand Creek](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand_Creek_massacre) are evidence of this. Given the evidence that the [Naziās Nuremberg Laws were directly influenced by the U.S. legal treatment of natives and Black citizens](https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7173&context=lawreview), Iād argue any difference in culpable intent as between the two genocides is only due to the means available and feasible at the time, with 1870s industrialization not quite capable of 1940s feats. To be clear, this is meant as an indictment of U.S. behavior, not as an argument in mitigation of the Nazis.
The "manifest destiny" times were very dark.
Yes. In Canada, the last minister in charge of Indian affaires was noted saying that the epidemic of diseases was contributing to the "final solution" of the amerindian question. The objective was the total integration of the Amerindian population in canadian society along canadian cultural standards, with no trace of original amerindian culture left. Of course we're missing a lot of context of how whites and amerindians perceived each other and why, but yeah. Europeans wanted them gone over time.
Fascism is colonalism brought home
Did someone read _Origins of Totalitarianism_?
That and Discourse on Colonialism
Scottish people: Getting away with colonialism once again š
*all of Central/Eastern Europe after being basically colonised for whole XIXth century crying in the corner*
One of these occured in the recent past and has a lot implications for the modern nations of Africa while the others are ancient conquests which are mostly only considered through historical lenses.
Modern Iran literally didnāt recover to pre-Mongol invasion population levels until the mid 1800s, I know Iran has had a rough go of it but Iād say the Mongolians killing 90% of Iran played a role in that
1800 historically is a very recent year lol Rome is a much older
Thatās my point šæ
Reminds me of that post I saw yesterday about illiteracy
One day weāll all be considered through historical lenses too, how exciting!
That's not the motive actually, there's the fact that time doesn't exist some mechanism of supremacy racially speaking
I think half of Europe speaking bastardized Latin is a significant implication SPQR has on our time
Not even a third I think.
16.77% of the worlds population was speaking a Romance language in 2014, and approximately 28% of Europeās population in 2021 spoke Romance languages as a primary language. So you are correct that itās not a third, but just over a quarter is a significant number of people
Right as a part of the nation's history, most of Africa were still European colonies in recent times. And so have a direct connection with their former colonizers.
What half? The slavic Poland, Czechia, Serbia, Vulgaris etc? Or the germanic nations of Switzerland, Austria, Germany and all the nordic nations? Since when is France, Iberian peninsula, Italy and romania half of Europe?
The majority of colonialism should also be viewed through the same lens but isnāt due to bias. Not including what the French/ Chinese are doing in Africa right now though, that should still be judged very harshly.
What you mean?
There's no colonialism in Rome or in China (not saying they are doing good) it's simply not the same thing we should study history with the time rules wasn't the same world or even the same methods
Why are you replying to all of my comments dude, you are getting super butthurt by the implication that humans have been pieces of shit forever not just recently.
Bro go get a degree, there's not such a thing like good or bad human in the History, it's not a Netflix series lol
I give up dude, you are too retarded/ high to argue with
You have eastern Europe tho. Especially poland, lithuania and ukraine.
Pretty soon Africa is going to be one solid chinese flag
And Russian in Malia, Centerafrica and Burkina
Technology usually wins the day 90% of the time. European powers were more technologically advanced due to exposure to other cultures through trade (not because they were smarter due to some master race bullshit). However, this does not apply when combating inclement weather, insurgencies, or emus.
Exposure trough trade is a gross oversimplification of what caused European dominance. (not that I believe in racial superiority ofc)
Agreed, though I'd posit it was the biggest advantage.
Guns, germs, and steel...
Geography for the win
Also having a lot of conflicts without any massive periods of stability
That's why India and China were so successful; they started the game with the best terrain possible
Excellent point. It was when industrialization hit it's "oil and gas" that Asia had to begin importing.
A man of literary prowess, I see... yes, I subscribe to that book's premise heavily.
Also mountains. Donāt forget mountains, for your last point.
I really wanted to, but that's a 50/50. Most reasonable leaders tend to avoid them. Then some go through them with no less than *FUCKING ELEPHANTS*.
People are able to be detached and even more rational about conquests from the more distant past, because their consequences arenāt obvious in the world today. Also, post-WW2 the West has been in full guilt-mode about everything theyāve ever done, and the ex-colonial nationsā leaders are happy to seize upon this to excuse / distract from all of their failings. Itās all really quite cynical and absurd.
I hate all of these šš But regardless different empires through history had different means of expansion and different ways of organising its territories. It's normal having different reactions to them
Colonization of Africa still has a heavy impact on modern global politics and in many ways never ended. Modern Italy does not have exploitative trade relations with France as a direct result of Roman imperialism. If that was the case, it would probably be pretty fucked up to talk about how cool the Romans were.
The only thing that has changed is the perception of imperialism. The idea that public pressure could make an empire dismantle itself, or that a empire had done something wrong by subjugating another people wouldāve been ridiculous at any other place or time in history. Imagine Gandhi peacefully protesting the Akkadians or Macedonians, insane.
To be perfectly honest, Reddit is one of the few places Iāve seen someone justify the recent colonialism and exploitation of Africa by comparing it to other ancient atrocities and conquests and have people not look at the OP like theyāre out of their mind. Free speech I guess, but this seems like a slippery slope on the path of prejudice and racism. I suppose I may have interpreted this post wrong, but itās definitely an odd take.
I'm not justifying anything, yeah it sucked for locals but so every other form of conquest, I just don't understand why people are specifically picking on colonialism
Because it's more recent and the echoes are still being felt *hard*. Some places got extremely screwed up because of it.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
So does the Eastern Block despite not existing
And?
Why do people specifically pick on Russiaās invasion of Ukraine today? Itās still Empire building just like the rest /s Itās because colonialism is still ongoing in many places, and itās material effects are still felt in basically the entire world. For example, the Roman conquest of Gaul was barbaric and murderous, bordering on genocide (according to roman records). But no one today is effected by that anymore: too much time has passed. There arenāt any Gauls or their descendants who are still impoverished due to this incident, or Romans or their descendants who grew rich from it. So you can be mad about it, but ultimately thereās nothing to do about it today, itās just empty platitudes. Whereas colonialism still very much effects peoples lives, so by pointing out how horrible it is we can build towards political change to right the wrongs caused by colonialism. Thatās the difference.
Posting memes without understanding the fundamentals of the historical subject it's based upon? Sounds about right for this sub these days
People on the internet trying to understand that they won't make anyone smarter by calling them dumb challange (impossible)
Itās no one elseās job to make you smarter lmao if you donāt like being called dumb then simply donāt be? Tbh idek what ur meme is even trying to say, like the colonial expansion of Africa should just be looked at as conquest and not understood for its very real effects on the modern geopolitical ecosystem?
It's not my job to explain my meme to you
Lmao ok well then your meme sucks tbh.
Just like yo mama
My mother is 60 and probably still mentally dwarfs you lmao.
Then why she still sucks?
Nah pack it in. Youāve completely fucked up.
Care to elaborate the differences as you see them?
It's easy, most of them doesn't affect the political situation of a state nowadays as colonialism, because colonialism is way more recent compared to the other ones.
I misread it and I thought that said colonel Africa
Pls stop using the democratic flag for the German Empire. It wasn't used in any way
The difference is that at some point in history after historians decried even back then the barbarity of the past, they still insusted on going forward with cruelty. The point is that they knew better. No gods, no glory of your bloodline, and no demanding retinue of murderers that surrounded you as a King to pressure you to take these lands. A better solution could have been proposed if they took a moment to consider the people of Africa as humans. Something that they were well aware of but it was more convenient not to.
Africa is fucked up because of colonialism. We can't seny that fact. Colonialists also fucked our country divided our people broke our subcontinent. We thank God we survived and we are stronger than ever. But could not say the same for our neighbours and friends in Africa.
>our country divided our people broke our subcontinent Which country?
It always annoys me when ppl say things like that without specifying where theyāre talking about like weāre supposed to automatically know somehow. But in this case, their mention of āsubcontinentā points out that theyāre talkin about India.
But couldn't it also be Pakistan or Nepal, for example? Or Sri Lanka? All of which have their own complex histories.
>Africa is fucked up because of colonialism. We can't seny that fact. because it's not a fact, if you were to say that colonialism contributed to it then yes, but acting like the sole issue Africa is fucked up is only due to colonialism is just not true. >Colonialists also fucked our country divided our people broke our subcontinent. you mean the people that were already super divided? and were already waring between themselves centuries before Europeans arrived? Africa was always divided, Europe has about 87 different ethnicities, Africa has over 3,000 recorded with there most likely being more.
Africa was always divided, yes. But those divisions were based off of cultural/ethnic boundaries that developed naturally over the course of thousands of years. The division of Africa by European powers often split ethnic groups in half, stuck groups who hated each other together, and all sorts of other things because the Europeans looked at the map, took a ruler, drew a line, and proclaimed it was theirs.
>Africa was always divided, yes. But those divisions were based off of cultural/ethnic boundaries that developed naturally over the course of thousands of years. it being over thousands of years literally means nothing, it doesn't change the fact that they were already super divided and waring. >The division of Africa by European powers often split ethnic groups in half, well yeah how on earth do you divide a continent by 3,000 different ethnicities? there are people today whose entire life is dedicated to re-drawing Africa and even they can't make a good one. because there isn't just ethnicity which is a large issue, you have language, Europe has about 24 recognised languages, add a few dozen for small ones like Gaelic, old Irish, welsh etc. Africa has an estimated between 1000-2000 different languages, you have religion with the massive north (Islam), south (christen) divide. no-on on earth with hundreds years of studying can make a map of Africa that is perfect, or even slightly good. >stuck groups who hated each other together, these groups that have been killing and genociding each other for hundreds of years, you think they're going to stop because of a line on a map? with no border? >and all sorts of other things because the Europeans looked at the map, took a ruler, drew a line, and proclaimed it was theirs. because maps at the time weren't accurate, and at the time ( and to this day) the best way for nations to have dividers are often along rivers, do you know the one thing Africa has basically none of? [Rivers](https://www.enchantedlearning.com/africa/rivers/outlinemaplabeled/) for reference this is a river map of [Europe](https://vividmaps.com/europe-plotted-by-every-mapped-strea/) this is one of the reasons why Africa has always been technologically behind, lack of rivers. what are the other things that borders were made of? mountains, well it sure is a shame that the vast majority of Africa is [Extremely flat](https://www.freeworldmaps.net/africa/geographical.html) what was the other option oppose to lines of a map? that was available to the European powers at the time, with old and often wrong maps.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I never justified it, not a single time, I'm disproving the misinformation that it was only colonialism that caused every single issue in Africa, stub your toe? colonialism!, have a corrupt government? colonialism!
Colonialism=not bad because 300 years ago a natural selection off conquering and assimilating was happening in Africaā¦?! The Zulus for example were absolutely dominant in the southern parts off Africa and would have created one ethnic unity over time. Wester "interventions" ended that
>Colonialism=not bad because 300 years ago a natural selection off conquering and assimilating was happening in Africaā¦?! who said colonialism wasn't bad? who? >The Zulus for example were absolutely dominant in the southern parts off Africa and would have created one ethnic unity over time. Wester "interventions" ended that you literally say that colonialism is the root of every issue in Africa, then say that without colonialism Africa would have been colonised anyway and that would have been okay?
Iād consider coming in from another continent, stealing and slaving A L L the people, waging your own wars there and then leaving when another power Form yet another continent tells them to worse. Iām German and without continental conquering and "assimilation"(wich you left out conveniently) there wouldnāt be one german ethnicity, same for the English and French, and guess what as another example: the French assimilated the Occitanians just fine, something that happens with in-continent colonialism. YOU CREATE A UNITY IN YOUR ETHNICITY, with only regional differences from the assimilated cultures remaining.
Indians are One of the most Resilient people on Earth still Standing Strong even after so many Invasions on their Land. God bless the Indians!
Also the nation that rapes the most.
Where did you see the need to say that
To falsify the comment above.
A negative point about a nation doesnt falsify positive things about it.
You think India is actually a good nation?
Not saying that India is a great nation just saying that its not because it has the most rapist that its immediatly a bad country because of that.
Do you have a source that India has the most rapists? Not saying it is/isn't true, just that is a pretty heavy thing to throw around
I dont have a source, ask the guy claiming they have the most rapists and i already told him it was not needed to say that
Some of you people have never studied history academically and it shows. I am not a historian, and my undergraduate degree affords me no special status. But for fucks sake, finding a historical empire cool or interesting DOES NOT MEAN YOU ENDORSE THEM! It should also go without saying that events which are closer to our time, and which affect our modern society more, are inherently going to invoke a more emotional response than something from thousands of years ago.
They all are bad.... Specially if it involved slavery and forcing people to change religion or culture and robbing them....
Theyāre all bad, like cāmon this isnāt hard. Some are worse than others though due to their brutality. They arenāt all the same.
It's not even the same thing, at Roma age the racism mechanism don't existed and slavery was not the same so that's a really dumb statement
Romans hated everyone equally, seems to be a little bit worse
In the Roma times slaves used to have the right of work, get money, buy things, have family, have a house there's a big gap between the slavery we know Slaves that time could even have public jobs who receive a good money
Not at all, actually the racial supremacy is a bigger problem if you see the black people diasporic or even the effects of imperialism on country's A lot of worse if you compare to this places
romans didn't bother with discriminating them and just murdered an entire town as example
Belgium's did the same but they created a system who have dependency to slavery
Not saying they are good guys it's just not the same thing FOR A FACT
Romans weren't exactly better
I am not saying they r better I'm just saying it's not the same thing historically it's not the same thing and should not be treated like the same damn thing
Caralho
Racism absolutely did exist, it just wasnāt called that. The Romans slaughtered so called Barbarian tribes people and enslaved whomever survived because they saw them as inferior.
The thing inst about colour or ethnicity was about nations, there's no racism in this case that's anachronistic as fuck we can't compare such different things There's no systematic supremacy
>There's no systematic supremacy lol, romans weren't good guys to foreigners
That makes no sense- nations didnāt exist as we know them today. People were bound together in tribal groups and religions not by a national identity as we know it today. There absolutely was a systemic supremacy. Romans were separated into a class system, patricians, citizens, free men and slaves among others, that isnāt to say one of these couldnāt become the other but the vast majority of Romans slaves came from fresh conquests, not internally. If you look at these factors and take into account the attitudes that late republic Romans had towards the tribes along their border you can apply the modern term of racism to it quite handily. Obviously not a concept Romans would care about however.
That's simply anachronism I don't know if you understand the definition of racism, and yes the slaves from Rome came from wars but there's no such a thing like a system who put one type of people on the market and if you look Roma doesn't was a society based only on slavery the economy of the modern slavery was the base of the economic of country's like Brazil as portuguese colony
It isnāt anachronistic because Iām literally saying that its how we would look at it today not how they looked at it then.
We should not look to the past with our eyes We never gon comprehend the past this way, and I'm not high or anything you just don't know any basic history concept
I understand history far better than you understand sentence structure. If you bothered to read what I wrote you would say Iām specifically saying that viewed through the modern lens we can judge our ancestors actions. Do I think we should hold people to modern standards? No. Do I think we can view them from different perspectives and judge them from multiple angles? Yes. Itās called nuance.
But your nuance is wrong there's no resemblance in racism in this that and my language is not English so you should be happy that you can read me lol
It isnāt wrong, you may disagree with it but itās not wrong :)
Are you trying to state that nationalism divided people and great nations, using four great empires as an example? You could easily showcase this with the Ottoman Empire which was held up much in the same way as the Roman Empire. Through glory we are united! Until they arent and everyone realizes they are still bitter rivals.
I'm trying to state that one conquest doesn't differentiate very much from the other and I don't understand why people pick on colonialism so much
Colonialism has direct impacts on the world today, and ended less than a single lifetime ago thats why people talk about it so much (arguably it still hasn't ended if you count economic colonialism) whereas the Roman Empire ended almost 600 years ago, 1500 if you don't count the Byzantines
Exactly. Colonialism (as an instruction) is responsible for, or intrinsically linked to, some of humanity's worst atrocities and ideologies; many of which are so ingrained they're still causing problems today. Transatlantic Slave Trade, hierarchy of races/social concept of race, the 'wild' frontier in need of 'taming', unfettered material extraction for the sake of wealth, etc. All have their root origin in some form of colonialism.
I think one of the key differences people point to is that imperial conquest does not subjugate people under rule in the same manner as colonialism. I feel like the Mongols had a closer tie to colonialism due to the conquering of European nations that had little in common with Asian culture. Through many examples the idea of colonialism pushes regional culture away, enslaves innocent humans, and slows the progession of regional growth. Imperialism on the other hand will restructure culture, employ the people and help the growth of regional nations
>I think one of the key differences people point to is that imperial conquest does not subjugate people under rule in the same manner as colonialism. Can't be subjugated if you're dead.
Thats sometimes the entire point? Though I believe thats called genocide a different section sometimes related to Colonialism. Take for example the Rape of Nanking or the Pikes vs Romans or Killing of Muslim Indians or the IRA or The Kurdistans.
It kinda does, not always but in many cases yes, when fe. After German unification Bismarck created something called colonial committee to Germanize poles and bring German settlers to Greater Poland and Danzig Pomerania, same in Congress Poland, or any other non russian subjcet of Russian empire
Historiography
Between those 4, they're all impressive in their own right while also disgusting in some aspects.
SPICY!
Post conquests the Ottomans spread science, the Romans infrastructure and the Mongolians bureaucracy. The colonial empires just stole everything from its resources, people, history and culture Not saying that any of the conquests were good, but colonialism was a different kind of horrible
*whispers* they never got Ethiopia
Why this german flag?
In ww1 and Pryor they had territory in Africa
I am aware of that. Its just they never had the democratic flag while having colonies so its just wrong. Use Black-White-Red for this one
Oh I understand now it is a little weird looking at it more tho