How do you properly pronounce "hohol"? I want to make sure I'm being racist properly.

Short term? Yes. Long term. No. Leftists also claim that niggers picking up cotton on plantations built USA, don't care what they say.

>>25495937 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQoz5tdolck You can hear it on 0:06

>>25495942 Lmao the west really paid for hollywood to make propaganda like this? Poor hohols never stood a chance

>>25495940 >Leftists also claim that niggers picking up cotton on plantations built USA, And they're kinda right Cotton was the main US' export back then and negro slaves provided american textile industry with cheap raw materials. I know it is popular on imageboards to hate negroes but my experience of interacting with them was fine

>>25495956 Niggers are a plague. Easily 10x worse than churka

>>25495956 >And they're kinda right They are absolutely wrong, niggers picking up cotton in the South stagnated the economy and contributed to the failure of Confederacy during the war, while the North without niggers mechanized the farming process and made it a lot more efficient. Slavery only benefited slave owners. And for the sake of argument it doesn't matter what you think about niggers.

No Europeans did colonialism just out of the goodness of their hearts

What I learned in history class is that the early, large colonies (most notably Portugal's, Spain's, England's) were profitable. Some other countries (ahem such as Germany) came in late with some chickenshit colonies and only lost money with these.

>>25495997 So Germany started colonising Africa and Oceania just to be in big boys' club?

no that's why the european nations released them it was a prestige project. i think portugal devoted 20% of their gdp to their overseas administration in the 60's before they kicked them out. their were nations forcibly kicked out despite plebiscites, like malta or trucial states, or when the US kicked out philipines because they didn't want to rebuild it after ww2. there were profitable ventures - british india, hawaii, west indies for a lil bit, free congo. you get colonial troops even if isn't profitable. i think wealth siphoning is more intra state, like muscovy sucking all the wealth out the country side. there's some token spending, like in the EU or US they'll say certain states use welfare more, but ultimately they benefit from the hegemony of their markets. however france can't suck all the wealth in vietnam to paris, instead its to somewhere in south vietnam and they do all this nation building. really they are just building up a competitor when they could just sell them things, like how whatever former portugese africa is called can have capitals competing with portugal now since portugal is such a shit hole. Cuba is a shithole that never saw nation building where as puerto rico just leeches off the US

>>25496011 AFAIU, basically that They called it having their "place in the sun" (Platz an der Sonne) in... 1897 - damn, that's embarrassing to be that late. They started earlier, but German big boy aspirations were intensifying at the time.

So what's the alternative explanation? Just an addiction to buckbreaking?

Colonial powers gained a lot of money from the colonies. But they also splurged a lot of money on extreme luxury, tech, culture, science development, on armies and big strategic games. When France and England and Spain were the colonial powers they were so much richer than Sweden it wasn't even funny. It was on the level how America is much much much richer than modern France or UK - you can't even compare.

>>25495934 Just look at the architecture and cultural relics and art from the same times. Countries that didn't have colonies were drab and pathetic.

>>25496065 false sweden had higher literacy, serfdom abolished earlier, longer life expectancy over spanish citizens who had their monies drained on vainglorious military expeditions. spain is the perfect picture of a country that had colonialism without industrialization - a shit hole

>>25496084 Colonies and industry were indeed quite a winning combination. Industry multiplied the value of the materials "harvested" from colonies - either in the motherland or with owned factories in the colonies.

>>25496107 especially in the days of tariffs or monopoly rights

>>25496084 >spain is the perfect picture of a country that had colonialism without industrialization By the time industrial revolution was a thing we didnt have colonies and wars have consumed the money. Retarded Habsburgs fault.

>>25496011 >>25495997 >So Germany started colonising Africa and Oceania just to be in big boys' club? Yes. It was about coaling stations. In the time of steamships you needed to replenish the coal of your steamer on longer journeys. Basically England and France controlled all harbors to Asia and that where countries that were not friendly to Germany and tried to block German trade - like Nord Stream today.

>>25495934 >Was european colonialism profitable for european nations? Profitable enough that Spain had huge inflation and Britain's population was twice as wealthy as the next one. Also ruined Scotland.

European colonialism helped invent capitalism and stock companies considering it was all through private enterprise, not to mention credit for banking and investment which helped create and destroy regional superpowers

>>25496166 > Retarded Habsburgs fault. Yeah who didn't remember when Habsburg invaded Vietnam The only one retarded are modern Spanish

it was extremely profitable but not in terms of direct revenue to a state but to the companies that ran the trade. Even in relatively recent times you had american companies such as United Fruit that basically ran several latin american countries and made bank. To say it wasn't profitable is dindu nuffin revisionism from the race politics folks

>>25497083 All the evidence points against colonialism in general being profitable. There were some profitable colonies and cases where it was profitable for individuals but most were expensive prestige projects and a drain on the metropole.

East Indian Company was the largest company during its existence and commanded one of the largest militaries at its time. Dutch Golden Age (a spice trade empire) Portuguese Golden Age (a slave empire) If they didn't think it was profitable, then the colonials wouldn't have fought to kept their Empire. And see Russia today. Russia is an empire. Look at France in Algeria. Algeria didn't even have oil when the war was fought.

1. exploit resources 2. protect trade routes by clearing out violent savages (barbary pirates; malacca pirates) 3. enslave natives or ""indenture"" them to work manual labor in your country or cheap infantry fodder 4. economy to dump manufactured goods or place to build industry in case european homeland gets invaded (russia) 5. site of proxy-geopolitical wars (seven years war) 6. propagate national culture, language, politics, architecture etc (except in portugal where they developed nothing) look at countries which never had colonies. germany. they're energy starved to this day. same with japan -- which is why the japanese were to eager to rape/pummel everything for their homeland.

Portugal had the longest running euro colonial empire and today it is the poorest euro nation excluding the post-soviet ones and Greece. Nordic countries had no affairs in colonial maters and today they are the most developed countries. Rich countries are rich because they were, or still are, nation-states. Being a nation-state is what makes you rich. Sovereignty creates wealth. I think the closest argument that can be made against the colonial era is that it prevented colonies from having sovereignty, which is what actually causes poverty. But then again, most of these post colonial countries today are externally sovereign, but internally they are not unified nations.

Nigger --> Nigga Hohol --> ???

>( Sweden, Denmark, Norway) they do have a rich history of colonialism. in africa, americas and even asia finland doesnt though because they were never independent in the period modern colonialism is service industry colonialism: brown people produce everything while white people do useless service jobs. this makes the working class quite wealthy in those countries, but they rely 100% on globalism and can never rebel against it in any way without collapsing completely. so they can just watch as they get genocided and replaced, and as capitalism at last wins after destroying any last non-global identity

>>25497182 >( Sweden, Denmark, Norway) > have a rich history of colonialism. in africa, americas and even asia Yeah who doesn't know their "rich history", especially that of Norway... You forgot to mention Finland.

>>25495937 Pronounce it correctly in the Muscovite language "Ha-Hole".

>>25495937 Literally "whore hole".

>>25497083 > but to the companies that ran the trade this. My father used to regularly travel to South Africa for industrial projects before the niggers took over. In other words, it was more profitable for a wectern company to construct industries in Africa than in Europe or the US. After that episode, it was Pooland.

> Finland wealthy > Sweden, Denmark, Norway robbed nobody Hue. Sigh.

>>25495968 This but unironically, at least when they catechized the local population. Salvation is worth more than any amount of earthly riches.

>>25497358 Most retards posting here never had a job and what they know is generally one sided bullshit they read on the internet designed to get them thinking a certain way so they have no idea how western politics works. In short, you do a job for the government, its not that great, the pay is shit so you're doing "civil service", this is the way it always worked in the US, you were never part of the government to earn money but to build contacts. The real payout is once you've done government work and can now get a seat in a private company. That's where you start earning money and thats how colonialism works. This is being deliberately obscured these days although it used to be common knowledge and nobody was angry about it say 20 years ago.

>>25497402 At least in Germany and Switzerland this has changed from my experience. (I am a failed Bernd economist) If I look at the (intelligent) people I used to know or work with, they all work for state-owned companies nowadays, although they had high positions in private companies. As far as Europe is concerned, I would say that things are developing towards some kind of central bureau economic system.

>>25497149 >>25497387 Sovereignty isn't necessarily the answer to success, Portuguese never leveraged their influence not to mention Portuguese colonialism was about exploration mostly

the american wave of colonialism was profitable, the negro wave wasn't. negro colonies were a net negative for every colonial state's finances.

>>25495968 so you think the victors of WW2 got rid of their colonies because of the goodness of their hearts? lmao

>>25496197 It was not all through private enterprise, you are delusional, there was massive state backing

>>25497314 you're just being historically illiterate norway didnt exist sweden and denmark had colonies in americas, africa and asia