/lit/ - Literature

>>11133346
daily remind that Europeans are such hypocrites that they had to fabricate myths in order to invade other countries
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_Peril

>>11133346
bad because now the niggers act like they're entitled to everything

I'm most interested in the pro-Colonial position. I've been facing down rabid leftists lately who tell me that I "stole the land from the peaceful natives" and "subjugated the whole world to slavery and brutality." I don't deny that that's true in part, but I suspect there is another side to the story. Or is there...maybe there's a reason for white guilt after all.

>>11133359
Did you go and steal the land personally?

>>11133402
No, but I'm white and I live in North America

>>11133414
cuck

>>11133402
What does that have to do with you then? The world is ever changing there is no point regressing hundreds of years of history and feeling guilt. Muslims don't feel guilt for the crimes they've committed, neither do Christians or Jews

>>11133346
>Was European colonialism a good or bad thing overall?
If you consider the long run, yes. I can 100% sure of it. Why you ask? Simple: the colonial process helped to integrate regions to a world market in such a scale that made such places need to interect to one another. Colonial elites, including non-colonizer's elite's were able to go to european universitys in order to study and have a high education, with in turn left many of such local elites educated in european ways make their own independence process. Of course, it would be a lie to denny the negative effects of colonization. The european colonizers made social structures that weren't natural to some regions and their economys didn't evolved to the industrial/knowledge stage that majority of developed countrys are today. Of course, this isen't 100% euroepan falty, but the europeans have a finger on it.
European colonization allowed for colonial regions to understand and desire european concepts that are in general universaly good, such as nationalism, democracy or even the concept of human rights.
You can't deny the bad that colonization did, but ignoring the good it did is just ideological fallacy, in the long run, the colonization is what took many nations out of the limbo, like China, Japan, Angola, Egypt and so on.
>Also, any good books on the subject?
Personaly, I don't know any. It would be very nice to see one book talking about the good outcomes of colonization, but I think it will be hard to have a newer one who isen't as ideological blind as the ones who are all "kill whitey". And if someone say "hur dur, slavery" remind such person about the fact that there was slavery everywhere, from everyone, from every fucking place
> I want to learn about the history of colonialism, preferably from both anti-colonial and pro-colonial perspectives.
I will check my shelf for you, OP, brb. But I don't think I have many books about colonialism itself alone.

>>11133353
It's sad that people fabricate myths in order to invade other countries*
Fixed for you
>>11133354
Back to /pol/
>>11133359
>stole the land from the peaceful natives
>subjugated the whole world to slavery and brutality
This bullshit can be said from several african, asian and middle east empires. This is all a bunch of half-thruts by the leftist narrative.
>subjugated the whole world to slavery and brutality
There always is
>maybe there's a reason for white guilt after all
The reason is are groups of people holding positions of power who share a common ideological agenda. They don't realy care about their reality, they care about a narrative, I will see if I can remember of something somewhat "pro-colonial", stuff that I doubt I will have or know, but still, give me some time, brb to tell you.

>>11133414
>Americans
>White

>>11133445
>Canadian, desu

>>11133346
>>11133444
Hello, it's me again. I shall now make tl;dr for you and idk how long it will be, I may need more than one post. So let's go.
Like I said, I don't own any pro-colonial books. I know much less about pro-colonial books, but I do have books that touch on the history of colonized places (I live in a country that was a ex-colony itself), so let me lay some for you with I shall use too to lay my explanation in why colonialism, on the long run, had more positive effects than negative ones.

Historia do Brasil - Boris Fausto
Raízes do Brasil - Sergio Buarque de Holanda
Visões do Paraíso - Sergio Buarque de Holanda
Os Donos do Poder - Raimundo Faoro
História do Brasil Nação, 1808 - 2010 (5 Vols.) - Organized by Lilia Moritz Schwarcz
Historia das Ideias Políticas do Brasil - Nelson Nogueira Saldanha
History of the Arab Peoples - Albert Hourani
The Red Flag, History of Communism - David Priestland
History of Africa (9 Vols.) - UNESCO (link for digital editions bellow, they are BIG books)
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/general-history-of-africa/volumes/
The Era Series (3 vols.) - Eric Hobsbawn
A Segunda Guerra Fria - Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira
Japan from Prehistory to Modern times - John W. Hall
The Pocket History of the United States - Allan Nevins
A History of Warfare - John Keagan
The Concept of the Political - Carl Shimitt
Decline and Fall of the Ottoman Empire - Alan Warwick Palmer
Sex and Repression in Savage Society - Bronislaw Malinowski
The Prince - Maquiavel
Ancient Mexico - Maria Longhena
World Order - Henry Kissinger

I think that is now pretty clear from with ex-colony country I come, but in my next post, I shall tell you, OP, why colonialism should be considered good on the longrun, and why, who says otherwise, is either wrong, or acting on bad faith.

>>11133346
>>11133444
>>11133629
So let me begin.
First, what is colonialism? A lot of people like to cry about colonialism, but they don't even know what colonialism is. True that some social sciences people (who are realy stupid) like to say even the crusades were some form of colonialism, but such people are actualy just anti-european, with in it's own a very stupid thing. Soo, I shall use this definition of colonialism:
"the use of force, be it economical, military or political, in other to hold control of a certain region and economicaly exploit it, while trying to integrate it to the political body"
I made it myself because this is what you see time and time again in colonial situations.You can challenge such definition if you so wish.

1. What are the motivations of colonization?
This is a hard question because there isen't one simple awnser. The most common one, specialy when you see the european powers sharing Africa, is that is economicaly motivated. The reason colonial process happens, is because the societal forces are looking for resources to exploit and markets to sell. This is partialy true. We can see in history that colonization is also a question of being able to start a new life, run from opressive systems, ideological ideals and in general, a natural will of the human species to keep growing. In the greek city-states, colonization was a form of lower rank family members to try their luck in greener lands, with weren't bound to family relations in their home lands. The greek colonization (as well as the fenician) wasen't about a political body growing bigger, it was more about the oportunity of a better life. This mindset goes until the age of navigation that was started with Portugal. The search for one indian route to buy spices, there was no colonial process in itself. Portugal only hold in the start outposts in the middle of Africa and India to trade with the African societys and empire's. It later shifted to a larger scale colonization in the Americas by then and Spain in order to economicaly exploit a large and desert region and spread christianity on the native population, so it isen't only a economical wish, is also a ideological one, that is, spreading catholicism in this new land and fight against the reformation that was going in Europe at the time. And, at a individual level, the europeans societys were very opressive to the average joe. Laws and taxation crippled many, and many of the unwanted members of society came to the americas in order to start a new life, and maybe have a better life than in europe. Adventurous and risk? Yes, but this is one of the things that every brazilian historian says and with a good reason: the portuguese people were adventurous by nature. Later on, already after the XVII century, you can see that people did truly believe that colonization was a good thing, not only because of money. You can see this specialy on more on the first interpretations of US colonization: that they
Part 1..

The european is an animal who likes blood, they have a will to destroy everything and everyone in the name of what they call progress. To them nothing else matters apart from their own belly. Now the polar bears are dying, the sky is about to fall on our heads. They will die too, and they don't even give a shit.

>>11133695
stop posting anime pictures I have trouble taking you seriously

>>11133346
Very bad. We managed to destroy cultural diversity, replace it with homogeneous consumerism, and give deadly weapons to subhumans in one giant clusterfuck.

>>11133695
... realy believed and did what they did because it was the will of God, and their sucess was just a reflection of such will. This isen't limited to the Europeans tho.
The arabs and later on, turks, did make a colonial process in very similar wishes to the ones europeans did. Althought arab colonization wasen't as large scale or state policy as in Europe and so on, the wish to get trade, spread their faith and culture and in general have more land to exploit, made groups such as the turks to have systems in with the sultan himself would spend sometime in newly conquered regions for such regions to know who their new master was. And this touches on the second thing I shall speak about.

2. Slavery and Exploitation
A colony, by defalt, needs to have economical exploitation. Otherwise isen't realy a very lucrative place, and colonys are expensive. In Brazil, colonial elites had to do manual job just to barely scrap by, and the portuguese HATED manual labour, thats why they used slavery. Slavery was very lucrative business and a very effcient economical system for a long period of history. Until the industrial revolution, the way people taught about wealthy was in the quantity of land a person or country holds, and this has a good reason, because you needed land to eat, and if you don't eat, you die and dont make richs. But non-mechanized large scale farming is FUCKING HARD. People died sometimes farmed and still hardly lived, Their diet was poor and their bodys got destroyed by the repetitive and arduous labour. Slavery was a way that people, specialy from early civilizations, found to counter this hardness of farming. The slave, isen't realy a person, he is more of a thing. And even if he is a person, he isen't a person like me, so anything that happens to him, shouden't be my concern (Schimitt lays very well this stuff of ' us vs then ', and this is very visible specialy in the muslim world and ancient europe). The slaves are pushed to their limit, they often die in hard labour, but they are a form to generated products that can be put to their limit without a moral guilty or without caring for their well being, because they aren't like me and my countrymen. This economical system is said to be one of the downfalls of the Roman Empire: they stoped their expansion, as such, no more slaves, as such, no more labour force for a slave economy. On the middle ages, there was slavery, specialy on the muslim world, and the muslim world may be worse because the first slave rebellion on history was there, and the muslims had a very complicated system of who and how you can be put to slavery. Basicaly it follows this logic:
>You are a muslim. You can't be a slave.
>You are a non-muslim, you can be a slave.
>You are a non-muslim who converted to islam. Well, I need to know exactly how to deal with you...
And so on. And this slavery by the muslims is kinda of fucked. The person who created the wahabbism, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, said that...
Part2

>>11133707
This is prejudice and you should stop with it. There are better prejudices out there to have. Anyway, moving on...
>>11133770
... any muslim (he didn't used the term muslim) who didn't follow this branch of islam, isen't realy a muslim. So the wahabbi tribes and followers were free to pillage and slave other muslims, because "they weren't real muslims". Until today slavery is a problem in muslim majority countrys, althought they publicaly deny the use "slave" term, the working conditions are the same, not to mention the human traffiking, forced marriages, abuse of human rights, and so on. Even funnier is to see the mental gynastics of BLM members or other leftists to talk about African slavery. Places like the Kingdom of Mali were full of slaves of all kinds, this is even said in the UNESCO collection of history of Africa. The subsaharan africans were a vital part in the slave trade with the muslim world and european colonizers, not only that, they sold slaves to one another. So Africa isen't a place full of roses like these liers like to put.
In the Americas, the native population wasen't very good at the european labour logic, specialy in Brazil. Here, they indians didn't liked to be pushed to their limit, and fleed deeper and deeper into the continent, promoting resistance and geting harder and harder to get. One form of expedition, the "bandeiras" were long and big travels by colonizers to find indian tribes and slave then. Eventualy, the introduction of african slaves made it much easier. The african slaves were of mixed tribes, so they didn't realy understand one another; the africans were more used to the european work logic, thus were more tolerant of the unlimited work they had to do, unlike the indians. The spanish americas used indians too, but the indian in spanish american wasen't like the brazilian indian. The brazilian indian was much more primitive, he didn't have reached the "classical" period, that is, they werent urbanized like many aztecs, mayas or incas. I can be wrong in this, but this is my understading of the situacion. I can't say clearly about the US tho, because I don't know if there was proper slavery of native north americans as there was slavere of native population of latin america. Anyway, all this I am saying is the slavery meme is a hoax. Slavery is a universal and, worst yet, NATURAL. And it isen't because it's natural that is good, just saying. Slavery was also a social status thing. The chinese serfs that remind me more of slaves, and the more you had, the greater you were! And how did people took the slaves? By war, of course! And this is going to be my next point.

3. Violence, war and social structures of colonialism
It's very funny the lie people say about slave populations. People like to claim that they were peacefull and full of love for nature, so let me tell you, how full of shit this is. For example, in Africa, there were groups 100% dedicated to slave trade, why? Because, with ...
Part 3

>>11133444

>>11133346
>>11133359
If you want pro-colonial read Victor Hugo and Alexis De Tocqueville. The stance is that colonisation is justified in the name of bringing civilization.

>>11133837
... or without europeans and arabs, there was a big market for slaves! One of the major commodities by Mali and their subsequent empires was slavery. The barbary states in northern africa were infamous because of slavery, one of the reasons for the barbary wars was to free western slaves captured during naval raids, and this is from XIX century foward! We are amoust at the the first world war and slavery, not only for labour reasons, still a thing. Even in our loved Iliad you can see that slavery was a big thing when it comes to goods productions. Both christianity and islam didn't realy prohibited slavery. Both give instructions on how to deal and who can be a slave. Quran and the Hadith itself have some passages dealing with this: https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/slavery.aspx . But enought of slavery, the question is war. After the industrial revolution, specialy, you can see a change of heart. Althought many europeans believe and did done stuff to end slavery (the british, for example, were a major torn in the ass of brazilian slave owners for decades), the needs for raw materials and markets to sell was very real. Ideologies apart (like the belief in free-trade boasted by liberals and some conservatives), many wars were held just to open markets to trade. This stills happening today, but this is another topic for later on. The Opioum Wars were a major example of colonial wishes for markets to sell. Japan invasion of Corea and later on China and the Pacific was due to raw resources and markets. And so on... This lead to many social structures and ways to deal with colonial regions. The british were a bit smarter, they puppeted local elites and gave them european support as long as they cooperated; in Brazil, there was a wish to make the population more white, so the government eventualy made state-policy for whites to marry indian women (this also was in part due to a lack of girls in the colony), because the indian was well saw, unlike black populations. Keep in mind that the blacks were always the lowest of the low in this colonial sctructure, even if they helped colonizers, like the tutsi who later on turned into a major victim during the Rwandan Genocide, by the hutu. Gandhi for exampled, hated blacks, in part because british colonists said indians and blacks were the same. He himself liked Hitler a lot it seens. The social structures of colonialism were done in foreign evioroments and with foreign people, so this usualy european structure didn't realy cared for native social structures. And these natives populations werent devoid of culture, as you can see in 'Sex and Repression in Savage Society' and 'Ancient Mexico'. The mesoamericans than, had all that culture of ritual sacrife and promoted wars just for taking prisioners to sacrifice, so they werent realy peace lovers. In Brazil, for example, not only the indians fight one another all the time, they fucked the enviorment realy hard. They had a field ...
Part 3

Even Marx thought colonialism was justifiable. The colonies in America, as pre-capitalist systems, had to develop their economy before being able to take part in the revolution.

The industrial revolution in Europe was only possible through the work of slaves in the colonies, and he thinks the savage exploitation of these people is totaly ok bcause it made way to the course that would lead to the revolution in europe

>>11133346
Vae victis
Might makes right in nature.
The stronger, more developed group prevailed over a primitive one. Its that simple. Once the canard of global pacifism ends, you'll see it unfold anew, humans are just advaced animals separated by groups competing for a limited earth and her resources. Invairbly conquest, colonization and genocide will happen.

>>11133896
dumb phoneposter

>>11133346
>Was European colonialism a good or bad thing overall?
Good thing. And anyone who claims not is ignorant of history.

Yes, there were atrocities committed, but they laid the foundation for a more peaceful, scientifically advanced world, where billions of different people can come together to try to understand and show empathy to another —- because that shit simply did not exist before colonialism

>>11133346
>>>/his/

fucking retard

>>11133997
How can you say the world a peaceful place now? O.o

>>11133941
Part 4* ... clearing technich that was simply put forests on fire. The colonizers later adopeted the technich and today this is a major problem in Brazil because of all the enviromental damage this does. So again, they arent tree hugging hippies. And I am tired of this topic, so let me move to the final topic before I give my conclusions.

4. Modern day colonialism
Is there modern day colonialism? If there is, I can only think of one place: Israel. Althought Israel is nowhere the devil people and /pol/tards will paint it to be, they do move palestinian and arab populations by force and put their own settlements there. If you want to talk about what happens today, you could call it imperialism. More powerfull countrys making less powerfull countrys follow their agendas by sheer power of their economies or military. 'The Red Flag, History of Communism' shows very well how even with the so called anti-colonial policy of socialist countrys and partys, the Soviets and so on just took one power to put in place another: themselfs. You can see this in Cuba, tho Cuba was nowhere as exploited as it could have been by the soviets. And this only follows a logic you can see in 'A History of Warfare', 'Prince', 'World Order', 'A Segunda Guerra Fria' and 'The Concept of the Political': everyone is fighting everyone to have some profit. And let me say this from the start: THIS IS NATURAL AND MORALY ACCEPTABLE.
It's natural because countrys are human groups, and human groups are like animals: they want the best for their group, even at the expense of another. And is moraly acceptable because this is natural selection: cultures and/or countrys who can't adapt or defend themselfs from others, shouden't be allowed to exist. This is natures way, and if you don't like it, well then, talk to God if you want tho. In the end, you can see that, no matter what, people will fight one another, and this ideology of absolute non-violece is a ideology of death, but yourselfs death.

5. The bad of colonialism
Don't be stupid: colonialism had a bad effect that still hits us this day. Ex-colony countrys usualy turned into oligarchys or dictatorships after their independence. In Africa, etnhic cleasing was happening all over because of the uncaring particion the europeans did. Also, the economical and social structures created by colonial powers perpetuated such oligarchys until this day (in Brazil, for example, until today, our elites are corrupeted, moralistic and agrarian as in the days of the colony, and it fucks us all). The underdevelopement of native populations now-a-days and genocides that happened, like in Latin America, were proof that colonialism, even if the europeans or whoever taught legitely they were doing good, made some major back impacts on these countrys.

6. The good side of colonialism
Yet, the colonization process did put several countrys who were on the limbo into a active international stage. Local elites had the oportunity to go ...
Part 5

>>11134015
... to european universities and, when coming back, they were able to make their own independence processes. European liberalism, technology and overall culture spread to their colonys and this made local populations want at some level to modernize. If today Japan or China or several countrys of Africa are something, is because of colonialism. The fact that they turn today and talk about colonial impacts are just another proof of how they had a good thing out of it at a longrun, majority of universities in Africa today were done by europeans for colonial and local elites. Human rights and other western values like that were (and somewhat still are) unheard in majority of ex-colonies, and if the population of such countries are wishing for such things, is because they learned by their colonizers.
Yes, colonization wasen't love and roses, but as I hope I have show, this populations were killing and exploiting one another for way longer than the first settlement have touched their land.
So, for the 'le critical studies of post-colonialism' I can only say one thing: kys ideological rats.

Now, I shall awnser other posts, because this is my longest TL;DR in this site. I hope I didn't bored you, OP.
Final part.

>>11133961
XD

>>11133900
This is a major idea on the heads of europeans and colonizers in general. Both the europeans, muslims and japanese taught they were making a favour spreading their way of life to others.
>>11133945
No..
>>11133950
This but less chauvinistic
>>11133997
This.
>>11134006
How can you say otherwise? On the middle ages, the war was so continuous that people taught that war was just another fact of life for the average joe. If you think that today we don't live the most peacefull period in human history, only shows the lack of history you have. This isen't to offend you, a lot of people don't know this either and this is a faulty of our education system and social sciences people. The fact that today you have something like the UN would make the ancients crazy. In classical Greece, the logic was that you was at war with everyone, and you needed to make a declaration of peace the first time you meet a new group. Today we follow the other way around: we declare wars before killing one another and don't think it's natural or acceptable to get raided.
>>11134000
He asked for book recs, fag. Learn to read.

It's natural to expand, and natural to retaliate. My country fought off Roman invasion (not always successfully) but that's not to say Roman civilization wasn't far superior to the native culture in almost every single way.

>>11134151
>ichs nachorol
wow great insight there

>>11133444
>>Was European colonialism a good or bad thing overall?
>If you consider the long run, yes.
Stopped reading

The question is impossible to answer as alternatives to our current reality are hard to fathom on a subjective level. Truth is it fucked a lot of things up and I tend to say it was overall bad.
No one knows what would have happend to those native populations had colonialism never been a thing, or how the would have developed.
For those here saying that it helped other nations "develope" I suggest you read up on Achebe, especially "Things fall apart".and also on Jamaica Kincaids essays.

>>11134151
My nigga augustus

>>11133346
Morally wrong on part of colonists. That said most of natives were human sacrificing abominations. Therefore im inclined to think European criminals taking out Native American criminals was likely an event of Divine Providence.

>>11133346
it's too early to tell

>>11133346
The South China Sea: The Struggle for Power in Asia by Bill Hayton

the first few chapters describe the colonisation of Southeast Asia. No pro/anti views though.

good for me

but bad and a bit evil on the whole

hey it was a different time

I would also like to address another thing, the neo colonialism going on right now.
Not only we, but also the Chinese are currently extorting an enormous amount of influence over Africa, a continent very rich in resources, but very low in development.
Should we be doing this? Or should we just leave these places alone and let them develop on their own?

>>11133444
>the colonial process helped to integrate regions to a world market in such a scale that made such places need to interect to one another
What is wrong with diversity?
Why does everything have to fulfill some market driven role in a global society?
What tangible benefit does that give us, maybe a few bucks less for our smartphones, or some food?
Is that worth destroying all human diversity that every existed on this planet?

> but ignoring the good it did is just ideological fallacy
But what good did it exactly do?
I can see the argument why it benefited the ancestors of the African slaves who were brought to the US, but the rest?
Why is it so necessary that Somalia becomes part of the global economy and is forced into being just like every other part of the world?
Why not leave them be and let them live like they want to.

>>11135958
why should we let people who on their own would inflict injury on other people, do as they please? This falsely leftist narrative is just as essentialist about nations as the nazi one, except it switches the focus to "lower nations" (for which being a lower form is implicit in their rhetoric) and says that they should be left to reproduce their own ways.

There are no nations, only people. And most "nations" are comprised of a few exploiting and damaging the majority. Including the "progressive west". Marx would burst out laughing at this idea.

>>11137261
So it is better the white people inflict injury into them? Colonialist always have tauted the narrative, that they are helping them, but then your whole comment is gargled garbage and I shouldn't take it to seriously.

>>11137859
reread the post

>>11133346
It was a good thing because it helped capitalism (which is the necessary precondition of the inevitable, glorious communist future) and erased the archaic economies of the natives.

>>11134645
Try a better argument after my gigantic multipost tl;dr
>>11135958
>What is wrong with diversity?
Nothing, I never said it was bad.
>Why does everything have to fulfill some market driven role in a global society?
This is less of needing to fill market driven necessity and more of forcing the regions that sometimes choose to be isolated to integrate, like China. This helped their own customs to spread too, so this helped them.
>What tangible benefit does that give us, maybe a few bucks less for our smartphones, or some food?
This is easy for us to say when we live in a modern society where there is ample chance for us to feed or buy cheap products. For majority of human history this wasen't the case and the fact that more and more people are slowly being able to do such, is just good in iteself. There is no more 1% holding everything, there is a 99% developing a more comfy life.
>Is that worth destroying all human diversity that every existed on this planet?
Diversity is just another step towards global culture. It will happen, I just can't say when

>But what good did it exactly do?
>I can see the argument why it benefited the ancestors of the African slaves who were brought to the US, but the rest?
Read my long posts. I ain't gonna write all over again. They are separeted into topics, you can very well search them
>Why is it so necessary that Somalia becomes part of the global economy and is forced into being just like every other part of the world?
>Why not leave them be and let them live like they want to.
If they were left on their own, they could very well kill themselfs and the world wouden't know. This happened in the Pascoa Island to the natives. Being part of a global society is better then being alone in the middle of nowhere.
>>11137859
>So it is better the white people inflict injury into them?
Clearly needs to reread the posts. This isen't the topic.

>>11137261
>why should we let people who on their own would inflict injury on other people, do as they please?
What else should we do?
Are the white people the gods of the world, having to save the rest of the world from their own ways and perpetually enforce their own culture world wide?

> This falsely leftist
What is "leftist" about what I wrote?

>and says that they should be left to reproduce their own ways
What else should we do, cultural Imperialism? Totalitarianism? Death camps?

>There are no nations,
Objectively that is false.

>And most "nations" are comprised of a few exploiting and damaging the majority
Even I hate my government, but I do not see this as a necessity in the slightest.

The tallest building in Africa was built by Europeans... like 60 years ago. Tells you all you need to know. Whites need to reject the best they can these jewish narratives trying to make us feel guilty for colonialism so they can wreck our nations and overrun us with these savages.

>>11138685
>Nothing, I never said it was bad.
Why do you want to eradicate it then?

>forcing the regions that sometimes choose to be isolated to integrate, like China
Why?
What is the point of enforcing anti-isolationism, if it isn't economic, then what else?
Should Tibet do the same?

>This helped their own customs to spread too, so this helped them.
Only because they emerged as a world power, with the power to spread their culture.
It is deceptive to claim they are in any way the norm, most countries which stop their isolationism just die, in a cultural sense.

>For majority of human history this wasen't the case and the fact that more and more people are slowly being able to do such, is just good in iteself
But are we really raising the standard of living worldwide?
Or are we just exploiting whatever we can find...

>Diversity is just another step towards global culture.
What a horrible threat.
But why do you claim not to hate diversity if you want a "global culture"?
These things can not possibly co exist.

>If they were left on their own, they could very well kill themselfs and the world wouden't know.
And now they kill themselves and we know, while we spend our time also killing them.

>Being part of a global society is better then being alone in the middle of nowhere.
Why would this even be true?
Why do you hate different cultures so much?
Isn't it okay for Japan to be Japanese and do things differently then the US?

>>11133346
Considering the current state of Europe and the West, it was a horrible, horrible enterprise. Not only did they spread the technology and knowledge to support growing third-world populations, but upon colonial collapse, the European nations dragged back the Dreck of world beneath their boots. Now we are racked by guilt for the crimes (and immense charity) of our ancestors.

>>11133444
>If you consider the long run, yes. I can 100% sure of it. Why you ask? Simple: the colonial process helped to integrate regions to a world market in such a scale that made such places need to interect to one another.

Anybody spouting about the merits of colonialism because of the "market" is a middling intellect or worse, an economist, but I repeat myself.

>>11139106
>European nations dragged back the Dreck of world beneath their boots.
It's mostly jews who have been responsible for that part.

>>11133414
How the fuck do you think the natives got the land they used?

>>11133359
fucking useless post

Bad. It spread cancerous civilization around the world and gave root to all the war, famine, jewings and niggerings we have going on in the world right now. The European man shouldn't try to conquer the world. We have our own native place on earth like every other race.