| > You can find one or two professors to stand behind literally any point. But that theory doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Not just one or two, the article you linked to clearly states that it is hotly debated by economic and history experts. The professor is an expert on the topic, are you? One thing all experts agree on, is that Africa was, a very exploited continent. And many believe it still is. How else would the worlds richest continent in terms of natural resources also have the worlds poorest populations? Europe benefited from the African slave trade, you say "just a tiny bit", I say significantly, but on that we both agree. > If the slave trade is “actually” what was responsible for European wealth, how did Britain end it almost overnight without any significant impact on its economy? They ended it at the height of the British Empire. When they had colonized huge swathes of Africa. It did not impact Britain's economy since the direct exploitation of african peopls was replaced by the direct exploitation of africas natural resources. Colonialism is just another form of slavery. > The rise of strong central governments that could protect trade routes, and the early part of the Industrial Revolution That's right. And one of the most lucrative trade routes in human history that they protected, controlled and profited from was the trans-Atlantic slave trade. |