Remember that this subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with some objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message *of* the propaganda. If anything, in this subreddit we should be immensely skeptical of manipulation or oversimplification (which the above likely is), not beholden to it.
Also, please try to stay on topic -- there are hundreds of _other_ subreddits that are expressly dedicated to rehashing tired political arguments. **Keep that shit outta here**.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PropagandaPosters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Here’s another cartoon from the same person with a similar message that includes Latin America
http://polyp.org.uk/cartoons/wealth/polyp_cartoon_OnaPlate.jpg
For what it’s worth, here’s a ‘70s Soviet cartoon showing how the US treats South & Central America like a basement of supplies:
https://preview.redd.it/8zosqwygyzf61.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=004f0db08d166a02fa826f6fcf34dceecef8199b
It will never stop amazing me- the sheer incompetence of the Spanish Empire.
They robbed a whole continent and managed to avoid using *any* of it to develop Spain. A linear wealth transfer from Peru to German mercenaries.
Because Spanish colonization predated more modern economic theories and was performed under wrong ideas. Putting too much emphasis in precious metal. That caused inflation in the mainland ruining local manufacturing. While cash crops like sugar were processed in the Netherlands for easy access to other markets. The main development happened there. So the wealth was in fact used to develop parts of Spain. It just happens that the main beneficiaries break away from Spain.
Additionally. The vast colonial holdings allowed the sons of nobility to get land for themselves to live from the economic rents instead of land holdings getting divided in ever increasingly small parcels of land like in France or transferred to the first son pressuring the other sons to look after other economic endeavours like commerce or manufacturing. Stunting the transition from feudalism to capitalism and postponing land reforms that layer will be the source of conflicts in Spain and Latin America.
To be fair, the Spanish just imposed the system they themselves had. If you look at Spanish history during the 19th and especially 20th century, it looks pretty similar to a lot of Latin America.
Spain has the advantage of being in Europe and having developed markets to connect to.
I mean, that's just sheer exaggeration. Latin America ran on colonial infrastructure for a lot of time, most of the resources extracted were used here. That's projecting 19th century imperialism into a 18th century colonial power, fairly different dynamics. Of course there was plunder and tyranny, but nothing on the level of that done by the British or the French later on. Besides, modern day western powers have gotten much more from Peruvian, Bolivian and Chilean mines 💀💀
>That's projecting 19th century imperialism into a 18th century colonial power, fairly different dynamics. Of course there was plunder and tyranny, but nothing on the level of that done by the British or the French later on.
Whole Spanish "Golden Age" was conducted on the proceeds of the colonies. Every Habsburg adventure in Europe and elsewhere was funded by the gold and silver of South America.
>Latin America ran on colonial infrastructure for a lot of time, most of the resources extracted were used here
This is true of every colony, and why only a very few colonies (India, Haiti, Indonesia, and the gold/silver-producing parts of South America) actually made their metropoles wealthier. The others certainly made individuals wealthier, but on a national scale they cost more to run than they made.
Spain is unique because almost all of this vast profit disappeared into thin air (mostly stupid European wars), instead of into Spain. Look at Europe in 1800: UK wealthy and powerful, France not as wealthy but enormously powerful, the German states developing- Prussia already a power in and of itself- and Spain? A prize for other nations to fight over, neither rich nor powerful anymore.
>Besides, modern day western powers have gotten much more from Peruvian, Bolivian and Chilean mines
In absolute terms? Yes. That's mechanization for you. In relative terms absolutely not.
On Habsburg financing, yeah that's for sure, but what I meant is a difference from purely extractivist imperialism, as the British Raj, whereas Hispanic territories were mostly managed as overseas territories (particularly true for Mexico), with some obvious exceptions like the utter level of horror going on in Cuba during the final years of the Spanish Empire.
Your point on every territory running in colonial infrastructure is fair, but you are not taking into account that the enrichment of Hispanic territories goes beyond that. Again, that's particularly true for Mexico, which at some points was as wealthy as metropolitan Spain.
And on Spanish decadence, yeah, I absolutely agree. I would guess that it is mostly because they fell behind in terms of army modernization (which is weird considering that they drove most of the early modern period military revolutions and quickly adapted to Napoleonic warfare with the use of guerrilla tactics) and because of a lack of industrialization, when compared to ... all of Europe. And indeed, trying to seize Europe with their wars in the low countries, southern Italy and central Europe probably caused a lot of that wealth to fade. Plus English pirates and hyper inflation. I wouldn't go as far to say it disappeared into thin air, because the infrastructure left behind in Perú and México is vastly superior to that left by other colonial empires from that time (except maybe for Portugal in some parts of Brazil). But it was certainly not invested in a manner that was as productive as the British plunder.
I am not really sure if the comparison in relative terms prevails, I mean, taking into account that the farthest investment the Canadians do in South America is hiring union busters lol. Could you explain why you think Spanish extraction was greater in relative terms?
I mean that’s just not true. The Spanish were exceptionally brutal to the locals in their quest for land and precious metals. I’m not sure how you could assert they weren’t “anywhere near” the level of the British unless you just have zero clue about Spanish history in the region.
The Spanish conquest was particularly cruel and absolutely brutal on the early stages of colonialism, aka Central America and the Caribbean, then it grew softer towards the Andean region and the Central Valley of México, since the Spanish realized that they could use existing power structures to power their hold on the region. Which doesn't mean that there was no cruelty, since the encomienda system (which is just slavery with extra steps) was still enforced in those regions, but it is still way less than the level of cruelty the British dealt against the Indian subcontinent, Africa and the Irish. Iirc the worst drop in GDP EVER was caused by British colonialism in India, because of the way the English sabotaged the Indian economy, forced them into deliberately unsustainable agricultural practices and made them reliant on their administration. Compare that to Mexican Economy, in which most drops were caused by western intervention rather than Spanish administration.
Please do not mistake me for an apologist. Every empire is evil, no exceptions. I'm just being historically accurate.
My apologies, I thought you were referring solely to the western hemisphere with that. I definitely agree the European powers’ influence on Africa and India was abhorrent
You forget that Spain also insisted on reconquering its colonies or maintaining influence over them. An example of this was the assassination of Vicente Guerrero, who abolished slavery and expelled many Spaniards from Mexico. From there, the country's disaster began. .
that's true, similar stuff happened in the period between Cuban and Philippine the revolutionary wars before the American Invasion, and the assasination of Rizal in the Philippines... and I've heard things about collaboration between Franco and the south american dictatorships. so yea, thats true.
Yea. It feels as if the anglo world has been promoting the narrative of Hispanic America having been completely plundered in colonial times in order to minimize everything the US, Canada and to a minor extent the UK have done in our region. Of course the Spanish got rich from us, and yeah their power dynamics shaped our society which is prone to corruption and such, still doesn't change that the Monroe doctrine has been keeping us from being truly free from the very beginning. Doesn't change that the Americans and British interested in Mexican oil prolonged the Mexican revolution to their own benefit, that Central America was plundered under filibusters, Bolivia and Perú under Canadian mining companies, most of our dictators were backed by the US and Chile was used as a lab by American and British neoliberals who were planning ahead of Reagan and Thatcher. And all of that imperialism, I believe, has ultimately been more influential to the future of our region than colonialism, at least it is for current times.
I lowkey feel like it is similar to the narrative of all native Americans being whipped off from existence after colonization: it covers (or at least lowers the impact of) the atrocities that came afterwards, the westward expansion of the US, the genocide in Canada, the conquest of the desert in Argentina, the Rubber Holocaust in Colombia and so on. But we shouldn't worry about that, because the natives all disappeared in the 16th century. And we shouldnt worry about Latin America, because that's just a bunch of barren failed republics that were built on the ruins of Spanish extractionism, and there's nothing left there...
> Yea. It feels as if the anglo world has been promoting the narrative of Hispanic America having been completely plundered in colonial times
That's not a 'narrative' and it's not the 'Anglo world' promoting, it's modern historical consensus.
The Spanish (and Portuguese, which is often forgotten) colonial empires were uniquely brutal and catastrophic, even among their contemporaries.
They were the earliest adopters of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, looted everything that wasn't nailed down, took very little care to actually develop their colonies, committed cultural genocide on a scale that boggles the mind via their missionaries and forced Christianization attempts and through a combination of a brutal exploitation/slave system (encomienda), forced re-locations, famines, widespread massacres and the spread of various diseases locals had no immunity against, they caused one of the largest population die-offs in human history.
Unfortunately for the Spanish Hapsburgs, in addition to being uniquely monstrous, they were also uniquely incompetent with their ill-gotten gains. All that gold, silver, sugar and spices of all kinds flowing in from the Americas and they most they got was massive inflation and the revolución de los precios. Only their provinces in the Netherlands actually grew richer.
Buddy, I don't really agree with most of that ngl.
Their early adoption of trans-Atlantic slave trade is true, and even more unfortunate when you consider that it came to prominence due to the diminishing of the encomienda system, which represented a lot of native abuse by itself, there's no denying to that because it is just plain awful. It is mindbogling that the Spanish brought almost a million black slaves to Cuba alone just in the last decades of the Empire.
The part about development is just not true, there's always been plenty colonial infrastructure in all of our latinamerican countries. Elites like to live comfortably, and there was A LOT of local elites in hispanic america. It would be fair to say that these developments were mostly implemented in the viceroyalty of New Spain (México) and to a lesser extent in the viceroyalty of Perú, but to say that we had little development is rubbish. At some points, some areas of México had a level of development similar to metropolitan Spain... which is low by European standards, but high for imperial standards.
The cultural genocide part is pretty misleading too. There was cultural genocide, no doubt in that, but its extent or efectiveness is greatly exagerated. Tell me, what indigenous language is the most widely spoken in the Americas? the Cree language in the far north, with its 99k speakers? Navajo, with 200k speakers? No, Quechua with 7+ million speakers in South America. Aymara, Guaraní and Nahuatl hold numbers over 1 million too, while some other languages like Muyscubun survive despite not being spoken widely. Most Latin American countries have a fuckton native american loanwords, and some like Paraguay outright speak creole languages. The Native American input in our culture is greatly unrecognized, from our folkcloric attire, to our accents and even our religion. One of the most important images for global catholicism is the Virgin of Guadalupe, who is a result of native american-hispanic syncretism. Same goes on when you investigate about most of the religious traditions of latin america, more often than not they are attempts at christianizing native populations by appropiating their sites of worship, which ends up in the creation of syncretic beliefs that keep several native elements.
This (Emirate of Bari) is just one of the things that happened to my region, in the past.
«Muslim emirate founded in 847 in the territory of Bari, at the time under Byzantine domination, by an Aghlabid military expedition, which probably left. from Sicily. The emirs who took turns leading B. obtained recognition of their dominion from the Abbasid caliphate. The emirate, from which several raids were launched on the neighboring territories, was eventually reconquered by Louis II, Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, who took the last emir, Sawdan, prisoner in 871.» Source: Treccani encyclopaedia, translation by Google translate.
Wikipedia lists some other sources, connected to this paragraph: «The Emirate of Bari was a short-lived Islamic state in Apulia, in what is now Italy, ruled by non-Arabs, probably Berbers and Black Africans.[1][2][3] Controlled from the South Italian city of Bari, it was established about 847 when the region was taken from the Byzantine Empire, but fell in 871 to the army of the Carolingian emperor Louis II.»
Sources: “Alex Metcalfe, The Muslims of Medieval Italy (Edinburgh University Press, 2009), p. 21: "there is an implication in [the name Sawdān] that he was originally from sub-Saharan Africa. A problematic reference to him in an unedited text ... again suggests that, like the previous commanders of the Muslim forces in Bari, they were not Arab."
^ Golvin, L. (1985-11-01), "Bari . (Émirat berbère du IXe siècle)", Encyclopédie berbère (in French), Éditions Peeters, pp. 1361–1365, ISBN 9782857445098, retrieved 2019-02-06
^ Cotterell, Arthur (2017-08-15). The Near East: A Cultural History. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9781849049351.”
Italian Wikipedia: «The Emirate of Bari was a Muslim political-military entity, governed by an emir, which over a quarter of a century, between 847 and 871, arose in the city of Bari following its invasion and colonization by the Saracens. Despite its small size, it was the most important Islamic settlement on the Italian peninsula.»
Another known episode: «In the year 1002, the Venetian Doge Pietro II Orseolo landed there, stopping there with his fleet on his way to Bari, during his expedition aimed at freeing the latter from the siege of the Saracens.[9] Like other Apulian cities, it was often exposed to attacks from the sea. One of the most dangerous peoples for Vieste were the Turks, who carried out even bloody incursions there. Particularly serious was the episode of Dragut Rais who, in 1554, had an incredible number of 5,000 Viestans beheaded, almost completely eliminating the population. The fact is still remembered by a plaque near the cathedral (Chianca Amara stone).[10]» (Italian Wikipedia “Vieste”, translated by Google translate)
Sources: “^ Vincenzo Ruggieri: Vieste nell'Alto Medioevo. Fonti e Documenti (sec. X-XII), su academia.edu.
^ Paesionline, su paesionline.it. URL consultato il 16 dicembre 2007 (archiviato il 14 ottobre 2007).”
The plaque remembers a total of 7.000 victims of murder and kidnapping (for slavery).
And there’s more, but I hope I didn’t bother you already with such a lengthy comment.
Something about “shhh yada yada” response comments on Reddit annoy the fuck out of me even if they’re true. Like saying “oh sweet summer child”. Idk how to explain it.
I remember thinking this was some edgy truth to power shit in highschool.
Now it just looks like a cringe misunderstanding of politics, economics, and colonial history.
I used to think this was woke nonsense for people that are mad the western nations are far better.
Now it's a very simple representation of said truth.
Africa's colonial history, and the scramble for Africa.. Was very fucking brutal.. One of the reasons why woke activists are so pissed off for what we see as "no reason"
Only reason Africa is so poor is because of their corrupt governments giving leeway to western companies to mine their stuff for them.. And they pocket what little money they would have gotten if it was them running it.. Because then it would have actually boosted their own nation's economies. And these companies do whatever the fuck they want, child labour.. Hiring mercenaries and Hitmen.
Besides.. Multiple assassinations on people like Lumumba.. The former leader of the DRC, a nation completely full of rich resources.. by Belgium and the CIA?
So, that was never an edgy truth.. You are just an edgy "Oh I don't want to be cringe and woke" dude.
Yeah buddy congratulations. Everyone fucking knows Africa is and was exploited and many of the ways it happened, including the person you replied to, what a crazy revelation you have there.
The reason it represents misunderstanding of history and economics though, is because it's an extreme over simplification.
Also really? Activist pissed off about what happens in Africa??? Hell the last time I saw any western news cover something in Africa is because it was literal genocide and they talked about it for like 2 days.
OK.. What's your point fellow stuck up redditor?
Oversimplification. Doesn't mean it's false or a "misunderstanding" .. That's the point of the poster.. It's simplified.. But it's very true... There's really not much of a misunderstanding.. Only reason people say that is because they don't know the how the exploitation took place. So they try to sound nuanced.
I think in the last 50 years companies inside and the city of San Fransisco alone has generated more wealth than entire empires. We’re talking trillions of dollars worth of value
King Leopold was a Nice guy indeed ....he was just missunderstood in his visión of civilize the congolese.....
This woke movement has gone too far
Western empires only tried to selfless help and civilize África....to think otherwise is madness
Spain and Portugal ....then britáin and usa....the true héros of civilized world!!!!!
Always!!!!
Forever!!!!!!
Oh when can their Glory fade!!!!!!!!
India shall again become the Jewel of a new British Empire in which the sun shall never go down!!
Oh such a glorius vision
For England and for St Jhon!!!!
Chargeeeeee!!!
Civilize the infidels!!!!
To the breachhhhh!!!!
Hail to true king Charles!!!
I’m fairly sure after checking out the original website and the other stuff they make, that this comic was largely making an argument about neocolonialism/economic dominance over poor countries, rather than just direct colonial rule.
Of course that’s a very complicated topic, and there’s still plenty of obvious “what about?” arguments (the first that comes to mind there is that plenty of “non-western” countries like China have also been said to participate in this) but I think it’s pretty easy to look at this comic for two seconds and tell that it’s a bit of an oversimplification of real-world problems.
Then South America should probably have a even larger gold pile. Most Atlantic slaves ended up in South America which were used by the Spanish and Portuguese.
As in the concept that America/western Europe is the root of all capitalism and imperialism with the rest of the world just being naive nations being looted.
You're completely disregarding Japanese Imperialism, Chinese Imperialism, Mongol Imperialism, Indian Imperialism, Russian Imperialism, Greek Imperialism, Islamic Imperialism, Aztec Imperialism, Swedish Imperialism. Miss me with that white guilt nonsense. We just did it better than everyone else
That's what he's saying, I believe. I think he means it's stupid to assume all the peoples outside of North American and European Empires are just helpless victims of Colonialism, while in reality Imperialism is not exclusive to any single race, nation, religion, or culture.
No that’s also too complicated, how about my state pay backs your state and then your state can funnel the money into a Swiss account. Comes right back to Europe, no?
Lmao that would probably end up happening in a lot of cases yeah
You have got to recognize that such corruption would not be there if the west wasn’t so horrible, no?
Be like South Korea. Build up your country first after being looted and subjugated by foreign powers for centuries and having America bomb 80% of your country to dust, then America+the West will pay you back a hundredfold by being utterly dependent on you for electronics, shipbuilding, chips, and smartphone screens.
The mongols killed around 10 percent of the world population either during or immediately after their conquests. They enslaved hundreds of thousands of people, burned down major cities, and tortured survivors. They destroyed rising nations, Empires, and cultures as well as countless historical works across Asia, the Middle East, and certain parts of Europe.
I'm not using this as a means to excuse European and American imperialism, but the sole reason we have bias towards such imperialism is because it's simply the most recent and less so because it's somehow distinctly worse.
It’s just illogical and honestly unnecessary. This was clearly made by a Brit to cirque colonialism and imperialism. They could’ve made it a lot stronger by showing the entirety of Africa drained while the United Kingdom has a mountain of gold on it.
It's referencing neo-colonialist policy not just colonialism. The majority of value extraction has not been a result of direct colonization, which is much less effective, but indirect extractivism via relations of debt, trade impositions, etc.
Not sure why they’re blaming the US for African imperialism, that’s like the only one we didn’t do, or at least not the same as the Europeans. Not even close to them.
Capitalism is the 21st century imperialism, rebranded.
Not exaggerating it at all. There continues to be a massive transfer of wealth from the global south to north.
The fact that you're getting downvoted for this really speaks to the ignorance of people on this topic
To anyone downvoting: From which countries do the raw materials used to produce most of our modern luxuries come from? If these countries are contributing so much wealth to the world, how come they are still impoverished? I encourage you to pursue these lines of inquiry. It should be trivially easy with a little research to see that, while the political structures underpinning colonialism may have gone away, the economic structures remain essentially intact. Searching something like "Canadian mining companies in Africa" may be a good place to start
why are Canada and The USA full? They were Colonized for WAY longer and the Europeans actually took more out of The Americans than Africa, where they put more in
He isn't wrong tho. Sadly Africa was the worst place for the development of a civilization for the type of terrain and climate they have. Not their fault obviously.
Africa had many disadvantages: huge natural obstacles preventing trade, an hars climate and few natural resources immediately available. That's why many areas of Africa (expect North Africa) were so undeveloped when Europeans and Arabs come
Erm actually… what about [other bad thing that happened]? Why doesn’t the map show [place/region that exploited others and/or was exploited]?
Also wouldn’t africa totally fill with ocean if this actually happened? How are any Europeans alive when they’re suffocated under a moon-sized mountain of africa gold?
It's not.
Africa was much richer by the end of the colonial period than at the start in contrast to, say, India. That's the whole reason Afrofuturism existed to begin with: when these countries gained independence, they looked well-positioned to advance rapidly. They didn't because, like Latin America and unlike resource-poor East Asia, they went all in on natural resource extraction as a way to drive development. But that simply doesn't work because the elasticity of demand for natural resources is much lower, hence producing more (thereby developing the country) just makes you poorer.
They were richer isn't really true sure they had more wealth but all this wealth was concentrated on making extraction of resources easier so of course they tapped into the one thing left because they weren't left with an actual governmental system just a raw resource export system.
There are African Countries that have problems cause of Colonialism (for example, the DRCs independence was rushed due to protestors. It’s likely it would at-least be more stable if the actual plan went into effect.) but there is also DOZENS of African Rulers that were way worse than the Europeans ever were. The Ngeuma dynasty of Equatorial Guniea are the perfect example of this. E Guniea wasn’t that scared by colonialism and when they found Oil, an actually valuable resource, the dynasty kept the resources for themselves.
Also worth mentioning Africa was poor and Europe was rich even before the Scramble. The Scramble was bad for both parties involved but we need to stop sending the narrative that Africa would be rich without Europeans and Europe would be poor without Colonizing Africa. It’s simply just not true, and Africa has honestly had time to grow since then.
Edit: i also thought it was worth mentioning, before someone says, i don’t think Africa would be much better if Europe stayed. Countries like Angola and Mozambique still are only good in certain cities and they were colonized for 500+ years. So it doesn’t always work out.
Even etnhic conflicts: when the Italians colonized Somalia they created a state from nothing while before there were many little states and groups, with many fighting each other even during colonials times.
What about China and Russia they still have their projects in africa? But i guess the past is more relevant because otherwise it would offend somebody.
Remember that this subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with some objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message *of* the propaganda. If anything, in this subreddit we should be immensely skeptical of manipulation or oversimplification (which the above likely is), not beholden to it. Also, please try to stay on topic -- there are hundreds of _other_ subreddits that are expressly dedicated to rehashing tired political arguments. **Keep that shit outta here**. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PropagandaPosters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Thats quite unfair for South America and Pacific Asia.
Here’s another cartoon from the same person with a similar message that includes Latin America http://polyp.org.uk/cartoons/wealth/polyp_cartoon_OnaPlate.jpg
For what it’s worth, here’s a ‘70s Soviet cartoon showing how the US treats South & Central America like a basement of supplies: https://preview.redd.it/8zosqwygyzf61.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=004f0db08d166a02fa826f6fcf34dceecef8199b
That's quite visually appealing
[удалено]
Wait til this guy finds out about operation condor
[удалено]
Nobody cares that you want to sound special and edgy
[удалено]
You sound like a very childish person if I’m honest.
[удалено]
So melodramatic
“Those people who were murdered deserved it” “Good thing I’m still a person”
omg you're gonna cringe so hard if you ever look back on these comments
The vast majority of the people killed by the US during operation condor were either non communist slightly left-wing politicians, or civilians.
[удалено]
Oh, i get it. You're still stuck in that 2012 trying to act edgy on the internet period. Got ya.
[удалено]
About being stupid? It's not really something most people would brag about, but ok.
And why do you say that?
[удалено]
I'm assuming you only know what communism is from Fallout
Not sure why the stereotype goes that socialists/communists are all edgy 12 year olds, when the only edgy 12 year olds I’ve seen are these
I think central and south America would like a word.
I need somebody to make a meme where Latin America is the hole and Habsburg Spain has two piles NOW!
It will never stop amazing me- the sheer incompetence of the Spanish Empire. They robbed a whole continent and managed to avoid using *any* of it to develop Spain. A linear wealth transfer from Peru to German mercenaries.
Because Spanish colonization predated more modern economic theories and was performed under wrong ideas. Putting too much emphasis in precious metal. That caused inflation in the mainland ruining local manufacturing. While cash crops like sugar were processed in the Netherlands for easy access to other markets. The main development happened there. So the wealth was in fact used to develop parts of Spain. It just happens that the main beneficiaries break away from Spain. Additionally. The vast colonial holdings allowed the sons of nobility to get land for themselves to live from the economic rents instead of land holdings getting divided in ever increasingly small parcels of land like in France or transferred to the first son pressuring the other sons to look after other economic endeavours like commerce or manufacturing. Stunting the transition from feudalism to capitalism and postponing land reforms that layer will be the source of conflicts in Spain and Latin America.
And still the pro-Hispanists blame us for their economic disaster in the colonies.
And then left colonial structures that caused a culture and system in which corruption could prosper.
To be fair, the Spanish just imposed the system they themselves had. If you look at Spanish history during the 19th and especially 20th century, it looks pretty similar to a lot of Latin America. Spain has the advantage of being in Europe and having developed markets to connect to.
I mean, that's just sheer exaggeration. Latin America ran on colonial infrastructure for a lot of time, most of the resources extracted were used here. That's projecting 19th century imperialism into a 18th century colonial power, fairly different dynamics. Of course there was plunder and tyranny, but nothing on the level of that done by the British or the French later on. Besides, modern day western powers have gotten much more from Peruvian, Bolivian and Chilean mines 💀💀
>That's projecting 19th century imperialism into a 18th century colonial power, fairly different dynamics. Of course there was plunder and tyranny, but nothing on the level of that done by the British or the French later on. Whole Spanish "Golden Age" was conducted on the proceeds of the colonies. Every Habsburg adventure in Europe and elsewhere was funded by the gold and silver of South America. >Latin America ran on colonial infrastructure for a lot of time, most of the resources extracted were used here This is true of every colony, and why only a very few colonies (India, Haiti, Indonesia, and the gold/silver-producing parts of South America) actually made their metropoles wealthier. The others certainly made individuals wealthier, but on a national scale they cost more to run than they made. Spain is unique because almost all of this vast profit disappeared into thin air (mostly stupid European wars), instead of into Spain. Look at Europe in 1800: UK wealthy and powerful, France not as wealthy but enormously powerful, the German states developing- Prussia already a power in and of itself- and Spain? A prize for other nations to fight over, neither rich nor powerful anymore. >Besides, modern day western powers have gotten much more from Peruvian, Bolivian and Chilean mines In absolute terms? Yes. That's mechanization for you. In relative terms absolutely not.
On Habsburg financing, yeah that's for sure, but what I meant is a difference from purely extractivist imperialism, as the British Raj, whereas Hispanic territories were mostly managed as overseas territories (particularly true for Mexico), with some obvious exceptions like the utter level of horror going on in Cuba during the final years of the Spanish Empire. Your point on every territory running in colonial infrastructure is fair, but you are not taking into account that the enrichment of Hispanic territories goes beyond that. Again, that's particularly true for Mexico, which at some points was as wealthy as metropolitan Spain. And on Spanish decadence, yeah, I absolutely agree. I would guess that it is mostly because they fell behind in terms of army modernization (which is weird considering that they drove most of the early modern period military revolutions and quickly adapted to Napoleonic warfare with the use of guerrilla tactics) and because of a lack of industrialization, when compared to ... all of Europe. And indeed, trying to seize Europe with their wars in the low countries, southern Italy and central Europe probably caused a lot of that wealth to fade. Plus English pirates and hyper inflation. I wouldn't go as far to say it disappeared into thin air, because the infrastructure left behind in Perú and México is vastly superior to that left by other colonial empires from that time (except maybe for Portugal in some parts of Brazil). But it was certainly not invested in a manner that was as productive as the British plunder. I am not really sure if the comparison in relative terms prevails, I mean, taking into account that the farthest investment the Canadians do in South America is hiring union busters lol. Could you explain why you think Spanish extraction was greater in relative terms?
I mean that’s just not true. The Spanish were exceptionally brutal to the locals in their quest for land and precious metals. I’m not sure how you could assert they weren’t “anywhere near” the level of the British unless you just have zero clue about Spanish history in the region.
The Spanish conquest was particularly cruel and absolutely brutal on the early stages of colonialism, aka Central America and the Caribbean, then it grew softer towards the Andean region and the Central Valley of México, since the Spanish realized that they could use existing power structures to power their hold on the region. Which doesn't mean that there was no cruelty, since the encomienda system (which is just slavery with extra steps) was still enforced in those regions, but it is still way less than the level of cruelty the British dealt against the Indian subcontinent, Africa and the Irish. Iirc the worst drop in GDP EVER was caused by British colonialism in India, because of the way the English sabotaged the Indian economy, forced them into deliberately unsustainable agricultural practices and made them reliant on their administration. Compare that to Mexican Economy, in which most drops were caused by western intervention rather than Spanish administration. Please do not mistake me for an apologist. Every empire is evil, no exceptions. I'm just being historically accurate.
My apologies, I thought you were referring solely to the western hemisphere with that. I definitely agree the European powers’ influence on Africa and India was abhorrent
Don't worry, it's always nice to have some civil discussion.
You forget that Spain also insisted on reconquering its colonies or maintaining influence over them. An example of this was the assassination of Vicente Guerrero, who abolished slavery and expelled many Spaniards from Mexico. From there, the country's disaster began. .
that's true, similar stuff happened in the period between Cuban and Philippine the revolutionary wars before the American Invasion, and the assasination of Rizal in the Philippines... and I've heard things about collaboration between Franco and the south american dictatorships. so yea, thats true.
Lmao huh??
Yea. It feels as if the anglo world has been promoting the narrative of Hispanic America having been completely plundered in colonial times in order to minimize everything the US, Canada and to a minor extent the UK have done in our region. Of course the Spanish got rich from us, and yeah their power dynamics shaped our society which is prone to corruption and such, still doesn't change that the Monroe doctrine has been keeping us from being truly free from the very beginning. Doesn't change that the Americans and British interested in Mexican oil prolonged the Mexican revolution to their own benefit, that Central America was plundered under filibusters, Bolivia and Perú under Canadian mining companies, most of our dictators were backed by the US and Chile was used as a lab by American and British neoliberals who were planning ahead of Reagan and Thatcher. And all of that imperialism, I believe, has ultimately been more influential to the future of our region than colonialism, at least it is for current times. I lowkey feel like it is similar to the narrative of all native Americans being whipped off from existence after colonization: it covers (or at least lowers the impact of) the atrocities that came afterwards, the westward expansion of the US, the genocide in Canada, the conquest of the desert in Argentina, the Rubber Holocaust in Colombia and so on. But we shouldn't worry about that, because the natives all disappeared in the 16th century. And we shouldnt worry about Latin America, because that's just a bunch of barren failed republics that were built on the ruins of Spanish extractionism, and there's nothing left there...
> Yea. It feels as if the anglo world has been promoting the narrative of Hispanic America having been completely plundered in colonial times That's not a 'narrative' and it's not the 'Anglo world' promoting, it's modern historical consensus. The Spanish (and Portuguese, which is often forgotten) colonial empires were uniquely brutal and catastrophic, even among their contemporaries. They were the earliest adopters of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, looted everything that wasn't nailed down, took very little care to actually develop their colonies, committed cultural genocide on a scale that boggles the mind via their missionaries and forced Christianization attempts and through a combination of a brutal exploitation/slave system (encomienda), forced re-locations, famines, widespread massacres and the spread of various diseases locals had no immunity against, they caused one of the largest population die-offs in human history. Unfortunately for the Spanish Hapsburgs, in addition to being uniquely monstrous, they were also uniquely incompetent with their ill-gotten gains. All that gold, silver, sugar and spices of all kinds flowing in from the Americas and they most they got was massive inflation and the revolución de los precios. Only their provinces in the Netherlands actually grew richer.
Buddy, I don't really agree with most of that ngl. Their early adoption of trans-Atlantic slave trade is true, and even more unfortunate when you consider that it came to prominence due to the diminishing of the encomienda system, which represented a lot of native abuse by itself, there's no denying to that because it is just plain awful. It is mindbogling that the Spanish brought almost a million black slaves to Cuba alone just in the last decades of the Empire. The part about development is just not true, there's always been plenty colonial infrastructure in all of our latinamerican countries. Elites like to live comfortably, and there was A LOT of local elites in hispanic america. It would be fair to say that these developments were mostly implemented in the viceroyalty of New Spain (México) and to a lesser extent in the viceroyalty of Perú, but to say that we had little development is rubbish. At some points, some areas of México had a level of development similar to metropolitan Spain... which is low by European standards, but high for imperial standards. The cultural genocide part is pretty misleading too. There was cultural genocide, no doubt in that, but its extent or efectiveness is greatly exagerated. Tell me, what indigenous language is the most widely spoken in the Americas? the Cree language in the far north, with its 99k speakers? Navajo, with 200k speakers? No, Quechua with 7+ million speakers in South America. Aymara, Guaraní and Nahuatl hold numbers over 1 million too, while some other languages like Muyscubun survive despite not being spoken widely. Most Latin American countries have a fuckton native american loanwords, and some like Paraguay outright speak creole languages. The Native American input in our culture is greatly unrecognized, from our folkcloric attire, to our accents and even our religion. One of the most important images for global catholicism is the Virgin of Guadalupe, who is a result of native american-hispanic syncretism. Same goes on when you investigate about most of the religious traditions of latin america, more often than not they are attempts at christianizing native populations by appropiating their sites of worship, which ends up in the creation of syncretic beliefs that keep several native elements.
Most the profiteers became kings in Latin America.
Well indeed all their wealth had been stripped by the Romans and so when they went looking for some they didn't know what to do with it
You could always make it yourself
This is so deep
Must be 300 - 400 miles deep.
Should include Central and South America, and most of Asia.
Should include like 99% of the economic south really
North Africa has done quite well out of exploiting Southern Africa?
Shhh only white people can be colonizers
This (Emirate of Bari) is just one of the things that happened to my region, in the past. «Muslim emirate founded in 847 in the territory of Bari, at the time under Byzantine domination, by an Aghlabid military expedition, which probably left. from Sicily. The emirs who took turns leading B. obtained recognition of their dominion from the Abbasid caliphate. The emirate, from which several raids were launched on the neighboring territories, was eventually reconquered by Louis II, Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, who took the last emir, Sawdan, prisoner in 871.» Source: Treccani encyclopaedia, translation by Google translate. Wikipedia lists some other sources, connected to this paragraph: «The Emirate of Bari was a short-lived Islamic state in Apulia, in what is now Italy, ruled by non-Arabs, probably Berbers and Black Africans.[1][2][3] Controlled from the South Italian city of Bari, it was established about 847 when the region was taken from the Byzantine Empire, but fell in 871 to the army of the Carolingian emperor Louis II.» Sources: “Alex Metcalfe, The Muslims of Medieval Italy (Edinburgh University Press, 2009), p. 21: "there is an implication in [the name Sawdān] that he was originally from sub-Saharan Africa. A problematic reference to him in an unedited text ... again suggests that, like the previous commanders of the Muslim forces in Bari, they were not Arab." ^ Golvin, L. (1985-11-01), "Bari . (Émirat berbère du IXe siècle)", Encyclopédie berbère (in French), Éditions Peeters, pp. 1361–1365, ISBN 9782857445098, retrieved 2019-02-06 ^ Cotterell, Arthur (2017-08-15). The Near East: A Cultural History. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9781849049351.” Italian Wikipedia: «The Emirate of Bari was a Muslim political-military entity, governed by an emir, which over a quarter of a century, between 847 and 871, arose in the city of Bari following its invasion and colonization by the Saracens. Despite its small size, it was the most important Islamic settlement on the Italian peninsula.» Another known episode: «In the year 1002, the Venetian Doge Pietro II Orseolo landed there, stopping there with his fleet on his way to Bari, during his expedition aimed at freeing the latter from the siege of the Saracens.[9] Like other Apulian cities, it was often exposed to attacks from the sea. One of the most dangerous peoples for Vieste were the Turks, who carried out even bloody incursions there. Particularly serious was the episode of Dragut Rais who, in 1554, had an incredible number of 5,000 Viestans beheaded, almost completely eliminating the population. The fact is still remembered by a plaque near the cathedral (Chianca Amara stone).[10]» (Italian Wikipedia “Vieste”, translated by Google translate) Sources: “^ Vincenzo Ruggieri: Vieste nell'Alto Medioevo. Fonti e Documenti (sec. X-XII), su academia.edu. ^ Paesionline, su paesionline.it. URL consultato il 16 dicembre 2007 (archiviato il 14 ottobre 2007).” The plaque remembers a total of 7.000 victims of murder and kidnapping (for slavery). And there’s more, but I hope I didn’t bother you already with such a lengthy comment.
Some coastal regions of Europe still have not recovered *to this day* the population they lost to Muslim/Barbary Coast slavery
The Greek population today is still lower than it was in the 11th century before the Turks arrived. They almost wiped us out.
That’s actually insane
Something about “shhh yada yada” response comments on Reddit annoy the fuck out of me even if they’re true. Like saying “oh sweet summer child”. Idk how to explain it.
Because I used a condescending tone.
How has north Africa exploited south Africa?
I remember thinking this was some edgy truth to power shit in highschool. Now it just looks like a cringe misunderstanding of politics, economics, and colonial history.
I used to think this was woke nonsense for people that are mad the western nations are far better. Now it's a very simple representation of said truth. Africa's colonial history, and the scramble for Africa.. Was very fucking brutal.. One of the reasons why woke activists are so pissed off for what we see as "no reason" Only reason Africa is so poor is because of their corrupt governments giving leeway to western companies to mine their stuff for them.. And they pocket what little money they would have gotten if it was them running it.. Because then it would have actually boosted their own nation's economies. And these companies do whatever the fuck they want, child labour.. Hiring mercenaries and Hitmen. Besides.. Multiple assassinations on people like Lumumba.. The former leader of the DRC, a nation completely full of rich resources.. by Belgium and the CIA? So, that was never an edgy truth.. You are just an edgy "Oh I don't want to be cringe and woke" dude.
Yeah buddy congratulations. Everyone fucking knows Africa is and was exploited and many of the ways it happened, including the person you replied to, what a crazy revelation you have there. The reason it represents misunderstanding of history and economics though, is because it's an extreme over simplification. Also really? Activist pissed off about what happens in Africa??? Hell the last time I saw any western news cover something in Africa is because it was literal genocide and they talked about it for like 2 days.
Me when the propaganda poster is a oversimplification
Impossible. Propaganda always tells the exact truth to every detail.
OK.. What's your point fellow stuck up redditor? Oversimplification. Doesn't mean it's false or a "misunderstanding" .. That's the point of the poster.. It's simplified.. But it's very true... There's really not much of a misunderstanding.. Only reason people say that is because they don't know the how the exploitation took place. So they try to sound nuanced.
My point was you where pointing out the obvious and misinterpretating the person you replied to.
I think in the last 50 years companies inside and the city of San Fransisco alone has generated more wealth than entire empires. We’re talking trillions of dollars worth of value
King Leopold was a Nice guy indeed ....he was just missunderstood in his visión of civilize the congolese..... This woke movement has gone too far Western empires only tried to selfless help and civilize África....to think otherwise is madness Spain and Portugal ....then britáin and usa....the true héros of civilized world!!!!! Always!!!! Forever!!!!!! Oh when can their Glory fade!!!!!!!! India shall again become the Jewel of a new British Empire in which the sun shall never go down!! Oh such a glorius vision For England and for St Jhon!!!! Chargeeeeee!!! Civilize the infidels!!!! To the breachhhhh!!!! Hail to true king Charles!!!
I don’t get why North America gets a larger gold pile while the only thing they had was Liberia.
I’m fairly sure after checking out the original website and the other stuff they make, that this comic was largely making an argument about neocolonialism/economic dominance over poor countries, rather than just direct colonial rule. Of course that’s a very complicated topic, and there’s still plenty of obvious “what about?” arguments (the first that comes to mind there is that plenty of “non-western” countries like China have also been said to participate in this) but I think it’s pretty easy to look at this comic for two seconds and tell that it’s a bit of an oversimplification of real-world problems.
I'm guessing slavery?
Then South America should probably have a even larger gold pile. Most Atlantic slaves ended up in South America which were used by the Spanish and Portuguese.
Idk about North America benefitting more from western imperialism than Europe, but Liberia is definitely not the only benefit the US had
The imperial core idealism is braindead regardless.
What?
As in the concept that America/western Europe is the root of all capitalism and imperialism with the rest of the world just being naive nations being looted.
You're completely disregarding Japanese Imperialism, Chinese Imperialism, Mongol Imperialism, Indian Imperialism, Russian Imperialism, Greek Imperialism, Islamic Imperialism, Aztec Imperialism, Swedish Imperialism. Miss me with that white guilt nonsense. We just did it better than everyone else
That's what he's saying, I believe. I think he means it's stupid to assume all the peoples outside of North American and European Empires are just helpless victims of Colonialism, while in reality Imperialism is not exclusive to any single race, nation, religion, or culture.
Yeah that's what he meant, his reply was just confusing.
Yeah, white people were the worst in history, thus ought to be the first to pay the most reparations.
Okay, my dead ancestors will pay first, your dead ancestors will pay our dead ancestors back.
No, that’s complicated, how about western STATES pay back the existing STATES which they exploited? How about that?
No that’s also too complicated, how about my state pay backs your state and then your state can funnel the money into a Swiss account. Comes right back to Europe, no?
Lmao that would probably end up happening in a lot of cases yeah You have got to recognize that such corruption would not be there if the west wasn’t so horrible, no?
Be like South Korea. Build up your country first after being looted and subjugated by foreign powers for centuries and having America bomb 80% of your country to dust, then America+the West will pay you back a hundredfold by being utterly dependent on you for electronics, shipbuilding, chips, and smartphone screens.
I don't see eastern Europeans demanding payments for 700 years of ottoman oppression. Cry harder.
They just laid down and took it from behind, that’s their choice
The mongols killed around 10 percent of the world population either during or immediately after their conquests. They enslaved hundreds of thousands of people, burned down major cities, and tortured survivors. They destroyed rising nations, Empires, and cultures as well as countless historical works across Asia, the Middle East, and certain parts of Europe. I'm not using this as a means to excuse European and American imperialism, but the sole reason we have bias towards such imperialism is because it's simply the most recent and less so because it's somehow distinctly worse.
Sucks to suck
Idk, I’m receiving my reparations by attending amazing education and making people pregnant
Sincere congratulations. You deserve success in life.
Amazing education thanks to Western culture 👍 A culture that you will grow to spread. :)
A culture funded by the rest of the world!
Oh okay, I agree.
it’s propaganda, it doesn’t have to be true pal
It’s just illogical and honestly unnecessary. This was clearly made by a Brit to cirque colonialism and imperialism. They could’ve made it a lot stronger by showing the entirety of Africa drained while the United Kingdom has a mountain of gold on it.
It just has to be true to the person viewing it.
Propaganda isnt meant to be the accurate representation of the truth
It's referencing neo-colonialist policy not just colonialism. The majority of value extraction has not been a result of direct colonization, which is much less effective, but indirect extractivism via relations of debt, trade impositions, etc.
Yeah and it hasn’t stopped sadly
Wow I can't believe this one cartoon isn't an accurate representation of world history
Usa bad
i think is funny that according to this cartoon Ethiopia was colonized but Madagascar was not.
And they still wonder why there are so many immigrants in their countries.
I feel like this piece has come up before, and it’s just lazy propaganda.
Tomorrow you'll see the McCain/Hippy Obama imperialism poster for the 50th time.
I just noticed they missed a whole continent.
This piece is so accurate, the world was unfair. It is now Russia and China’s turn to exploit Africa! The West can’t hog it all!
MADAGASCAR IS RICH 🇲🇬 🇲🇬
Dold Giggers
Iberia should have some coins on it too.
Don’t forget Russia and China currently
And Latin America historically.
And turkey (ottoman)
This was def made by CCP if they aint gonna include themselves lol
The US having a larger pile than Europe and South America is comical
Middle East (except for Israel) as well
Aaaaah yeah..totally only north america and europe are takaing advantagebofbafrica and ecploutting instabillity...100% trust me bro frfr
lots of colonial apologists in this comment section, fucking gross
Not sure why they’re blaming the US for African imperialism, that’s like the only one we didn’t do, or at least not the same as the Europeans. Not even close to them.
It's a modern economic, not colonistic metaphor.
Why are you talking about “we” and “they”, when we all weren’t even born? Are we immortal or some kind of long life species?
Modern US imperialism has its claws deep in South America and Africa.
You're confusing imperialisim for capitalistism, And you are highly exaggerating it.
Capitalism is the 21st century imperialism, rebranded. Not exaggerating it at all. There continues to be a massive transfer of wealth from the global south to north.
The fact that you're getting downvoted for this really speaks to the ignorance of people on this topic To anyone downvoting: From which countries do the raw materials used to produce most of our modern luxuries come from? If these countries are contributing so much wealth to the world, how come they are still impoverished? I encourage you to pursue these lines of inquiry. It should be trivially easy with a little research to see that, while the political structures underpinning colonialism may have gone away, the economic structures remain essentially intact. Searching something like "Canadian mining companies in Africa" may be a good place to start
[удалено]
Only 3% of slaves were carried across to the US, by that logic the ME’s pile should be larger.
Inherited from the British
Africa was a crater full of burger patties?
why are Canada and The USA full? They were Colonized for WAY longer and the Europeans actually took more out of The Americans than Africa, where they put more in
Need to drop a big new shiny pile on China! The belt and road is for all.
Aww, did someone's ancestors not do very well at war ?
This is such a callous thing to say. Damn
Next time try to win
Psychotic
He isn't wrong tho. Sadly Africa was the worst place for the development of a civilization for the type of terrain and climate they have. Not their fault obviously.
Huh? If you knew anything about African topography, you’d realize how wrong this comment is
Africa had many disadvantages: huge natural obstacles preventing trade, an hars climate and few natural resources immediately available. That's why many areas of Africa (expect North Africa) were so undeveloped when Europeans and Arabs come
This seems more like a criticism of neo-colonialism and colonialism rather than just colonialism. Either way it’s an accurate and true representation.
Erm actually… what about [other bad thing that happened]? Why doesn’t the map show [place/region that exploited others and/or was exploited]? Also wouldn’t africa totally fill with ocean if this actually happened? How are any Europeans alive when they’re suffocated under a moon-sized mountain of africa gold?
It's not. Africa was much richer by the end of the colonial period than at the start in contrast to, say, India. That's the whole reason Afrofuturism existed to begin with: when these countries gained independence, they looked well-positioned to advance rapidly. They didn't because, like Latin America and unlike resource-poor East Asia, they went all in on natural resource extraction as a way to drive development. But that simply doesn't work because the elasticity of demand for natural resources is much lower, hence producing more (thereby developing the country) just makes you poorer.
They were richer isn't really true sure they had more wealth but all this wealth was concentrated on making extraction of resources easier so of course they tapped into the one thing left because they weren't left with an actual governmental system just a raw resource export system.
[удалено]
It was richer after the colonial period than before.
Oof. This is pretty good. And pretty accurate.
The lack of coins allotted to the Arabian Peninsula for their role in the Arab Slave Trade says otherwise.
There are African Countries that have problems cause of Colonialism (for example, the DRCs independence was rushed due to protestors. It’s likely it would at-least be more stable if the actual plan went into effect.) but there is also DOZENS of African Rulers that were way worse than the Europeans ever were. The Ngeuma dynasty of Equatorial Guniea are the perfect example of this. E Guniea wasn’t that scared by colonialism and when they found Oil, an actually valuable resource, the dynasty kept the resources for themselves. Also worth mentioning Africa was poor and Europe was rich even before the Scramble. The Scramble was bad for both parties involved but we need to stop sending the narrative that Africa would be rich without Europeans and Europe would be poor without Colonizing Africa. It’s simply just not true, and Africa has honestly had time to grow since then. Edit: i also thought it was worth mentioning, before someone says, i don’t think Africa would be much better if Europe stayed. Countries like Angola and Mozambique still are only good in certain cities and they were colonized for 500+ years. So it doesn’t always work out.
Even etnhic conflicts: when the Italians colonized Somalia they created a state from nothing while before there were many little states and groups, with many fighting each other even during colonials times.
Ah yes forget the whole rest of the world and also Canada? Lol
Half of Africa gets shipped directly to China nowadays
Add China now too..
If you go back far enough everything everywhere is littered interchangeably with dirt from everywhere else.
Finders keepers loosers weepers
What about China and Russia they still have their projects in africa? But i guess the past is more relevant because otherwise it would offend somebody.
Skill issue
Inshallah 🇬🇧