• 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.

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

                    A proxy war? Who is using Russia as a proxy? Words have meanings, you know. This is a war of conquest, and a very direct one at that. You can tell by how the aggressor has already legally (as in “Russian law”, not “international law”) incorporated parts of the defendant’s territory into itself.

                    Also there’s exactly two reasons why the US is in this: a) glee at Russia willingly running into another Afghanistan and b) because Europe is. The US can’t countenance the impression that Europe does military things without it but if Trump were to be elected tomorrow and turned the country to isolationism European support for Ukraine would stand fast.