European colonization of the Third World - your view?

[Bobby Martnen]

I think it was mostly good, though there were some excesses, such as King Leopold.

[Smeagol]

Mostly good.

[StonyArabia]

Terrible and very bad.

By the same token we can say that Arab/Moor colonization of Iberia, Sicily and the Ottoman empire were also good to Europe.

[Bobby Martnen]

Terrible and very bad

What was bad about it? The roads, schools and hospitals that were built?

[StonyArabia]

What was bad about it? The roads, schools and hospitals that were built?

The same can be said about the Arab rule in Iberia and Sicily, yet especially the first whine about it.

[Smeagol]

Terrible and very bad.

By the same token we can say that Arab/Moor colonization of Iberia, Sicily and the Ottoman empire were also good to Europe.

The Moors could be argued as having a positive effect in culture and science, but the Ottomans not at all. They contributed nothing good to the Balkans.

[magyar_lány]

Mostly bad bc colonized were oppressed etc.

[Bobby Martnen]

Mostly bad bc colonized were oppressed etc.

Most of them were throwing rocks and sticks at each other until the British showed up.

[Bobby Martnen]

The same can be said about the Arab rule in Iberia and Sicily, yet especially the first whine about it.

That's because Cristiano Viejo is a butthurt retard.

[StonyArabia]

The Moors could be argued as having a positive effect in culture and science, but the Ottomans not at all. They contributed nothing good to the Balkans.

True. A lot of Mideasterners blame their stagnation on the Ottomans as well, and even the Turko-Persian Safavids who were much worse than the Ottomans. However since he is focusing on the positive, Arab/Moorish rule in Iberia and Sicily did have its positives and a lot of science, art, and many polymaths resulted in that area. Also the best hospitals, universities were at the time located at Cordoba. I mean despite these positive impact, Iberians don't like the Arab/Moor rule, because like everyone else they don't like to be ruled by strangers, this what I am trying to say, even if Europeans did have some positive impact during colonization which they did in some areas, it's still was bad form the point of view of the locals. However a lot of European empires were like the Ottomans especially the Spanish and Portuguese, they offered nothing to the locals, and to lesser extent true of the British, but it their colonial relationship differed from interacting with Amerindians and Africans then they did with Arabs and Indians, due to the latter group being and having ancient established civilizations.

[Bobby Martnen]

True. A lot of Mideasterners blame their stagnation on the Ottomans as well, and even the Turko-Persian Safavids who were much worse than the Ottomans. However since he is focusing on the positive, Arab/Moorish rule in Iberia and Sicily did have its positives and a lot of science, art, and many polymaths resulted in that area. Also the best hospitals, universities were at the time located at Cordoba. I mean despite these positive impact, Iberians don't like the Arab/Moor rule, because like everyone else they don't like to be ruled by strangers, this what I am trying to say, even if Europeans did have some positive impact during colonization which they did in some areas, it's still was bad form the point of view of the locals. However a lot of European empires were like the Ottomans especially the Spanish and Portuguese, they offered nothing to the locals, and to lesser extent true of the British, but it their colonial relationship differed from interacting with Amerindians and Africans then they did with Arabs and Indians, due to the latter group being and having ancient established civilizations.

The Europeans offered Amerindians and Africans a more advanced civilization.

[Smeagol]

True. A lot of Mideasterners blame their stagnation on the Ottomans as well, and even the Turko-Persian Safavids who were much worse than the Ottomans. However since he is focusing on the positive, Arab/Moorish rule in Iberia and Sicily did have its positives and a lot of science, art, and many polymaths resulted in that area. Also the best hospitals, universities were at the time located at Cordoba. I mean despite these positive impact, Iberians don't like the Arab/Moor rule, because like everyone else they don't like to be ruled by strangers, this what I am trying to say, even if Europeans did have some positive impact during colonization which they did in some areas, it's still was bad form the point of view of the locals. However a lot of European empires were like the Ottomans especially the Spanish and Portuguese, they offered nothing to the locals, and to lesser extent true of the British, but it their colonial relationship differed from interacting with Amerindians and Africans then they did with Arabs and Indians, due to the latter group being and having ancient established civilizations.

European Colonists built the greatest country in the world.

[Bobby Martnen]

European Colonists built the greatest country in the world.

And retard commies destroyed another great society, Rhodesia.

[StonyArabia]

European Colonists built the greatest country in the world.

No one disagrees with that. It was northwest Europeans who did in fact create the greatest and most powerful country in science, art and human culture which is the U.S. Despite the U.S which did have some negative history and elements like the enslavement of Africans and the conquering of Amerindians, there is no doubt that it's contribution to civilization and humanity is immense.

I doubt the U.S would be great if it was founded by Dagos. Look at Argentina or better Uruguay, which has more similar parallels.

[Zuh]

Good love it. Because of that all my Mexican family members have strong obvious Atlanto med Atlantic Basque and Alpine features that features of our oppressors.

[Marmara]

First World, Third World terms were invented during Cold War.

European colonization was good for whom? For Europeans.

[El_Abominacion]

Regarding ALL historical colonisation (including non-Euro), for those being colonised at the time it must’ve been pretty fucking terrible. They were made slaves in their own homes, their women were raped and their ways of life were eradicated. However, European colonisation ultimately benefitted many of these areas in the long run (today’s world). As others mentioned infrastructure, education and healthcare were bought to formerly tribal regions which were formerly at each other’s throats even before Euros came.

[Zeus]

Even if the europeans did help advance the civilizations living in those regions, I would still be against it due to the inherently exploitive nature of the relationship. Similar to how I would be against slavery no matter how good a slave master treated his slave.

Also, given the fact that countries that were not colonized, at least not initially or for very long, like Liberia, Ethiopia, Thailand, Afghanistan, and Iran, ended up being just as well off as their neighbors, leads me to believe that the nations would have been just fine without European imperialists taking their countries.

I voted mostly bad btw, same as I would vote for slavery

[Zeus]

The Europeans offered Amerindians and Africans a more advanced civilization.

How would you feel about an alien peoples conquering Earth and then when we argue against their occupation, they claim that we are uncivilized savages who need their advanced civilization?

sad, you can't respond since you're banned lol.

[arkas]

Colonisation has been happening since the very beginning of history, the European colonialism of the past was bad but not nearly as brutal as so many previous colonisers.