So I guess it's settled then - you are a racist.
Having resources like iron , coal and oil does not lead to industrialization . Cheap labor does and what is cheaper labor than slavery?
100% wrong - if cheap labour leads to industrialisation then all you would need is an abundance of labour. How can you make steel without coal and iron exactly? Where's your proof for this?
When one thinks of slavery they only think about plantations and agriculture and not on the peripheral factors like the financial and insurance industry that facilitated this evil practice ,
Then you think to narrowly sir. Barclays got rich off the slave trade, and a number of the institutions taken for granted today find their roots in the evil practice of slavery. Slavery is more than simply owning human beings - it's the whole infrastructure and social system engineered around extracting wealth out of expendable and transferable human beings. To limit your analysis to the plantation is to miss the wood for the trees.
The wealth generated by by these other industries allowed for the exploitation of the natural resources , but it all began on the backs of slaves..
Yes and no, as I pointed out in my points. It wasn't the money, but who got the money that was the critical factor.
If only the possessions of natural resources led to industrialization then Africa would have been the richest continent ,
Well no, because firstly the resources you're thinking of weren't exploitable by the locals without the appropriate technology and capital, all of which was centred in Eurasia. This delves into a deeper question as to why Africa did not develop on the same path or speed as Europe and Asia, which is a complex question to say the least. Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel" has one particular thesis on this - namely that the geological and ecosystem factors alone favoured Eurasia over Africa and Latin America. I'd recommend that as a read if you're really interested in this question, which has some interesting hypotheses.
Europe was basically a backward continent and it only became rich after the discovery of the western hemisphere...
Europe was a backward continent circa 1000 A.D., depending on how you measure this, but by 1400 North-Western Europe had overtaken China as the most developed place on Earth.(see Maddison's seminal work "The World Economy: A Millennial perspective"). Europe's rise, thus, had started before its embarkation on colonisation. Indeed it would have been impossible for them to conquer such large swathes of the world without some technological or military advantage, given the relatively small numbers compared to the natives.
this combined with the inherently evil genocidal nature of the white man who mostly eradicated the the natives in their brutal exploitation of them and when they were done began their rape of Africa .
White men are inherently evil? They have a genocidal nature? This is such disgusting racism that it barely warrants a response, but I shall. You sir are a racist, and I think less of you for it.
They brought all the proceeds back to Europe and that is how they became rich and industrialized
As I've pointed out, in England's case the expropriation form the colonies was simply not enough to matter on its own, it mattered in an indirect sense, which is much more important in explaining their rise than the monetary value of the goods themselves. Do you have any evidence for your position?
Their evil nature was of such that after the slaves were freed that they opened the floodgates to European immigration in America especially for skilled tradesman because the whiteman in America could hardly turn a screw ... all the skilled trades were done by slaves and so further depriving the blackman.
More racism and unsubstantiated claims. European migration to America was already extraordinarily high before emancipation, so that point is plainly wrong. Where is your evidence for the claim about "all the skilled trades were done by slaves"? Where do you get your racist rants from? White men could hardly turn a screw? America was specifically targeting highly-skilled migrants from Europe, as the majority were unskilled workers from the poorer parts of Europe (Southern Italy and Ireland especially). However, the people who put them to work were clearly skilled - American Industrialisation was mostly home-grown in the sense that either the inventions and/or the implementation of the capital required was done by Americans.
All this talk about economic theories and the path to industrialization is all bullshit ... was done on the exploitation of African slaves and other indigenous peoples like in India . Indonesia as in the case of the dutch
Yes all this talk about reasoned evidence is bullshit, so you can make racist rants against white people. How about you remove your head from your arse and actually consider the fact that we're all human beings. Slavery is a blight on the history of the European powers, and that demands an understanding of how it came to be. Claiming that skin pigmentation caused it is a disservice to an important question.
