Or did they just fo the bare minimum to make resource extraction more efficent?

The initial drive in the 19th century was profit and competition between major powers, but later there were genuine efforts to develop Africa, particularly in the postwar era when decolonization was inevitable and Europe and America adopted Wilsonian liberal internationalism.

>>17854302
The initial drive was abolition of the Arab slave trade. Europeans were benevolent from the start.

>>17854285 (OP)
They suppressed the slave trade, human sacrifice and cannibalism. The brought sound government, the rule of law, built infrastructure and encouraged trade and investment. Anti-whites will say "but it wasn't a utopia therefore it was bad." The point is not to compare Africa to an imaginary utopia, but to the realistic alternatives. The only viable options were black rule by warlords or conquest by another brown race.

Browns want to be governed by whites. If they didn't they wouldn't be begging to be let into white countries.

>>17854462
What % of Africans is begging to be let into white countries? 0,3%?

>>17854462
The thread is about European development of Africa not just White development of Africa.

>>17854462
>They suppressed the slave trade
Maybe, but the "slave trade" affected a miniscule proportion of those forced into serfdom by colonialism so invalid
>human sacrifice
I dont think that was very common in Africa
>and cannibalism.
I dont think that happened at all in Africa
>They brought sound government
The government they had was better suited
>the rule of law
The justice they had was working for them and was adapted to their way of life
>built infrastructure
Mostly or only for their own benefit
>and encouraged trade and investment
By Africans? lmfao

>>17854285 (OP)
For the average person life didn’t change much. Whatever whitoids built it was for the european colonial administration and a small black elite that worked for them, not for the average African.

>>17854285 (OP)
>Europe
>benevolent
C'mon now...