• 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.

                  • Also you’re the only one talking about the US, here.

                    They’re the other major party in the proxy war? The EU is a junior partner at this point.

                    There’s plenty of examples of horrific British, French Spanish colonization, the Dutch are responsible for inventing the triangle trade of slaves to the Americas (with the profits going to Europe, hence triangle) in the first place. Some of those have actually had governments change since then too.

                    The US gets brought up because it’s the global hegemon, driving so much of these political tensions. You don’t get to pretend its blood-soaked record doesn’t exist lmao.