[hdhjebebeb]

> Northern Europe, not known for their abundance of slaves, is wealthier.

Northern Europe didn't import a lot of slaves but they sure as hell benefitted financially from the slave trade.

> Colonialism was not a huge success for England when you look at how much it cost. It was great for national pride and as a symbol of their "greatness" however.

The motivations for colonizing were primarily economic. Do you think the belgian congo was created to satisfy king leopold's fondness for cutting off hands too? The idea that colonialism is some kind of beneficent force that exists to civilize savages is painfully condescending

[apexalpha]

Countries like Netherlands, France, England definitely profited form the slave trade. But there are many European nations, Germany, Austria, Scandinavia, that didn't.

[Daishiman]

So you think that the abundant, cheap, raw material that made it into European factories that spurred the Industrial age materialized out of nowhere?

[gorbachev]

Scandinavian countries, however, had an underclass, who worked in near-slave-like environments for the benefit of land owners.

[apexalpha]

Yes, as did every other (European) nation at the time. The benefits of the slave trade in the Netherlands did not go to the bottom part of society...