Africa has no resou-

How come Dubai managed to build a futuristic city thanks to its oil reserves, but equatorial guinea is still one of the poorest countries in the world (despite, ironically, having a very high gdp/capita thanks to its oil reserves)?

Let me guess...
Its niggers right?
Thats what you are aiming at right?

not enough african land is arable, have you noticed how many well known african kingdoms depended on trade?
>uranium
oh wow how was niger not a superpower year 0

It's the logical conclusion, user.

Africa has actually plenty of arable land RIGHT NOW which is not exploited.

Oh good, now that we got that out of the way fuck off back to your containment board faggot

Veeky Forums is not your safe space faggot

>anti white safespace poster
Go run someone over with a car

Dubai is one rich city. African elites have built rich modern cities by pumping resource wealth into projects.

Pic related, capital of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

African cities look less impressive than Dubai because the wars there have been more recent. If a revolution goes off see how nice they look in 20 years.

Maybe because a fuckton of empires invaded those regions, removed any native power structures and replaced them with their own, used the land for resources, then pulled out only after throwing together arbitrary "nations" with no actual sense of identity and giving various ethnic groups which hated each other power over each other, guaranteeing a highly unstable political climate which would lead to ethnic cleansing and resource wars? You uneducated /pol/ack shill?

lemme rephrase: arable land that people could actually use and not destroy
the thing about sub saharan africa is that most of is forest/rainforest, which takes a fuckton of money, effort and permission, something that
a. ancient through medieval societies couldnt have the tools to do effectively
b. modern african societies are incapable of funding on an effective scale because of financial as well as political concerns
and c. most africans arent into the idea of commercial farming, despite the downside of their preferred subsistence farming

I'm pretty sure that nobody in the history of Earth has ever said "Africa has no resources" so why are you so committed to attacking this strawman?

Riddle me this: why would I go to a politics board if what I want to talk about is history?

Are you clinically retarded? The picture you posted is of Montreal. LMFAO. You think it snows in the Congo rainforest?

Why didnt the Africans just reorganize along ethnic/national lines after the Europeans left? Even if they drew the borders at first, theres nothing stopping the natives from redrawing them

im sorry you feel that way

Hit the wrong file.

This is Kampala, Uganda.

"Redrawing borders" almost always means going to war, no matter what continent you're talking about.

Oops. Anyhow, point stands, African capitals elite areas have been built up by post colonial governments.

Because the small, easy-to-control Gulf States were funded and developed by the British Empire as an anti-piracy measure and continued to maintain a productive relationship with the West throughout the late 1800s, 1900s and 2000s, whereas Equatorial Guinea was fucked over by disease and Spanish cash-cropping, then by a series of murderous and corrupt dictators.

Back to /pol/ please

Oh fuck off you know as well as i do you didn't come here to talk about history and your repiles prove it now fuck off bac to /pol/ where you can have a circlejerk about the topic

>Maybe because a fuckton of empires invaded those regions, removed any native power structures and replaced them with their own, used the land for resources, then pulled out only after throwing together arbitrary "nations" with no actual sense of identity and giving various ethnic groups which hated each other power over each other, guaranteeing a highly unstable political climate which would lead to ethnic cleansing and resource wars?
Let me deconstruct your answer.
>invaded those regions
So were every single country in the world at some point in history

>removed any native power structures
They didn't actually, the "little tribal village" model was kept mostly intact throughout colonization. Cities were mostly inhabited by colonists, until by their own volition africans started moving to them in search of better opportunities. If you mean power structures at the national level, there weren't any in pre colonial africa, as there were no nations.

>used the land for resources
Yes, and? How would that negatively affect africans? Does land exploitation make people poorer? Is the USA poorer because it exploits its natural resources?

>then pulled out, etc.
That's true, but one must keep in mind that there were no african nations before colonization, and that therefore it is absolutely meaningless to draw african borders based on ethnic lines, unless you want to end up with millions of microstates covering a few acres.

1/2

Anyways, nothing in your pathetic diatribe addressed why Dubai could successfully harness its oil reserves to develop itself, whereas Equatorial Guinea could not. The answer is actually simple: Arabs have the required intelligence to plan a long term development plan which involves exploiting its oil reserves to build public infrastructure and advance the country. The president on equatorial guinea, by comparison, once executed his political enemies in a stadium, with executioners dressed up as Santa Claus, while the song "those were the days" by mary hopkins was playing on the loudspeaker.... No comment.

2/2

Hey, you moronic nigger, I've actually been to Montreal, the skyscraper on the left is called 1000 la gauchetiere.

Let me reiterate, is your IQ SO LOW that you think it snows in the Congo?

>This one guy was crazy, therefore everybody from that country is like that.

Wait, are you telling me that arabs are now acceoted by /pol/?
Wouldn't suprise me since you guys have the same driving tendencies

>Because the small, easy-to-control Gulf States were funded and developed by the British Empire as an anti-piracy measure and continued to maintain a productive relationship with the West throughout the late 1800s, 1900s and 2000s, whereas Equatorial Guinea was fucked over by disease and Spanish cash-cropping, then by a series of murderous and corrupt dictators.
Lol what? The trucial states were a backwater, Dubai's development didn't start under the British.

Equatorial Guinea was fucked over by its native population's low IQ.

See now that's a better question. Basically what this user said.
Imagine you're the chief of tribe A, and the Belgians left and stopped cutting off your people's hands, they split the territory between your tribe and a rival tribe. You got some land that's actually full of tribe B, and ALSO a gold mine. When the leaders of tribe B ask for that land, because their people are on it and that's the logical thing in their eyes to ask, how are you going to respond? Keep in mind, your people are starving and desperate for any source of income.

NOW consider that most leadership had been uprooted, so even leading a tribe in its own boarders is going to be hard. Who's going to lead? The dead guys who tried to resist the empire? The natives who sold out for low-tier administrative positions in the old order?

But you're wrong, just because I'm realistic about racial differences doesn't mean I don't come here to post about history. Most of my posts are non race related, but when the occasion arises I of course use my knowledge to help enlighten fellow Veeky Forumstorians about the influence of IQ differences in shaping history :^)

Gabarone, Botswana.

The nation has a higher per capital GDP than Ukraine, Service, Belarus, Moldova.

It's about 66% of Russian GDP, but on current trajectories will pass it.

Wealthier than some Asian nations as well.

So much for "muh White race."

>every single african dictator is a corrupt crazy monster
>i-it's all a concidence! muh colonial legacy!

These African cities look nicer than East Euro ones and are wealthier. Hmm....

>Dictators are bad and rarely successful

More at 11.

Botswana is a good example of an African country which managed to successfully open up its resources to foreign exploiters in exchange for infrastructure. Now will it be able to transition into something else than a giant diamond mine? That's a crucial question.

There's a difference between being "bad" and stealing all of your treasury's money and hiding it in your native village's mudhut.

>>the best some shitty nigger state can manage is to have 66% of Russia's gdp when the latter state had it's culture and society ruined by communism.

>>implying this means something for white nations in general.

lol negro apologists are hilariously desperate.

>we've now entered the "let me post cherry picked images" of the debate.

So you are a troll?

>Lol what? The trucial states were a backwater, Dubai's development didn't start under the British.

It absolutely did. Dubai was already an important port at the beginning of the 20th century. The stability brought by British protection allowed for development of infrastructure, and decolonisation was fairly well-managed so that the UAE could form.

In 1962 the British Political Agent noted that "Many new houses and blocks of offices and flats are being built... the Ruler is determined... to press on with the construction of a jet airport... More and more European and Arab firms are opening up and the future looks bright."

Same story in Bahrain.

I swear we have this same thread every couple of days.

You're very close minded. Why so much intolerance for opinions which go contrary to your ideology?

I mean sure, but compared to Ghana or the Ivory Coast its future at the time looked far more bleak.

The implication that you're trying so desperately to arrive at is that kleptocratic behavior is something limited to Africans, which isn't remotely true, unfortunately.

It was fun at first.

Once again, there's a fine line between kleptocracy and declaring western medicine to be illegal, to be replaced with traditional voodoo cures.

If anyone wants a good laugh at the expense of africans, I encourage you to read this page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_Macías_Nguema#Government

>Intolerance of opinions
But user, why would you feel the need to confirm your opinion by constantly making threads about africa where the discussion always devolves into autistic screeching
Also an fucking /pol/ack lecturing me about not accepting different ideologies is hillarious

>People without access to proper education are prone to superstition

More news at 12! Ground-breaking discovery rocks the international community!

The basic difference, in my opinion, is this: The Truicial States were pre-existing entities (small areas ruled by tribal sheikhs) which were co-opted into a client-patron relationship by a European empire, rather than being overthrown. As a result there was a certain degree of political continuity both before, during and after the colonial period in the Gulf.

The indigenous people of Ghana (or the Gold Coast Colony) fought wars against the British (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Golden_Stool) and were actively discriminated against in a legal and political sense. These countries did not exist prior to colonialism and their political elite today bears very little relation to the political elites which existed in these areas before colonialism. You'd expect a great deal more internal strife, even with better resources.

I didn't make the thread.

>/pol/ack lecturing me about not accepting different ideologies
"Do what I say not what I do" could be one of /pol/ motto

So I guess the problem is the large number and small size of the African tribe, compared with the European nation, as the larger landmasses give the nation a wider variety of sources of income.
Is there a solution to this problem other than mass genocidal wars? Perhaps some formation of an identity beyond the tribal?

>Perhaps some formation of an identity beyond the tribal?

Formation of genuine national identities takes decades (if not centuries), unfortunately - and they're typically derived from a sense of ethnic nationalism, especially in the Old World.

Carol the second of romania stole the entire royal treasury after blowing it on villas and golden plates, because someone told him he was doing a bad job and should step down (after his constitutional role was greatly expanded i might add)

One od /pol/s other mottos include calling everyone who is not white (and some people who are ) subhumans, autistically defending a failed ideology and getting butthurt when someone dares oppose their extremely limited way of thinking

Time. You're right, a national identity needs to form, and that will only form by the will of the people, and that takes time.