How Europe Stole The World

[UpAndComing]

Capitalism?
How did capitalism help them “steal the world”
And what were everyone else practicing and why would them practices be worst than capitalism

- Double Entry Bookkeeping. Popularized in the 1400s
- Mercantilism in the 1400s-1600s. Which was the early stage Capitalism. It emphasized increasing Exports, and promoted Imperialism
- Creation of Corporations, early 1600s
- The Dutch East India Company in the early 1600s, a Corporation, started creating monopolies on trade
- Used Colonialism as Satellite nations that supported the home country to create wealth for them. (Ex. Britain to the United States, France to Haiti and Louisiana, etc)


Other countries were practicing Feudalism and Monarchies

 

[KingZaire_]

Y’all give Europe to much credit they beat most people with disease.

Africa lost because Africa wasn’t Africa that you think of today gotta stop looking at this with modern lense.

There was no race there were no “African people” or “Black people” just a rival tribe or kingdom nothing more.

Slave trade was a trade it was mutually beneficial

 

[Toussaint]

The Mongols destroyed their competition and allowed Europe access to Asian goods.

Before the Mongols Central Asia was arguably the center of civilization and you had to go through them, the Uzbeks, Khwarazmians, Kyivans, Pashtuns, Cumaks, Iranians, etc if you wanted to trade with China which itself was disunified so even if you got to China you had 3-4 kingdoms you had to deal with.

Mongols came through, destroyed all these kingdoms and massacred millions of people, united China under one emperor and basically took out the middle men that was preventing western Europeans from getting a sizeable return on trade.

That’s why the Silk Road is looked as this great thing and world changing event by Europeans because they weren’t effected by it and were able to profit from it as they could now travel freely to China and beyond gaining wealth. The Mongols just liked to receive tribute and be told how great they were and they both hated Islam so it was a win win. Meanwhile in Islamic, Eastern European and Central Asian sources it’s an apocalyptic event that they still haven’t recovered from.


Look up cities like Samarkand, Baghdad, Merv, Bukhara, Garanj before the Mongol conquests. They make Rome look like a pastoral village.

 

[JadeB]

Y’all give Europe to much credit they beat most people with disease.

Africa lost because Africa wasn’t Africa that you think of today gotta stop looking at this with modern lense.

There was no race there were no “African people” or “Black people” just a rival tribe or kingdom nothing more.

Slave trade was a trade it was mutually beneficial

Pertaining to the Americas and Australia, how much did the Natives and Aborigines stood a chance if they had immunity to the diseases that Europeans brought?

 

[voiture]

The Ottomans fukked up by blocking trade routes to India. It forced the Europeans to look for another route to Asia leading to the discovery of the America's and many more.

 

[BlackDiBiase]

this was nice but obviously he didnt tell it all, just kemit alone had been teaching greeks and romans for years before the 14th century.

but he would never get into that

columbus met no resistance

 

[mykey]

The Europeans only came up in the 18th century after the Industrial Revolution and the massive exploitation of the Global South that followed.

However, their reign has come to an end.

Actually, this is going back to how things used to be in history. For thousands of years, China and India were the global superpowers.

 

[BlackDiBiase]

The fact that we lost to a poor, cold, no natural resourced land as badly as we did is embarrassing .

thats not what happened lol, we taught them everything including warfare but they tamed horses and then gunpowder.

i will give them credit for their cerebral warfare they have been engaging in ever since, the takeover.

 

[Nkrumah Was Right]

Those armies had been depleted by centuries of war and internal strife caused by succession issues. Even then the Europeans had trouble putting down those empires that were shells of their former selves. The English and the Ashanti had 5 wars before the English could finally subdue them. The Mandingos just about drove the French completely out of West Africa, but the British saved the French by agreeing to not sale the Mandingos any more arms and ammunition. You already know of the Hell the English caught from the Zulus in South Africa, but they also caught Hell from the Igbos in modern day Nigeria because the Igbos were not a traditional centralized fighting force with a monarch. In all of those instances the colonizers still needed help from indigenous Africans to subdue the groups that they toppled.

Yes, very true. The Anglo-Ashanti wars are a good example. Only after Britain had undergone the Second Industrial Revolution, distilled quinine, did they have a chance - even with their Fante/Hausa lackeys.

 

[cole phelps]

Pertaining to the Americas and Australia, how much did the Natives and Aborigines stood a chance if they had immunity to the diseases that Europeans brought?

I think as far as the Americas cacs probably would have had to wait for the gun technology to get better to fully conquer the continent similar to how it went with Africa. the natives were fierce warriors so taking the continent without diseases wiping out a huge chunk of the native population would have been insanely difficult. I would think full exploration and conquest of the Americas wouldn't be fully possible till about late 19th early 20th century when machine guns were created to give cacs an insane advantage

 

[MegaManX]

Their is literally zero evidence of this, you guys just repeat CIA/AFRICOM propaganda on here all day.

there really isn't any evidence of this in their 3000 years of history. China been the same for thousands of years and have conquered many a nation. For the most part they are greedy, but they also have a VERY strict structured society. Unchecked capitalism is never allowed in China and once they find out any of their merchants are acting a fool in Africa, they tend to wash their hands of the situation and let the Africans do with them as they please.

 

[Nkrumah Was Right]

there really isn't any evidence of this in their 3000 years of history. China been the same for thousands of years and have conquered many a nation. For the most part they are greedy, but they also have a VERY strict structured society. Unchecked capitalism is never allowed in China and once they find out any of their merchants are acting a fool in Africa, they tend to wash their hands of the situation and let the Africans do with them as they please.

In contrast, we have 500 years of evidence stemming from interactions with cacs…

 

[Gritsngravy]

Y’all give Europe to much credit they beat most people with disease.

Africa lost because Africa wasn’t Africa that you think of today gotta stop looking at this with modern lense.

There was no race there were no “African people” or “Black people” just a rival tribe or kingdom nothing more.

Slave trade was a trade it was mutually beneficial

And when people talk about Europe only a couple of countries really even made moves

 

[Gritsngravy]

- Double Entry Bookkeeping. Popularized in the 1400s
- Mercantilism in the 1400s-1600s. Which was the early stage Capitalism. It emphasized increasing Exports, and promoted Imperialism
- Creation of Corporations, early 1600s
- The Dutch East India Company in the early 1600s, a Corporation, started creating monopolies on trade
- Used Colonialism as Satellite nations that supported the home country to create wealth for them. (Ex. Britain to the United States, France to Haiti and Louisiana, etc)


Other countries were practicing Feudalism and Monarchies

So you saying if other people did this for example the Americas they wouldn’t be damn near killed off

 

[Samori Toure]

No, Africans lost at the time. Let's say you are part of 10 members family and you have beef with me. If I found a way to kill 3 of yours by ambush, spread rumors among the rest, corrupt a few so your leadership and unity fall apart, you've lost no matter how "unfair" my strategy was. Look how Belgium divided and conquer Hutu and Tutsi in Rwanda. On this opposite look how Japan back in the 19th century approached the western threat. They realized that they had to adapt and learn fast or they will fall just like the Chinese.

I don't agree with that vantage point because the decline in some of those empires had nothing to do with the Europeans. Ghana, Mali and the Yoruba civilizations declines occurred mostly due to internal strife. They had succession issues which led to constant Civil Wars and and those constant wars within weakened them and led to people people leaving their empires. Case in point look at how the Mande people fled Ghana/Mali. Those people leaving occurred over a period of the last 500 years or so. Now when you go into West Africa you will see Mande people everywhere from Liberia all the way over into Nigeria but they are not from those places and only left due to strife in Ghana/Mali and to openness trade routes. Same thing with the Akan people in Ivory Coast and modern day Ghana. They migrated to their current location to evade the spread of Islam in the Sahel. The Fulani are another migratory group. A large block of them are in Nigeria now, but they are not from Nigeria.

So you are looking at the end result of how Africans were colonized, but the seeds of that colonization had already been laid due to declining empires rather than the comingof the White man. The Whiteman's arrival only gave rise to lesser societies like Dahomeywhich had previously been tribute paying vassal State of the larger Yoruba Empire. That is way it took the Europeans hundreds of years to capture those lands and then they quickly gave them independence and installed puppet governments because those lands still had remnants of empires and they were too hard to hold.