Civilizing primitive cultures is bad when Europeans do it. But okay if the Chinese or Russians do it.

>>14984660 (OP)

Everyone gives shit to Chinese for ending the boy fucker theocracy doe. They didn't colonise Tibet or exploited it's people with discriminatory policies increasing the living standard by every metric giving protection to the native languages and cultures.

Just like European colonialism

Tibetans weren't genocided, forced into reservations or enslaved. China didn't collaborate with native collaboraters to use them as thugs to keep the plebs coughing out money either. They wiped out the previous elites.

>Europeans "civlizing savages."

"Hurr you're nonwhite/halfwhite so you cant participate in our empire. Just stay there and dont go to our homeland."

>Chinese "civilizing savages"

"You're a subject of the Emperor now, barbarian. You'll serve like everyone else."

Neither were Africans.

Pssshhhhhh OK retard.

do chuds really believe this?

>giving protection to the native languages and cultures.

Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure

Leopolds' Congo wasn't the standard of European colonialism.

(((adam hochschild)))

It's simple. Fighting your neighbors is natural and predictable, your animosity arose from living hundreds of years near each other and having disputes, fights over scarce resources etc. Wars between you are expected and even if one wipes out the other the exchanges you had has a lasting impact on the winner and therefore their culture still "lives on".



 Getting on a ship and fighting randos who have never seen you or heard you, whose only fault is their mere existence on a land you want, is an act of pure greed and little else.

Maybe, but this is a post-hoc reasoning. Once you have the ability and impulse to travel by sea, everyone with a coast is your neighbor.

On another note how come everyone seethes CIA for overthrowing countries but no one brings ups all the Communist revolutions spurred on by the USSR and China. Is it fine when the KGB does it because their doing it in the name of "anti-colonialism" and "anti-imperialism"

European colonial government set up a basic legal order, some basic services, and developed resources and infrastructure required for their transport to supply European manufacturing.



It was barebones but it was often better than what came before it, especially in terms of eradicating the slave trade, introducing basic literacy, and raising people to leave to at least a subsistence level.



Some film footage from the time

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHEvAo80pTQ [Embed]



If it had continued, most of Africa would have likely looked similar to White South Africa or Rhodesia before the end of White rule there.



By most accounts (including Africans themselves), both of those countries have regressed significantly since the end of White rule.

>muh we wuz enlightening them

/thread

There's reason why so many steppenig generals exist in chink history.

>what is rome

eurogutang is immoral because they colonized soulful black people and other POC 



Russian and Chinese colonization is moral because they colonized steppenigger turks and turks aren't human

You say this jokingly but it's unironically true. All the people that Russia and China "colonized" had long histories of aggression against Russia and China, hence the contiguous nature of their empires. They didn't sail across the ocean to timbuktu and start blasting ngubus minding their own business.

The Eastern Roman Empire had generals who were barbarians too. Why are you acting like that’s unique to Chinese civilization?
