[adlkjnndnnd]

I think history is far more messy than you make it out to be. There are not always easy black and white answers.

I don't think the brief colonial episode simply explains the wealth of my country (or many others) - especially as in between it had been completely destroyed.

But that's also, again, besides the point. History was complex. All sorts of people made war with each other, murdered and enslaved. Including people in the African continent. That's what humans were and are. Maybe those warmongering people simply earned their exploits, "fair and square" so to speak - we may not like it, but who is going to take it away from them, and on what grounds?

But the theory that wealth is only a result of exploitation is completely wrong. Our wealth in the modern world is mostly the result of technological progress, not of exploitation.

[billy_beef]

> I don't think the brief colonial episode simply explains the wealth of my country (or many others) - especially as in between it had been completely destroyed.

The fact that your nation lost stolen wealth does not absolve it of the crime of theft friend.

> But the theory that wealth is only a result of exploitation is completely wrong. Our wealth in the modern world is mostly the result of technological progress, not of exploitation.

I did not say that, you are straw manning my argument. I am saying that THAT wealth creation, incontrovertibly, was exploitative.

[kfgjkjjjg]

(lost password to the old account, had to make a new one)

"The fact that your nation lost stolen wealth does not absolve it of the crime of theft friend."

As I said, the winners of the war decided on the punishment. Can anybody ever be absolved of anything, really? And again, the nation is one thing, the people in it are another thing.

At some point you just have to accept what happened.

What if I was the son of a murderer, and you therefore would be of the opinion that I (the son) have no right to be alive. Would you expect me to voluntarily commit suicide, so that you can feel satisfied? That's absurd.

" I am saying that THAT wealth creation, incontrovertibly, was exploitative. "

What wealth creation do you mean - technological progress?

Funny enough, the descendants of the African slaves who were brought to the US are now better off than the descendants of the people who remained in Africa.

You could spin it endlessly. If the US hadn't been colonized, presumably technological progress would not have been huge in America. But more importantly, there would have been no allies to win the war against Germany. Hitler might have won the war. Perhaps there would not even have been a french revolution and no democracy.

What then - does that mean we Germany are entitled to the whole of Europe, because the nazi expansion was only stopped because of ill gotten colonial gains (existence of the US)?