Can someone please explain that?

I can only understand why whites gave up on civilizing them almost as soon as they arrived

Because whites only cared about extracting resources and had no intention to create educated middle class of engineers, managers and entrepreneurs to run the country, or even creating basic education system at all. No wonder everything went to shit once whites left and there were no one to replace them.

Any time the ruling class moves out of an area, it goes to shit.
After the Romans left Britain it was exactly the same. Locally, the workers can take over the factory, but they might not be connected to the lines of credit to pay everyone, or the supply lines for raw materials.

>Because whites only cared about extracting resources and had no intention to create educated middle class of engineers, managers and entrepreneurs to run the country, or even creating basic education system at all.
I think you're exaggerating. The end of the British Empire wasn't something the colonizing power had planned. The process of creating this middle class was interrupted by global upheaval. If the World Wars hadn't happened (I know how big this "if" is) Africa could have been developed properly. The British Empire should have been federalized.

> they were in the same boat as Africa's
Only if by "the same boat" you mean "not white". China's situation was nothing like African one.

The motivation behind installing that infrastructure are irrelevant.

>Tough words for Chinks to say when they were in the same boat as Africa's
What same boat?

The only European bits of China that were colonized was those concessions in the Coast. The rest were left to stew in Chaos as the country broke down. The majority of the country did not have the benefit of Western Inrastructure.

But kek, modern infrastructure was still built even when central authority collapsed. The Republic and the Individual Warlords reached out to western advisors on almost anything and sent government funded scholars overseas themselves even when they were still fighting each other horribly.

Not really. British and French Africa were different worlds that were designed and developed with no intention of ever being integrated economically.

>Who is Oswald Mosley

Two things
The infrastructure was primarily built to extract resources and materials from colonies and a lot of colonies had not a lot of investment.
Second there were not enough skilled workers in Africa to maintain much of the infrastructure that was there. People give educated elites a lot of shit but life is immeasurably worse when none exist.

Exactly, a nobody

Westernization could have been achieved without the exploitation. West Africa was advancing well enough through simply trading with Europeans.

A man who didn't influence the development of African infrastructure very much.

Arbitrary borders which don't reflect ethnic situation on the ground, resulting in constant civil wars, same shit happened in the Middle East.

wew lad

It's even worse than the

>
>
>

Is this a documentary? Anyone have the name by chance?

the straight borders are bullshit but what would be a better way to draw borders in Africa? Giving each ethnic group a country would be unpractical.

Good meme

youtube.com/watch?v=A0C4_88ub_M

good counter argument

This. Plus:

1. "Muh infrastructure." - Most of the interior was still with little to no road access, roads were unpaved and still are. It's not like most nations were left with 1940's era infrastructure after WWII.

2. Political systems were totally fucked. The borders made no sense. Old tribal ruling systems were adapted for colonialism, but African sub-rulers relied on their colonizers for the power to rule. When they left, there was a huge power vacuum.

3. Opportunism. African leaders got very rich basically doing what the colonialists had done to their own people. The Gold Coast actually saw its GDP and standard of living shoot down after independence. It is hardly alone in this.

4. Banks let the corrupt rulers hang themselves with their own debt.

Also, the whole "constantly warring" Africa thing is more the lens of the late-1980's on. There were plenty of coups in Africa, and some wars before, but a lot of the first generation regimes were remarkably durable for how shitty they were.

Thanks lad

You can build limited amounts of infrastructure anywhere.

I can drive out to the middle of Death Valley and find a golf course, bar, and shopping center around the one place that has water.

>Giving each ethnic group a country would be unpractical.
How so?

Oh, look, a city near a major trade route in a part of Africa that's been in contact with the civilized world for a very long time looked nice at one point
How pertinent to your argument

The burden of proof is on you to show why every ethnic group in Africa should have been given a state in the first place.

studying african geography would be pretty hard for middle schoolers

>Multiculty is great! except when its on non white countries then its bad ;^)
I want /leftpol/ to leave

Because no African country would give up their rule for a load of ethical tribes.

False analogy. Europenis states aren't artificially drawn up.

Everyone is missing the most important answer.

Rapid population explosion leading to massive overpopulation.

No but people from other etnic groups are moving there in mass, are you retarded?

>>Multiculty is great!
I never said that though, I want /pol/ to stop imagining things.

>Immigration doesn't happen within Africa.
Are you retarded?

Anyway, the main beef of people against African borders is that its arbitrary, was determined by a foreign cunt, and leads to some ethnic violence. Nobody raises stink on countries in iFrica where this doesn't happen albeit there are few of these countries.

Chinese slaves are cheaper than africans

You're literally just applying the Al-Jazeera narrative about the Middle-East to Africa.

BUT DIVERSITY IS STRENGHT

BUT RACES AREN'T REAL

>China

what is this from?

but only when its diverse and not a bunch of non diverse isolated factions

More bombs fell in Vietnam than in all african history but viets still manage to have some decent country.
Blacks are just stupid, that's the truth.

Why, though?

empire of dust

American states are also cut like that and they don't kill each other.

pol you really need to go back to your containment board

Damage control.
Leftism is a mental disease.

But the truth is racist and thus should be banned

MAGA
F
R
I
C
A

diversity breeds innovation

and genetic mutations

Because most of them were settled by white people living under a unified federal government. False equivalence.
Not an argument.

not all genetic mutations are good

>diversity breeds innovation
Is that true?
>and genetic mutations
Do these bring strength?

So you saying races are real and diversity is not strengh?

The more diverse a country is, the poorest.

American states are glorified provinces, you dumb hick.

Immigration is extremely limited in Africa 1950-present.

>diversity breeds innovation
To find new ways to kill the other ethnicities like necklacing for example.
>and genetic mutations
You mean low iq

>Is that true?
yes
>Do these bring strength?
yes, generally speaking a genetically diverse population will be healtiher then a inbree...pure one

well thats just plain wrong

>U.S.A

Not an argument.

>Not knowing his plans for the British Empire

The Al Jazeera narrative would be
>DEY ALL EBIL BECAUSE ARBITRARY
When what I said was
>People bitch about states that are fucked up due to their abritraryness.

There's some states that aren't. Like Angola and others like them.

>Vietnam
>decent

Nigeria is unironically better

>60% white
>Diverse
Pick one

>U.S.A
>diverse
>multicultural

no thats what you are saying

im saying go back to your fucking containment board

where can i find it i dont see it on lameflix or kat.to

>diversity brings innovation
No it doesn't, it brings social conflict, a diversity of THOUGHT brings innovation. Are you saying people with different skin color think differently?
>having a relatively homogeneous population means they are inbred
You're this retarded aren't you?

Sure thing m8

No, it's on you for claiming that it would be unpractical. You didn't ask why each nation or if each ethnic group should have a nation, you claimed it was unpractical.

It is though. At the end of the day they're just administrative divisions.

Nigeria has 20 million ISIS supporters.

I'll take Vietnam.

>implying all white people are the same

the amount of ethnicites and nationalities in america would justify its diversity

Time to eat your shoe.

someone posted the youtube link in this thread

>Are you saying people with different skin color think differently?
People from other cultures do think differently.

>Social Conflict
>Yes, this can't happen in singular cultures or races. Nope. Not at all.

So what?

>Nigeria has 20 million ISIS supporters.

Vietnam has 20 million plus, unironic Communists who riot and kill capitalists every day.

Honduras Sudan and Papua better than Vietnam hahahaha

The classic

>Different cultures
Mixing VASTLY different cultures (See Europe and middle east/ Africa/ native american) breeds MASSIVE conflict.
However mixing SIMILAR cultures (see Europeans and Europeans) breeds pretty GOOD things.
>singular cultures
No such thing, and causes less conflict than mixing vastly difference cultures.
Stop this bait

>Africa is poor cause they are diverse
>Diversity is good
Pick one you fucking hack

American states =/= independent fucking countries? Not to mention independent states of people native to that land?

When will you dumb Amerihicks learn this? Same shit on /int/
>HURR WHY DO WE HAVE TO KNOW DIFFERENT COUNTRIES? MOST PEOPLE DON'T KNOW ABOUT MUH STATES.

Thats not HDI

> Are you saying people with different skin color think differently?

no im saying people exposed to a wide range of cultures and people will generally be smarter and more experinced then someone who has been stuck in a tiny town with people who more or less look, act and think the same as him

>having a relatively homogeneous population means they are inbred

yes this is exactly what i am saying

What's the deal with african ethnicities though? Are they really that different?
I mean yu don't find this tribalism anywhere else when people that speak the same language fight because some have bigger ears.
Africans are just retarded, sorry.

>However mixing SIMILAR cultures (see Europeans and Europeans) breeds pretty GOOD things.
Yeah, after numerous massacres.

See France for a very good example.

>diversity is either always good or always bad
your IQ is too low for this discussion

So what again?
What makes them live peacefully and africans not?