Why are many African nations poor?

Why are many African nations poor?
Surely it was colonization fault, right?

Because they're African

>Empires built infrastructure, cities, introduced education, and so forth into many tribal areas
>Africa would have been richer without them

Still does not excuse the many negative aspects of colonization but much of the problems of African states came from mismanagement from after decolonization.

>Be socialist
>[COLAPSE]

I AM AUTISTIC!!!

They were poor before colonization. They are poor now. Living in abject poverty is and was the world standard for humanity throughout history. What we should ask ourselves is how did some nations manage to become rich?

If you´ve meant black Africa:
>Sahara
>Shitty land, shitty weather
>Out of the Silk way

Of course it was. We are all equal, don't you know that, dummy :^)

Because they keep IRL shitposting instead of advancing their nations. Shitposts like OP.

...

Huge continent with practically isolated "civilizations". Never had the exchange of ideas or cultures like Europe-Middle East and Asia.

Funny that the Middle East was a bastion of science and culture at a certain point in history and Yuropoors were a bunch of nutjobs.

Tables change so quickly.

extreme instability and religious fervor sure are a bitch for science progression

You're implying that a lot of the infrastructure and advancements made were done for the benefit of the locals rather than for the benefit of the colonizing empire with minimal thought of the local populace ever taking the reigns.

Because they didn't listen

They aren't poor, everyone else is just rich

So I stood up and told that teachin' lady the only 3 letters I need to know are I, A, and N

>shit land, no winter means bad harvests and livestock.
>no federation, countries are petty. Would you want to be landlocked in Africa?
>overpopulation

Unlike India, Africans were never allowed to attend European universities. The elites of India were regarded much more highly than the elites of Africa, namely because Indians had more military and economic clout. As such when Africa was decolonized it had no one to lead who knew how to do so competently. The people who came to power were generally only able to keep power via cronyism/corruption and fear.

Furthermore, cultural borders were ignored when drawing the map of Africa. As such conflict has become of a defining feature of some African nations.

colonization isn't the problem.

the problem was in the power vacuum of the colonial powers leaving. the West and the Commies were pitting various factions against each other. Leading to decades of instability and a cultural memory of violence and mistrust.

All that destruction and lack of a stable power structure left them more vulnerable to drought and epidemics. Which further erodes development and stability.

How could africans get enrolled in university when they were barely out of the jungle? Not trying to be mean or anything, but Indian society already had a literate elite when the Brits arrived. Africans were still living in mudhuts. Were they supposed to just select a few randomly and send them to Cambridge and hope for the best?

As for "cultural borders", this would have created around a million countries in Africa. How would that have been sustainable?

This

Outlining a problem isn't the same thing as presenting a solution.

He makes false claims. "Africans were never allowed to attend European universities"

It's not that they weren't allowed, it's that they weren't capable.

Also it was quite clear that he inferred that a solution would have been to draw "cultural borders"

kek

>It's not that they weren't allowed, it's that they weren't capable.
That's what europeans thought, so they weren't allowed. Dumbass. Even if they weren't that's because they didn't bother bulging any schools of worth

>That's what europeans thought
Well yes, because that was the truth.

You can't hope to take a cannibal out of the jungle and send him to Cambridge. Be realistic.

> Even if they weren't that's because they didn't bother bulging any schools of worth
That's false, europeans built plenty of local schools and greatly educated africans and eradicated the most backwards practices of theirs.

...

Africa still is one of the most resource rich continents of the world. The problem is that nothing gets done in Africa, the population seems unable to get anyhting going without it involving violence or corruption.

greatest documentary of our time

also the greatest comedy of our time

>claims blacks can't be educated
>in the same post admits to the opposite
Are you trying to meme me freind?

Blacks are stupid subhumans, they are not psychologically built for civilization but only to live in small ferocious uncivilized tirbes.

The British defeated Napoleon and Hitler alone, Africa can too.

Alright

Funny how you couldnt find a building like that until whitey came.

Terrible farmers and drought preventing it mostly are the main reasons. SubSahara Africa sucks dick out side of the coast even then its shit. Northern Africa is near the lush and trading Mediterranean with is why places like Egypt could thrive. It also have the Nile unlike land locked shit holes where lions or crocs maul you for thinking about gdtting water.

Lions and crocs were nonfactors to black tribes, all blacks had to do was swarm a lion to scare it off and crocs are restricted to the water.

Can't be educated at a university level. They can be christianized and taught basic literacy.

There's a difference between learning how to count to 100 and learning algebraic topology.

Sure you can swarm but many didn't have domestic animals specifically horses. It takes a lot of energy to do that only to be attacked by crocs. The numbers of people were sparce and food was hard to come by because they couldnt farm well.

this debate has been done to death, generally..

technology: good, but technically not colonialism
tyranny: bad, this includes both oppressive colonial regimes, isolationist monarchies and the dictators that rose to power after decolonization

>both
or some word that is like both but refers to 3 things instead of 2

>here's a road/railway where no road/railway would have ever been
>but it was built by people who didn't have the locals interests purely at heart
>ergo it would've been better to not have a road/railway in the first place and let everyone continue walking in the mud
What leftists actually believe