>>17964113
>Those who benefited the most from the Atlantic and Indian oceans slave trades were the African enslavers and traders, to the point where the economies of many west African kingdoms collapsed once the UK banned the Atlantic slave trade.
That's true but irrelevant to whether or not certain European countries benefitted from slave trade.
>And why have you made no mention of how both Europeans and non-Europeans benefited greatly from the different slave trades where Europeans were the slaves being traded?
Because that's completely irrelevant to a discussion about colonialism and the Atlantic slave trade.
>all that silver that the Spanish empire extracted, which was by far the overall most valuable commodity they got
That's not exactly incorrect but it doesn't tell the full story. While silver and gold were obviously more valuable in absolute numbers, the economy of LATAM took many different configurations depending on the time and place. Sugarcane plantations were everywhere, as well as tobacco and cotton. Even after independence, the extractive institutions these countries were founder upon remained active and manifested themselves in the coffee, copper, fruit, rubber, livestock and lead production chains to name a few.
>china and meiji japan
By the time of the Meiji Restoration, the Qing were already doomed and China was in shambles. The kind of rapid modernisation Japan underwent (as well as Germany, Italy and other industrial latecomers) was simply not possible in China's best days. And even if China weren't in such a bad shape, there were always multiple variables as to whether or not a country would successfully modernise. Italy rose from a precarious position to one better than Portugal and Spain, the former remaining particularly shitty and backwards for a long time.
>And Slavic countries would have developed anyway without EU funds
Rassemblement National voters would love for that to be true.
