Why did colonialism set Africans back so much...

>people who would have violently opposed each other regardless of European presence
>ITS WHITEYS FAULT
Also if you think borders were drawn "deliberately to foster ethnic tension" you're retarded. Even the tinest nation states like Slovakia or Estonia differ from ethnic tension. No border is the result of perfectly homogenous people getting together. Even the Japanese are a composite race which had winners and losers.

this
ask an actual african living in african what they think about blacks in america.
the best response i ever got was "their ancestors were too slow or too stupid, and got caught, now they are the descendants of slaves"

Ya, I've dealt with lots of Nigerian immigrants and they fucking HATE black Americans. Like it's straight hatred.

i deal with alot of east africans, they hate nigerians in all fairness though the whole culture is divided along tribal lines, I dont think people in the West realize how tribal Africa was/is to this day.
Also have you ever asked them about the We Wuz Kangz meme?

Because it destroyed trust in the government, upper class, and other tribes in that would willingly sell their own population to Europeans. You can still see this today, African countries tear themselves apart over tribal rivalries that were formed centuries ago.

>"did you ask them about an internet meme"

lel

I think this is bait. Colonialism did not leave Africans with less technology or institutions. Quite the opposite, actually. However, colonialism established conditions directly counter to the development of nation states. Had colonialism not happened, western technology and political theory would have likely entered these societies more slowly and fairly.

By pulling out of African countries so quickly, without making much effort to develop these countries (as opposed to British holdings in India or French holdings in North Africa), Western powers created some dangerous conditions:

1. A power vacuum in which religious, tribal, and international corporate authorities would compete for power and impede the democratic process.
2. Eradication of native government institutions, to a greater degree than in the Middle East or Asia.
3. Economies largely managed by foreign corporations.
4. Borders drawn upon roughly arbitrary colonial lines, bringing under new national identities neighboring groups whose only common identity is shared colonization under the rule of a certain country.
5. Incredibly low literacy rate and poor education, preventing the development of a professional domestic class.
6. History of social inequality in which certain ethnic groups were favored by colonizers over others.

The closest analogue to the conditions established in post-colonial Africa existed in Southeast Asia after the French withdrawal. Most of the problems associated with African development were and can be found in Cambodia or Laos today, which actually lag behind many Sub Saharan African countries in their HDI and GDP per capita.

Not him but: exhibitions.nypl.org/africanaage/essay-colonization-of-africa.html

>In general, indirect rule worked fairly well in areas that had long-established centralized state systems such as chiefdoms, city-states, kingdoms, and empires, with their functional administrative and judicial systems of government. But even here the fact that the ultimate authority was the British officials meant that the African leaders had been vassalized and exercised "authority" at the mercy of European colonial officials. Thus the political and social umbilical cords that tied them to their people in the old system had been broken. Some astute African leaders maneuvered and ruled as best they could, while others used the new colonial setting to become tyrants and oppressors, as they were responsible to British officials ultimately.

>In the decentralized societies, the system of indirect rule worked less well, as they did not have single rulers. The British colonizers, unfamiliar with these novel and unique political systems and insisting that African "natives" must have chiefs, often appointed licensed leaders called warrant chiefs, as in Igboland, for example.

Essentially, it was the way that colonizers treated all African societies the exact same which severely hampered their ability to work with or gain a clear understanding of individual African societies. To be fair, this is probably too much to ask of almost any colonial power, but is also a reason why colonialism is so often a failure.

Veeky Forums stop being reasonable
where are your memes

that fucking goat

ok here was my question, american blacks take credit for their ancestors building the pyramids...
and i dont get any farther before the laughs start
lol never even saw the goat
also everyone walks fucking everywhere

The problem with your theory is that India and Africa were far different historically, culturally, and socially. Don't let the fact that they were both dark skinned subjects of the U.K. fool you. India had many grand empires and a high civilization comparable to the best of them. Meanwhile Africa was far more primitive.

Normal course of history
>Empire BTFO civilization X
>civilization X picks itself back up by itself
Africa
>Empire BTFO African nations
>feels bad about it, tries to help, and creates learned helplessness.

I know that the germans were investing into infrastructure and building their colonies up to a point where they would be profitable but their reign ended before that became the case.

The issue is two fold the first is that until the end Europeans for obvious reasons tried to keep any sort of state building among the Africans to a minimum. The second is that for the most parts these economies were used for extraction of resources so all the development went to roads and infrastructure that made extracting resources easier. Having an economy based on resource extraction such as mining can be very destabilizing since it only requires relatively few educated people to run properly. So this means that a small elite is able to rapidly control the main means of producing wealth and in turn use that we lath to control the masses.

I seriously doubt that even the most unstable and violent sub-saharan african nations are somehow worse off today than they were pre-colonization.

It's funny because you think you are smart but you are actually just regurgitating the line that colonizers want you to believe

No. It would have been worse.

Most parts of Africa were completely isolated from the emerging globalization. Western political thought and technology wouldn't have filtered in, Africa simply wouldn't have developed.

Sure white rule was terrible often times but it at least enabled most regions to participate in a global economy. Infrastructure and some centralized authority for example.

The things causing the very retarded african development are genuine to africa. Tribalism as the most important one for example.

The ethnic conlicts weren't imported by the colonizers,they were present for millenia. Due to modern weaponry they claim more lives but are less intense due to the higher population. The 20th century was far less violent than the 15th century despite two world wars due to this.

He's not wrong though. The mass amount of aid going into Africa has completely destroyed most of the economies and has only furthered the problems that the aid was trying to solve.

True. Especially because it only enables a corrupt elite that controls the distribution and the ressources of the country even further.

Whoever controls the help coming in and the ressources going out has everything he needs to surpress anything that could cause real economic development endangering the tyrant and his cronies.

Lesson of the 20th century is that you don't give food aid to countries that don't have semi-maintained road systems and granaries.

If you can't keep your country stable enough or muster the engineering prowess to grade a gravel road, giving you food for free will fuck you for ever.

Colonialism didn't "set them back" at all. Colonialism was so exceedingly easy for even the smallest European country to accomplish because Africa was one huge mess of tribal lines and disorganization. When Europe was arbitrarily cutting up the country on a map like a game of Risk the idea of organized African resistance didn't even register as an impediment, they were only worried about each other.

Doesn't negate what he said at all

>introducing them to modern technology after effectivly living in the stone age
>sets them back

colonialism didn't set africans back, it was hostile environment, isolated location and poor diet which made them so rudimentary.

user it was the cold War you idiots not aid
Aid is such a crutch for people to Blame Africa's woes on to simply avoiding the REAL issues because it clashes with their ahistorical views. And general poor knowledge if the place.

>it was the cold War you idiots
Blaming the Cold War for Africa is like blaming all of Latin America's problems on the CIA. Not only is it wrong, it's simply a handwaving of the actual problems. Tell me exactly how all that free food is fixing the issue of Africa not producing enough food rather than incentivizing farmers to grow less food?

>set back
You mean push forward?

>Why did colonialism set Africans back so much?

it didn't

Because farmers are still trucking farm food idiot it's just that issues like poor crop yields due to environmental disasters, cliamte shifts, soil degradation, lack of government support (because said government has money issues) that make the food source trucking unreliable alongside the farm to market transportation, storage process being so haphazard.

You know how much disasters would have happened if that food aid didn't come in or a country didn't get helped by health aid because it's health budget was too small?

>it's just that issues like poor crop yields due to environmental disasters, climate shifts, soil degradation
And absolutely nothing to do with farmers shifting to cash crops as food prices get gutted from FREE food. Seriously, fuck off.

Blaming aid for food issues is pleb as fuck because it ignores said food issues the continent has always had and geological constraints in many areas.

>The mass amount of aid going into Africa has completely destroyed most of the economies

How so? What industry did Africa have? None at all. No notable industry was developed on the continent at all barring South Africa and Rhodesia at best and even then it was limited to the Euro-descent group who ran owned and operated them alongside working the good paying jobs in them both blue and white collar. All they have are resources to give out and that heavily fluctuates based on the prices of said goods which means your budget to develop is very unstable on yearly basis, look at oil iris in the 70's, oil glut and what Saudi Arabia did recently.

The economy for a colony CANNOT support a nation trying to enact colonial institutions then translating them to nation based ones is recipe for disaster since the only Spencerian many folk in those countries have is a colonial system (let alone a egalitarian one). Especially how shitty the colonial education system was the population is uneducated as fuck and super limited and never had any exposure to REAL modern 20th century world because those colonies were barely connected to the global market directly or to other parts of Africa.

They never had a fucking nation supporting economy in the first place and said colony polices and developments alongside the shit that happened in the cold war led to many destabilizing forces in play such as the two powers supporting their special guy in power OR supporting one set of rebels.

They only deploy food in famine/conflict prone regions user it's not willy-nilly.

On top of that it's the peoples CHOICE to grow cash crops because it gives them more money that they can spend for their family for school and for social mobility. People go for cash crops because it's the only thing that GETS MONEY. The prices for food are utter shit because on the global market their exports have to compete against nations that can spend billions on food subsidies to baby their farmers which many countries can't afford to do. It's a catch-22

>colonialism
No niggers are just subhuman savages, they will create despotic hellholes wherever they exist, the evidence is every single nigger infested place in America since the ending of slavery.

I'll use an example in places in colonial Africa where the colonial government didn't care what the people grew the people chose to grow cash crops or to grow food crops which led to a better path so to say because the cash crop folk have the money to buy the food crops growers stuff instead of everyone just growing food for themselves.

In places where the colonial government needed money it forced everyone to grow cash crops which led to famine and food issues down the line and soil degradations

In places where the governed had an autistic "REE YOU CAN'T GROW CASH CROPS THAT ONLY WHITES CAN" or for some other reason Blacks were barred from growing cash crops and could not choose food or cash crops since in Kenya's case white settlers felt it was entitled that only they could grow it and face no local competition (in Kenya they threw a bitch fit because the railroad from Uganda to Kenya's port meant that they had to compete against Ugandan cash crop growers since Uganda didn't have that restriction on what Blacks can grow) .

What the fuck does that have to do with his post at all? He never implied that India and Africa were similar at all alongside the fact that India like Africa itself isn't a monolithic entity.

>I have gone to east africa a couple times, and they will say yes the british were cruel at times, but they really dragged us out of the stone age and gave us the tools necessary to function in the modern world.
>also mentioned were given a "real" religion, and now being taught english in the primary schools.

Which part of East Africa?
What kind of dumb spineless cuck thinks that?

Their land is shit because bugs eat crops and game. The disease doesn't die in the winter. They also don't have amazing amounts of coal/steel n shit nigga.

In spite of this, jungles allow their populations to remain modestly high, albeit with short lives.

It's the worst possible leadup to modern times in terms of stats, where your gdp per capita is not repairable.

>Being honest is being a cuck now
If American Blacks weren't being force fed anti-White propaganda 24 hours a day since birth they'd come to the same logical conclusion.

Unless you're a major reactionary or anarcho-primitiviest I don't see what's cucked about that statement.

Because assuming that person user said is really must be a huge historical retard (specifically so if he's ignorant of he's region)to not know that East Africa passed the stone age long ago and they must be so ignorant to not notice the iron in various pieces of East Africa cultural works and weapons.

The whole British were cruel at times which is funny because they were really oppressive as fuck to the locals constantly so saying at times is an understatement especially with the Mau Mau conflict and the Hola Massacre which disgusted many Brits back home. Lets not mention the concentration camps, ,prisoner abuse and land dispossession and forced relocation as well.

What makes native religions any less "real" then Christianity.

It's like trying to rationalizing being beaten by your drunk father.

"stone age" is an expression. Your autism to take it literal is laughable. Colonialism wasn't a zero sum game. A lot was gained. Only stubborn ideologues refuse to acknowledge it, instead opting to life in a fantasy where the British were totalitarian 100% of the time.

Christianity isn't less real than animism, but unlike animism it has a set of written doctrines, theology, philosophy and metaphysics which make it a high religion compared to random cults and tribalism which existed in East Africa.

Hell lets bring up the tools to to function in the modern world part.

>East Africa had no public school system at all by independence let alone a functioning school system.
>Population uneducated as fuck. No national identity at all
>land dispossession.
>Barely modern tech in the colonies.
>Infrastructure super limited in select places.
>No real economy that is self-sufficient let aloen suitable for a nation at all.
>Africans disenfranchised from the political system completely until independence.
>little to No contact with the outside world and other countries.
>Barely any modern institutions were set up. They basically had ot make eons from scratch with no experience in running them or copy+pasting colonial ones that are inefficient in a nation or to use another example a public colonial company that is basically broke as fuck because it only survived being babied by the metro pole.

That sure is being prepared at all prepared for modern times lol

Nearly every black ethnicity hates the guts of every other black ethnicity.
Prime example of this is how the Zulus impi up and chase Nigerians, Somalis and Congolese around Johannesburg with pangas and rubber car tires soaked in petrol at the slightest local economic disturbance.

>They even educated thousands of nignogs in European universities.

When Colonialism ended in africa there were about a hundred black men there with a University level education.

Try running a modern city on a hundred college educated people, you cant.

You can run it easily if most of your population arent sociopathic savages.

Those old okes are still dressing smartly like it's the 50s.

Both of you have a point. But as good gardeners, we should pay more attention to particular specimens and tribes. Igbo nigerans are pretty smart.

And then there's strains of Igbo which have disproportionate "smartness".

Same principle applies to all human societies.

This isn't really a black thing though why are you trying to make it out as such? It's just xenophobia like every other human group on Earth.

Igbo's aren't really that exceptionally smart specialty compared to Yoruba or other well performing groups user. Stop trying to make "Igbo's are special". Those "Strains" are just trucking rich Igbo's tired of people trying to jack off one African group to shit on others.

I mean that really isn't a black only thing

What?

No you really can't. You need educated people to run the faculties and institutes well, run the occupations that required a degree or diploma and educated people to teach the next generation of educated people.

This is relevant:
youtu.be/A0C4_88ub_M?t=651

Not at all.

It's not only a black thing. It's just an example of how fractured the continent remains to be even in it's most developed parts. Most other populations in the world are above machining their neighbours into small pieces in xenophobic mob riots, we hope at least.

>It's just an example of how fractured the continent remains to be even in it's most developed parts

No continent is really united at all to be honest.

>Most other populations in the world are above machining their neighbours into small pieces in xenophobic mob riots, we hope at least.

Not at all. People have killed for less.

I'm so sick of this, In what way did colonialism set Africa back?
Of-course they wouldn't have been more advanced than western civilisations. Do you think any region of Africa was on some trajectory whereby they were even approaching parity with England or France or any other European power?

Napoleon and the learned men he brings with him on his expedition to Egypt are bought to incredulity when they see how barbaric, parochial, and uncivilised the inhabitants are. One writes of being stunned after an interaction with a farmer who lived less than a day from the capital who did not even know what scissors were... THIS IS EGYPT! There is a reason there is such a dearth of reliable sources on what life was actually like in west and central Africa before the Euros showed up. It was pre-historic, the overwhelming majority of the population seldom using technology passed neolithic staples, mud and wood tools and accommodation.

I just watched the first episode of the roots reboot, jesus christ, people really accept this narrative where west africa was some civilised eden before the English showed up. They speak of a university in Timbuktu as though it was Oxford, not an interesting but broadly irrelevant vestige of Arabs/Islams ruthless penetration into the sahara.

>whites hadn't been so cruel

"whites", certainly the British were some of the most benevolent rulers Africa ever had, take slavery, a normalised and ubiquitous practice legitimised by whoever has hegemony, a fact of African life since the literal dawn of humanity a quarter of a million years ago -- until British abolition efforts start to being the excruciating termination of the practice. Not to mention the medicine distributed, education provided, and infrastructure built.

Post-colonialism has been Africa's worst period because it's built of the demonstrably farcical premise that pre-colonial Africa was better than colonial Africa. Modern India has the same problem, and it is why the two host the lion's share of the worlds problems and poverty.

thesouthafrican.com/zulu-king-praises-apartheid-government-lashes-out-at-anc/

Dont want to be that guy but READ GUNS GERMS AND STEEL

Why would Blacks be supportive of abolishing slavery? They created it and practiced since the dawn of humanity, as you said. They obvious had no problems with it.

Likewise from a Luddite perspective, having technology isn't necessarily a good thing. This being said, I agree with you. Those who criticize colonialism seem like the type who should be most supportive of it.

Don't
To say that book is worthless is to ascribe it to high a value. It's to your intellectual detriment to read that book.
>White people just got lucky with their spawn.
>All races are actually equal
>Oh no wait, whites are evil, and the people of PNG are superior in ever conceivable way.
>Here are some lists I found on wikipedia.
>RACISTS BTFO.

The book is an embarrassment and it surprises no one that it was written by a Jew who knows nothing about his subject matter.

I to this day maintain that the Spaniards civilized the Netherlands.

Let's put it this way; Japan was able to modernize in 50 years. If race isn't real, why can't Africa or South America can't do this

>hey created it and practiced since the dawn of humanity, as you said.

No one created slavery idiot.

Because Japan had Uncle Sam to babysit them.

This truly is Veeky Forums.

youtube.com/watch?v=3LhSjLNyM-s
youtu.be/7Rh6gDEO4JA

but no let's just spend the next eight decades bitching about reparations and "media representation" because that's what makes society grow.
the irony is that if every abused minority adopted your mentality anglo-saxon whites would undoubtedly be the supreme rulers of the earth right now.

that isn't race you pleb why are you trying to demolish the concept of work ethic like some kind of pansy-ass beta cuck

It's not really work-ethic though (not saying it's race either).

Why is it that the people post the exact same two clips when trying to make the point that you are making. The EXACT same links and many times as a non-sequitar. Hell for the latter it was a Spanish guy on /int/ who posted it and he was not being serious.

Wut?

Imagine if we were living in the stone age and guys who were already in the steel age came over and gave us all kinds of inventions and ideas? It advanced them greatly overall. I don't think they would have advanced otherwise, they still fail to civilized to this day no matter where they go in the world, no matter how many examples or opportunities they have.

He's saying that using colonialism as a reason why Africa's shit is a flawed argument, because other countries that were colonized managed NOT to be complete shit after gaining independence. Furthermore, India was a colony of Britain FAR longer than Nigeria was

And you just regurgitate lines that Modern Liberals want you to believe

no african nations have escaped some form of colonial rule.

Yes it is. First off, it shows someone whose OWN ancestors had bad run-ins with Whites, and yet his people still picked themselves up after it. Furthermore, it shows the disdain for Black laziness is not only unique to Whites, as we all were led to believe in out public schooling.

I assume you're butthurt, so why are you getting butthurt over people having different opinions than you?

No, I just believe that the people who run nations tend to act out of there self interest. Europeans didn't leave Africa cause they felt bad they left cause it was too expensive to stay. Furthermore the Africans didn't learn helplessness as much as they never learned what it means to build a modern state. Also I would say alot of Africa's come this lack of state development. When no one cares about the nation it is extremely easy for small cabal to take the reigns of government.

Railroads and postal offices aren't particularly useful without trained bureaucrats to administer them. "Infrastructure" is well and fine, but no ones getting any proper self rule without universities and polytechnics churning out folks who are educated enough to build on what's left. Some african countries entered the decolonial era with single digit university graduates for countries with populations in the millions.

The japanese weren't exactly hunter-gathers, bruv. They could forge cannons, guns, build ships, read and speak portuguese, and had existing institutions of higher learning that could be repurposed towards western methods and ideas. It's not as huge a leap.

>all natives are the mouthwash addicts living in some shithole in manitoba
quite ebin

Europeans arguably did nothing wrong.

>When Colonialism ended in africa there were about a hundred black men there with a University level education.
I seriously doubt this.

Blacks created it. They weren't the only ones but the obviously originated their own version and practiced it

yoruboos leave this board, this igbo turf

>be colonised african
>get btfo to the stone age for the next 100 years
>be colonised Hong kong
>???
Hmmmm....

Hong Kong was a trade port.
When it comes to decolonization, one of the best things to have been is a trade port.

>Be nigger African colony
>get btfoed to the stone age for the next 100 year
>be African colony with white leadership
>????
Hmmmm mm....

Right and wrong are useless terms when dealing with interstate interactions. Very rarely are things done simply because they are right or wrong. Often people act right or wrong for reasons completely unrelated to morality

The ones with persistent white leadership through the decolonial era (you know the ones) also had their own universities and schools to pump out bureaucrats and professionals before and after decolonisation, which goes a long way when it comes to preserving and building on inherited colonial infrastructure.

>It's unfair because white people built schools and infrastructure. When blacks eventually took control of these countries, evil whitey took all the schools and shit with him and that's why Rhodesia and SA are now shitholes.

In most countries formed during the period of decolonisation, there were usually no universities, and the ones available only open to whites. As a result, there weren't exactly that many educated blacks capable of filling the void.
Zimbabwe was a disaster, mostly because the white population were the only ones with the training to actually maintain infrastructure, kind of like Haiti a century previous. But, well, the problem could have been avoided if any effort was put into. y'know, preparing the native populations for self-government, which did not occur.

>it's whites fault for not giving free education