• barsoap
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    If it was slavery then why didn’t Africa develop that quickly? They’re the ones who sold the slaves!

    • sharedburdens [she/her, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Because they weren’t the ones working the slaves to death in Caribbean plantations. Have you read any history?

      Also there were plenty of indigenous slaves taken, whole generations worked to death in mines to send silver back to europe

      • barsoap
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        No they did it in Africa.

          • barsoap
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            …for centuries if not millennia at quite low ROI and then Europeans came along with fancy ships and the capacity to conquer more fertile places earning quite a bit more dough per slave.

            As said: The primary cause of Europe’s wealth is early technological development, at scale, and in breadth, enabled because lots of food could be produced with comparatively small workforce.

            • Yes, the europeans showed up to profit-maximize the slavery process. That was the technological innovation, the boats helped, but the main part of the equation was translating huge amounts of human suffering into money, and then re-investing it. You’re hyping up Europeans technology up a little too much, chauvinists tend to. Europe was a plague-ridden backwater for centuries before they opted to sacrifice endless humans to Moloch. They “invented” all sorts of science to tell themselves it was the ‘natural order’.

              Based on how you’re responding you do think this is a good thing though and are giving it positive spin.

              • barsoap
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’m merely saying how things are, why Europe was in the position it was, why it has the edge it has. You know, material realism.

                • Yes, and that’s why I point out that it’s silly to say ‘these are both colonial empires’ when one has had two major changes in government since then, and affected far fewer people. Unless you’re trying to be essentialist about Russians as colonizers or something it makes no sense.

                  • barsoap
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Have you ever talked to, say, an Estonian? Muscovy colonised, the Russian Empire colonised, the USSR colonised, the Russian federation… tries to colonise.

                    Also you’re the only one talking about the US, here. IDGAF categorise them as lizard people for all I care.