How did the west become so powerful?

This unironically, the scientific method and the development brought by science putted Europe ahead,

Chinese discovered powder but the ones to really make that effective with proper guns and etc was the west and many other examples.

See you're a brainwashed favelamonkey who thinks Europe is great because we created the tools and parameters to determine what is great.

Jow Forums won't admit it, but it was because of the colonies. Eastern Europe had little to no colonies and as result they were nowhere near as powerful as Western Europe. Being close to the Atlantic ocean had mostly to do with it, as they had the best access to trade routes.

Attached: 1544869802707.png (621x577, 129K)

REMINDER: IT IS YOUR GOD GIVEN DUTY TO HATE WOMEN

High population density
Access to trade routes
Constant war
Preservation and culmination of knowledge

where the hell did he get those numbers?

>and lied about it
wut
Also
>$45 trillion
>TRILLION
The fuck are these people smoking.

adjusted for inflation.

Same way you determine Sweden's GDP. Lot of bullshitting and some math.

>Adjusted to £45 trillion
how about no

>£
Meant $.

adjusted for hyper-inflation*
you could literally buy the whole world back then for what would be $45 trillion in todays money

think about all the revenue the british empire generated for all those centuries, must have been millions back then

the british empire existed for centuries

You could buy most of the world today for 45 trillion.

the raj didn't

I really think you don't understand just how much a trillion is.
That number is absolutely ludicrous.

Attached: 1414308690546.jpg (640x640, 74K)

he's not wrong

Attached: main-qimg-d46ea4cc10804545b386a25682c96d6d.jpg (1482x864, 607K)

i do understand, were talking a lot of money over a long time of course it would have increased exponentially. £1000 100 years ago would be over a million today

and the UK smack bang in the centre n'all

Yes, biology is an oppressive social construct which upholds white cishet imperialist power structures. You should take the first step towards abolishing this construct by inhaling concentrated hydrogen cyanide in a poorly ventilated supply closet.

>it would have increased exponentially.
That's not how adjustment for inflation works though.

das rite

Attached: based.png (1080x1121, 936K)

if that were the case why didn't eastern euros just invade western countries en masse?

calm down, pointing out that the history of biology is one which is woven in with racist or whatever programs and power dynamics is hardly revolutionary. Look at shit like phrenology ffs, or hamitic theory and its impact and instrumentalisation as used by colonial powers on central africa, especially rwanda.

Attached: 220px-Foucault5.jpg (220x270, 19K)

With the blessing of Yakub

Are there actually people who think it is?

>Forensic artists and physical anthropologists from Egypt, France, and the United States independently created busts of Tutankhamun, using a CT-scan of the skull. Biological anthropologist Susan Anton, the leader of the American team, said the race of the skull was "hard to call". She stated that the shape of the cranial cavity indicated an African, while the nose opening suggested narrow nostrils, which is usually considered to be a European characteristic. The skull was thus concluded to be that of a North African. Other experts have argued that neither skull shapes nor nasal openings are a reliable indication of race
fucking christ, america

How else would you expect a country that was nearly a quarter of the total GDP of the world pre colonialism to go to less than even 1 percent when the British rule ended?

west made guns because they were always fighting each other...

what american said is correct

america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/2/maps-cartographycolonialismnortheurocentricglobe.html
Al Jazeera is an untapped meme-mine.

Source for anything you just said

You can hardly fault a science for having discarded faulty paradigms in the past. The basic insight of phrenology however, that there is some correlation between the physical dimensions of people and certain behavioral characteristics, is fairly well confirmed. For instance, the correlation between full scale IQ and brain volume is ~0.4, which means it explains 16% of the variance in the trait in the population. This relationship is well replicated and pretty robust.

Please read this
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_India_under_the_British_Raj

Btw it was 4.2% not 1%, sorry for the mistake

As if colonialism was the only factor at work for that, and absolutely nothing else changed in the world over that time.

why are you being defensive? self critique is a good part of science, phrenology may make some claims that are borne out, but that doesn't change what I said, it doesn't exist in a vaccuum and was invoked to justify and maintain existing heriarchies. As was shit like hamitic theory, or practices in psychotheraphy / physchology, female hysteria, slaves wanting to run away etc all have the effect of naturalising existing heriarchies, notice im not making a truth claim about the science, but rather talking about the use of science as an instrument, science is a tool, to what end it is used is determined by the people doing the science and what the society considers to be science etc, I suggest you read the structure of scientific revolutions by kuhn if you haven't he writes well about the history of science, it's not critical theory or gender studies or anything, he was working at the institute for advanced studies in princeton at the time

Still blatantly rejecting the fact that you guys have always been fags?

imagine being so rootless you care about what part of the globe is pointing 'up'

Never denied anything, i simply don't care.

Attached: 1542579327663.png (1512x1008, 703K)

Are you implying that a flourishing and rich civilization would not have found the means to get industrialized on their own?
The Ottomans had done it so why not the Mughals and the competing Sikh, Maratha and Rajput empires?

I'd wager it'd be better than under the British at least where the native economy was destroyed and all chances of industrialization would be shattered.

>Are you implying that a flourishing and rich civilization would not have found the means to get industrialized on their own?
Eventually, sure.
That's not how it actually works out in real life though.

Man I don't have any hatred against the Brits
They saw an opportunity and capitalised on it. Don't blame them for it.

What I dislike is when Brits claim that the overall effect it left on its colonies was actually positive.
As long as you don't feel that way, that's fine I suppose

>That's not how it actually works out in real life though.
Evil people...

Attached: Bait.jpg (400x400, 18K)

>What I dislike is when Brits claim that the overall effect it left on its colonies was actually positive.
I don't think anyone actually beleves that though, apart from some fringe weirdos.
>102172308
>Evil people...
Nature is red in tooth and claw. /tips fedora

They sucked the mney out but the gdp just stagnated. But India was colonised just before the industrial revolution and got Independence with all of Europe and America had gone off the fucking charts gdp wise with full industrialisation and modern services

Hm yeah I guess I should actually read Kuhn

>christianity

>Christianity

The Age of Discovery shifted the center of world trade routes to the Atlantic and away from the Mediterranean and Eurasia.

The """"west""" is just a euphemism for wh*teoids

GDP per capita of India under Britain never reached the level it achieved in 17th century under the Mughal Empire before it started breaking up.

Attached: India vs British GDP per Capita.png (743x485, 44K)