Is Sweden’s Wealth Based Upon Colonialism?

Executive Summary

• Africans routinely state that European countries owe all of their wealth to theft from Africa during colonization.
• We evaluate the accuracy of this claim.

Introduction

In several online comments, it is stated that the wealth in European-based countries is principally from African slavery. The following is an excellent example of this claim.

Yes, just like most European countries are rich because of colonization of African countries, but of course you are too stupid to see that. So, in essence, white people are living off OUR money, labor and resources.

Which Countries in Europe are Wealthy Today?

Something that Africans who make this claim do not appear to do is evaluate the differences in wealth between European-based countries, the degree to which each country was involved in colonialism, how long they were engaged in colonialism, and what the basis for their current economies are today.

If one looks at the most colonial countries, like Spain, Portugal, and the UK, they significantly lag behind those with the least colonial ties, like Germany, Norway, and Sweden. This is not to say resources were not extracted from countries due to their colonies. Both Spain and Portugal became wealthy because of their colonial extraction — but what is often missed is they did not stay that way for long. Portugal was one of the great maritime colonial powers and extracted mightily from its colonies. However, Portugal has not been a European power for hundreds of years. What happened to the lasting value of Portugal’s wealth extracted from its colonies?

The argument is that white societies owe their present level of accomplishment to the fact that they stole everything from non-whites. However, the Spanish stole more than anyone equivalent to the Portuguese. Neither Spain nor Portugal did much to progress their society because of the riches stolen from the New World. Instead, these riches made them lazy, and they were spent. Muslim societies in the Gulf countries have received enormous windfalls of wealth just based on sitting on top of the oil.

They did not have to find ways to transport themselves or conquer people in the New World, all extracted with European-based technologies. However, do any of the Gulf countries lead the world in thinking, setting up governments, infrastructure, and Nobel Prizes? With roughly 21% of the world’s population, only 5 Muslims have won Nobel Prizes once peace prizes are removed from the equation. Only three have won the Nobel Prize for science; two did their work in the US and most likely would not have won the prize without working within a white-originated society. If the Gulf states have received such a windfall in wealth, they had nothing to do with creating; where are the progress and contributions?

So, while resources were extracted from Africa during the colonial period, those were resources that were primarily underground and agricultural commodities. In the case of minerals, Africans did not know they existed and would not have been able to put them to use. (you have to have mastered metallurgy to make use of mining output) And you have to have mining technologies to access these resources in the first place. There is little evidence of either in Africa before the European colonialists arrived in 1888.

Leaving Out Technology Transfer from the Equation

Something entirely left out of the conversation by Africans who make this claim is that every single technology used by Africans beyond Stone Age instruments was brought to Africa by Europeans. So, in essence, Africans are living off European technology. This has led to many negatives for Africa as well because while European medicine significantly reduced infant mortality, Africa, by and large, did not bring down its birth rates in a comparable manner. Now, Africa stares over the abyss of massive overpopulation, which will lead to a high percentage of the continent leaving Africa.

This shows a barge left by the Belgians in the 1950s that is still used by the Congolese to ferry passengers up the river. Africans give no thanks for the technology they currently use; Europeans brought that. 

Even though Africans were shown how to use infrastructure, they have often been unable to maintain what the Europeans left behind correctly.

Indians and Bangladeshis like to communicate their anger about colonialism. However, guess where this train was built. Who brought the engineers (although the labor to lay the track would have been local)? Yes, the British. Those colonizers. If Indians and Bangladeshis are so offended by colonizers, why do they continue to use the infrastructure they brought? 

As with Africans, each of the ancestors of the people on this train, we’re promised that all that was necessary for a brighter future was to get rid of colonizers and have their countries managed locally.

How did that work out?

Well, the train images and video tell us. Did Europeans, who left India in 1947, stop India and Bangladesh from upgrading their railroads?

The Weak Relationship Between The Degree of Colonization by European Countries and Their Current Wealth Level

Some of the wealthiest countries today in Europe had either no colonies or few colonies. Norway had no colonies and was colonized by Sweden.

Africans seem to think that colonialization only occurred by whites of blacks. However, it has been the standard way of human civilizations everywhere. The difference with European colonializations is that people in distant lands, who evolved to look different, were colonized. Before Europeans colonized many parts of Africa, it had already been colonized by various more powerful tribes. Egypt, for example, had colonized parts of North-Eastern Africa for hundreds of years, which is far longer than Europeans were in Africa. Notice this explanation from Wikipedia.

The Anglo-Egyptian Sudan (Arabic: السودان الإنجليزي المصري‎ as-Sūdān al-Inglīzī al-Maṣrī) was a condominium of the United Kingdom and Egypt in the eastern Sudan region of northern Africa between 1899 and 1956, but in practice the structure of the condominium ensured full British control over the Sudan with Egypt having local influence[clarification needed] instead. Until 1914, Egypt itself was nominally part of the Ottoman Empire. During the 19th century it gradually expanded its control of the Sudan as far south as the Great Lakes region. In 1881 the Mahdist revolt broke out in Sudan and in 1882 the British invaded Egypt. Egypt became a de facto protectorate of Britain and together British and Egyptian forces gradually re-conquered the Sudan. In 1899, they formally agreed to establish a joint protectorate: Egypt on the basis of its previous claims and Britain by right of conquest.

Let us review the Ottoman Empire.

This video shows the growth and decline of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire was a colonialist enterprise. It ranged from 1370 to the end of World War I. This was a roughly 700-year period, at least 10x more extended than the colonization of Africa by Europeans. 

Do we see a pattern?

The Ottoman Empire colonized Egypt by 1520. However, Egypt had already colonized parts of Sudan. Therefore, the Sudanese area was controlled by the Ottoman Empire through Egypt. When the Ottoman Empire fell at the end of World War II, Egypt was colonized by the British, hence the “Anglo-Egyptian-Sudanese” area.

Colonization is a constant feature of humanity. It is not a single instance from 1888 to 1945 (with extensions out to 1965) that was practiced in a single place by whites who colonized Africans. Some Africans may look at everything written above and ask the question, how can the Ottomans have had an empire?

The answer to this is that non-whites also colonize.

This may be shocking to most Africans, but sub-Sarahan people in Africa also had empires and colonies. Yes, it is true. And the empires were not just based on trading baseball cards but were based on violence. 

Most Africans have not held a shield. However, they are undoubtedly familiar with them. They are found on many African flags. And notice the spears behind the shield. If pre-European colonialism Africans all got along great and never colonized each other — what was the need for all of these instruments of war? 

Does this look similar? Yes, it is a European shield. It served the same purpose as the African shields. 

Yet, for some reason, Egypt’s colonization of Africa is mostly forgotten by Africans, as is the Zulu Empire. At the same time, the only empire Africans seem to like talking about is the European Empire. African schooling also tries to present all war and fighting as a feature of Europeans. It presents the idea that Africans were sitting in their huts, minding their own business, when the European colonizers appeared. African countries’ educational curriculum is unsophisticated, and they consider it perfectly fine to teach fiction. Most of Africa does not understand rational thinking, does not support Western Medicine, or has as much of an appreciation for science. Therefore, it is very easy for African leaders to promote this self-serving view to their populace, which then removes personal responsibility for improving things.

They tell their citizens.

“We are still recovering from colonialism.”

Each African leader has this sentence down, and they repeat it like a parrot.

They must teach it in Oxford.

“We have many problems….political, social, economic.”

African leaders have no intention of doing something about it. They just let their populations explode around them. African leaders also like shopping at the Champs-Élysées road in Paris and stop bringing back Yves St. Lauren and Coach luxury items in 10 to 15 carts back to Africa. Not only did the Europeans rob their country, but the white man also made them take their wives to Paris on shopping sprees with taxpayer money. That is what we whites do, and we like to make other races go shopping for luxury goods in Paris, Milan, and Beverly Hills.

Independence movements in all of the formerly colonized countries follow this algorithm.

1. “Europeans colonialists have been robbing us!”
2. Independence….a XYZ country for XYZ people.
3. Get Independence on a Thursday
4. Some elite contingent takes power
5. Elite contingent begins robbing on Friday
6. Blame every issue on outsiders
7. Send your kids to Oxford
8. Repeat for the next generation of elites

As the following quote explains, this same trick is performed on the population by Indian elites. 

Though the narrative of white man robbed us continues in Indian history books but apparently the history books are more balanced now.

As does China, as this quotation explains.

China has a historical grudge. Esp. since the Brits got the locals hooked on to Opium. Opium wars. They keep citing it all the time. An average Chinese guy is thoroughly brainwashed by school history books. He is trained not to trust the world outside.

The Example of Sweden and Norway

Norway never had any colonies in Africa or anywhere else. Yet Norway is one of the wealthiest countries in Europe. Can anyone explain how Norway is wealthy if the argument is that colonies lead to long-term wealth and the standard of living of European-based countries?

Here is another example of a quote that proposes European-based countries’ wealth is due to colonialism.

Colonialism, Neocolonialism along with racial discrimination, incompetent leaders and tribal wars have contributed, and still contribute to deprivation in the continent. Real research studies such as “Race, Poverty and Deprivation in South Africa” (Journal of African Economies, Volume 22, Issue 2, March 2013, Pages 187–238) should explain you the basics. Colonies=wealth. When Sweden possessed several colonies and sold most of them (you know what that means right? give or hand over in exchange for money).

Sweden has some of the fewest colonies for the shortest amounts of time, yet is one of the wealthiest countries in Europe. Sweden had colonies for 13 years. However, most of Sweden’s African colonies were held for 3 to 6 years. Let us review each of Sweden’s colonies for the duration they were held.

Here is a list of Sweden’s colonies in Africa.

“The former Swedish colonies in Africa were: Swedish Gold Coast (1650–1663; lost to Denmark and the Dutch) Including the Cape Coast (1649–1663) consisting of the following settlements: Fort Apollonia, presently Beyin: 1655–1657. Fort Christiansborg/Fort Frederiksborg, which became the capital, presently Osu: 1652–1658.” – Wikipedia

Because Sweden had its colonies taken from them by the other powers. So, under the stolen wealth hypothesis, what explains Sweden’s present level of wealth? When Muslims immigrate to Sweden, they degrade the behavioral standards of the nation. What explains why Swedes behave so much better than Muslims and create a better society than Muslims both in Sweden when compared to Muslims living in Sweden and Sweden any other Muslim country?

According to many Africans, Sweden’s present level of wealth is based upon 13 years of colonial history. It seems this massive theft was put into a bank account that the Swedes have been living off of.

Furthermore, these colonies were sold roughly 360 years ago.

Swedes are known for having nice parks and enjoying them. According to many Africans, this must be because Swedes don’t have to work (it is true, no one works in Sweden). Sweden’s wealth comes from 13 years when the Swedes had a few African colonies in the 1650s. Selling those colonies has allowed Sweden to have a workfree existence since then. Saabs, Volvos, and pharmaceuticals get exported from the country, but no one knows how they get built as no Swede has had a job in over 360 years — since the 1650s. 

Let us review the Wikipedia entry on Sweden’s economy.

“telecommunications, pharmaceuticals, industrial machines, precision equipment, chemical goods, home goods and appliances, forestry, iron, and steel.”

Sweden has a lot of manufacturing, which Africa had zero to do with either working in or developing. That is the basis of the Swedish economy. How is that related to income derived from 13 years of colonies?

So, several small colonial areas were owned for an average of around six years (some were held longer, some shorter) roughly 360 years ago, which explains Sweden’s present wealth. The Dutch had a significant colonial holding in Africa, but are the Dutch more wealthy than the Swedish today?

• The Dutch have a per capita income that is roughly 2% higher than the Swedes.
• Norway has a per capita income (it never had any colonies, remember) around 25% higher than either Sweden or the Dutch.
• How about Australia and New Zealand? Both are European-based countries settled by Europeans. However, neither of them had colonies. Yet both are wealthy. Is their wealth also based upon stealing from Africa? Did they steal from it without ever being involved in Africa?

I have to ask this question.

Are the Africans that make this claim about all European based countries’ wealth being based upon theft from Africa capable of doing this analysis? Do they even attempt to look for evidence before making a claim? Because the argument falls apart quickly upon analysis.

Cross Country Comparison and Measuring the Degree of Colonizalization

Take a look at the countries most involved in colonialism. Say Spain and Portugal versus Sweden, Norway, and Germany. The latter has the least involvement in colonies. Which of the two groups of countries is wealthier?

If colonies lead to long term wealth, why is the wealth of countries inversely related to the degree those countries were involved in colonialism? Spain and Portugal did make short term wealth from stealing across the New World. But this did not translate to long-term wealth.

Furthermore, the idea that Africans have never stolen, or have not stolen from African tribes they have conquered, or would not have stolen from European societies if they had had the technology to colonialize Europe is ridiculous. Africa is a continent of kleptocrats. For many Africans, theft is a problem if a white person does it. If a black person does it, it is perfectly fine. Many complaints about theft seem to be that a non-black person was doing it, not the theft itself. African nations have another way of improving than copying white models as closely as possible. There is no African model of creating a prosperous society.

The Short Period of Time of European Colonization of Africa

First, Africa was only colonized by Europeans from roughly 1890 to 1945, with 20 years taken to figure out the transfer. However, even before colonialization, Africa had achieved nearly no technological advancements.

Why is this?

The Perpetual Need of Africans to Blame Outside Entities

African leaders rob their countries and then blame Europeans, and their populations buy it. Mugabe told his population that all the problems were due to whites. He kicked out white farmers, and now Zimbabwe, previously a net food exporter, can’t feed its population. And you can see how much Mugabe opposed theft. Mugabe turned Zimbabwe into a basket case with 100 Trillion Dollars of notes!

While Mugabe robbed the country, his sons enjoyed their stolen wealth. All of this was done while putting their failures entirely on the white minority or European colonialization. 

And Africans are still blaming Europeans.

Why Do Africans Want to Live in the Countries Filled with Evil Colonizers?

Nearly all of the infrastructure and technology of any note is in one country in sub-Saharan Africa, South Africa. A European-based country that Africans illegally immigrate into to get access to white infrastructure. Africans immigrated to SA during the height of apartheid — because it was so much better than living in African-run countries. According to the same immigrants, SA has gone downhill since the end of apartheid and the rise of the ANC.

Do you see what this says?

Apartied in a white-run country is far better than being African in an African-run country.

Just think about that for a minute.

The thing that should have been focused on was not to end apartheid (apparently) but to institute apartheid throughout the rest of Africa. Suppose we want better outcomes for Africans. If one goes by outcomes, what other conclusion should one come to?

Many Africans show their distance from their ex-European colonizers by getting on rafts and trying to immigrate to the countries (some of which colonized them.) This shows how independent Africans are from Europeans. 

Whenever Africans face a natural disaster or epidemic, they know they can’t rely on Africans to help them, and they go running to their ex-colonizers for support. That is the people who they say robbed them. This is how Africans show that they don’t need European involvement. Africans take just the parts of the assistance they want. They take the inoculations. They take the wells dug for them by international aid groups. However, they leave birth control, which is a white plot to control them. 

Africans, who have overwhelmed their infrastructure by growing to 1 billion from around 350 million since colonization, don’t seem to understand the importance of birth control. Most also don’t seem to understand the relationship between high birth rates and poverty and overwhelming the support system. Africans are quick to point to the “legacy of colonialization” but do not point to how their population growth has led to their problems. As with most non-white countries, there is little planning or long-term thinking. There is hope for the future without taking the necessary steps to reform the current system. Nigerians plan to immigrate to white countries, which they could never have created and do not understand. 

Conclusion

African’s claims around the wealth of European based countries being mostly or entirely based upon theft from Africa during the European colonial period do not hold up. This is not to say that Europeans did not take resources from Africa, but it does not explain the wealth of European or European based countries. And it also does not explain the wealth of European based countries ranging from the US to Australia to New Zealand to Austria to Norway that never had any African colonies.

*Liberia was technically a colony of the US. In essence, to resettle elite former US slaves to Africa, the US never extracted from Liberia, and the African Americo-Liberians locally managed it. The US propped up Liberia with aid, so Liberia received resources from the US rather than vice versa.

Sharing This Article

Very few know the information contained in this article. Why not share this article with someone you know so they can also learn about it? It’s easy to do. Just copy this article link and paste it into your email.

References

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Egyptian_Sudan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden