Colonies

>French Indochina
>colony of economic exploration
Kys. If anything African colonies had more in terms of education and culture provided by Europeans than Asian colonies did.

Not him, but education options for the native population were way greater in India and the Dutch east Indies then basically anywhere in Africa.

Because Europeans only ever treated Africa as a giant pile of resources due to racial values but they didn't extend the same courtesy to Asians.

Because....well, you know, racial traits, intelligence, laziness...etc

Overwhelmingly geographic determinism, the malay archipelago is easy to secure with a navy which guerrillas don't have. Other asian countries are in a more temperate climate with more dense grain production and not as much disease.

You will notice countries in Asia that were in a similar situation to Africa countries like Cambodia and Laos were cripplingly poor and places like Vietnam were a good location for guerrilla warfare. About the only outlier is Thailand which is something the more social science oriented and liberally biased historians like would want to focus on and would do so with glee since colonialism actually did play an overwhelming role in the fate of this nation, but for some reason they prefer to make broad sweeping statements.

>and thus the colonisers had greater interest in funding education for the locals

Absolutly wrong
The difference is that Asian countries already had actual societies and civilizations even before the Europeans arrived (while Africans were still living like hunter-gatherer subhumans), so even without Europeans educating them, they didnt end up like literal chimps as soon as whitey left

This is correct.

Africans are good for a tribal society. IQ 77
Arabs are good for theocracy society with some development. IQ 87
Whites are good for social democratic societies. IQ 98
Asians are good for real futuristic development. (will happen soon) IQ 107

>Asian countries already had actual societies and civilizations
Not him but that is due to geographical determinism.

good environment = civilization
good environment = a bonus after decolonizaion

Even if this is true they are only like 5 IQ points lower if they didn't like in an AIDS ridden malnourished shitty country. Geographical determinism plays an overwhelming role.

Indians have an IQ of about 85 so that's wrong.

True, and if you add evolution to the equation it gives:

good environment = superior race
bad environment = inferior race

That's why nigs who are born in the West are still inferior
Evolution wrote inferiority within their genes

>5 points
Lol, that's if you take the most optimistic white IQ and the most pessimistic Asian one.

The difference is closer to 10 points as is shown by how much brighter Asian children are than white children.

So you are an Asian Nationalist?

this ching sums it up pretty well
youtube.com/watch?v=gLOvdgXSy_Q

>Lets reduce a complex topic and ignore major historical and geographic factors into just blaming all ills on a group of people I don't like.

I understand your point. I could even write a very long text about every thing I know about colonial history, from the introduction of the grenade in Asia by the French through Indochina to the sugar canes Portugal planted in Madeira. But it really comes down to the fact that if human societies are equal, then how come some surpassed others in terms of economy, culture, military, etc? And before you say something about geography, let me also remind you that 80% of Japanese territory is just mountains, and at the same time Brazil has the fourth largest area of arable lands in the world.

/thread

geography

you fucking retard.

>t. Jared Diamond

This meme is perpetuated by autists who can't take a closer look at maps.
Middle East: dry and desertic. Gave birth to sedentarism, coinage, commerce.
Greece: small and mountainous. Gave birth to philosophy, democracy, aesthetic.
China: Asian jungle. Most prominent civization in human history.
Japan: mountainous archipelago. Gave birth to a center of culture and morality, an empire that conquered much of its neighbors, and more importantly, anime.
Brazil: huge areas of arable lands, endless wood, ores and minerals. Third world banana republic.
Venezuela: largest oil reserves in the entire world. Supermarkets don't have toilet paper available.
Congo: 98% of worlds cobalt reserves, diamond mines, gold, silver, platinum and iron ores. Complete shithole.
Russia: oil, diamonds, coal, steel, carbon, third largest in arable lands. Living standards lower than those of Turkey.

You're the retard though
He disproved the georaphy thing in his post

Congo:
2 seasons, shit soil due to rain, insane humidity levels, no spring, crappy plants

meanwhile chernozem in europe

at least learn about geography your understanding is that of a retard

Much of South and Southeast Asia go through exactly the same and that was never an excuse that prevented them from forming formidable nations. I personally find it astonishing how Thais and Khmers built such temples when their entire lands are covered by dense jungles and, by the way, there is this meteorological phenomenon called monsoon that affects the entire region.

Yeah me too, guess they had rice and agriculture and a larger population.

HUH

>80% of Japanese territory is just mountains
Mountains with good soil and in relatively close proximity to one of the most important hubs of civilization
>Brazil has the fourth largest area of arable lands in the world
A lot of it is shitty jungle which is hard to manage and has notoriously shitty soil. Also it was set up entirely as a slave based extraction colony with no intention of having it function outside of Portuguese control and even with that considered its doing somewhat well.

>Middle East: dry and desertic. Gave birth to sedentarism, coinage, commerce.
And has a large reliable river passing right through it and is at the crossroads to just about anywhere (great for trade).
>Greece: small and mountainous. Gave birth to philosophy, democracy, aesthetic.
Also has a decent climate with mild temperatures year round and is also at a trade crossroads. Also pretty good fishing.
>China: Asian jungle. Most prominent civization in human history.
Most of it isn't jungle and it has two giant rivers which set agriculture on easy mode.
>Japan: mountainous archipelago. Gave birth to a center of culture and morality, an empire that conquered much of its neighbors, and more importantly, anime.
>morality
Also see above
>Brazil: huge areas of arable lands, endless wood, ores and minerals. Third world banana republic.
See above
Venezuela: largest oil reserves in the entire world. Supermarkets don't have toilet paper available.
>Much of the same situation as Brazil and oil wont feed your kids especially as countries move away from fossil fuels.
>Congo: 98% of worlds cobalt reserves, diamond mines, gold, silver, platinum and iron ores. Complete shithole.
Counts for jackshit in creating the bedrock of civilization (agriulture is the main driver in which the congo is shit) and most of that was only useful relatively recently.
>Russia: oil, diamonds, coal, steel, carbon, third largest in arable lands.
Also an icy hellhole and same anachronism as congo.

> muh racial IQ
How exactly 75 IQ meme stops you from creating civilization? All /pol/ memers repeat this shitty not an arugument and nobody even bothers to explain mechanism that should prevent blacks from doing cities and such. At least gographical guys can be smart enough to point that you need certain thing to create a state like agricultures or right animals so sometimes zebras and brilliants aren't enough.

> icy hellhole
The main part of russia isn't.

You seem like an educated person unlike so I'd like to ask you what you think about the native Americans. I know that for determinists it's a fact that North America is the world's best place for civilizations because of the great plains, the lands, the rivers, the climate, everything. And yet the natives there didn't develop anything worthwhile. Aztecs, Incas and Mayans did, but not the north American natives. At the same time, it took less than 300 years of European migration to turn north America into the center of the world.
>b-but the Europeans brought their knowledge with them!
Why hadnt natives developed that same knowledge when they lived in a subcontinent that is much like Europe except even bigger and better to good extent.

/pol/tards don't have the IQ to explain it.

>Why can't civilizations be made up of exclusively retarded individuals?
75 IQ is down syndrome level. Can you imagine one country where everyone has downs syndrome?

>according to the IQ scale africans are at the level of down syndrome patients
reliable scale

More than just one actually.

Qatar is 65 IQ and it is the richest place in the universe.

>99-107
>literally sub100 IQ euro countries and east asians colored the same

whoever did this map was purposely trying to deceive people into believing Asians don't consistenstly score higher than whites

I know a lot of poltards think Europeans are better than Asians so I can see what you are trying to say but I disagree with that. I'm a huge Asiaboo.
It's literally an exception. Anyone with critical thinking would notice the pattern and think of something that could cause that deviation, like maybe the fact that only 20% of people in Qatar are native born. They import shit tons of low skilled third worlders to work in their construction projects.

Say you have two civilizations, or groups of people, however you want to divide them up, with two different distributions such as in this pic, arranged according to some metric of ability, define that as you will as well, IQ is commonly accepted as one of the best predictors of individual/collective success.

Now your average of these two groups will not be seriously different. One may be a little slower but by and large neither are spectacular. They can hang out, enjoy talking to each other, fuck, whatever, they're "the same" basically.

Now look at the right tails of each distribution. It's long been accepted that almost all of societal development/progress/innovation, and administration, is carried out by tail enders, usually anyone in the top 10 or top 5% of the group. These are the people who invent, engineer, philosophize, study, organize, and the rest of society, the average, fall in line. Look at the disparity in the total amount of top 5%'ers between the two groups. In some regards, there may not even exist people in the worse distribution who match the ability of those in the better.

This is why one society will prevail superior to another until the end of time. Your perspective is simply misguided.

Still waiting you to refute this.

>the muh soil meme

Smart people create arable land themselves. They clear forests and condition the land. We've been able to find ways to produce crops in almost any kind of non-desert environment imaginable.

>I disagree Asians are superior
They have better genetic potential when it comes to intelligence, on average. It's every single time they outscore whites on tests whites themselves created.
Not saying whites should be genocided, they can have 2nd place.

Is why we need to give immigrants an IQ test.

then have the smart ones rule the stupid ones, problem solved, that is why we have aristocracy/capitalism

you /pol/tards are insufferable, fascism is when the retards in a wealthy country take over and it shouldn't be allowed

This.
Unless the causation is the other way around.
Then not this.

I'm no expert but I would assume it has something to do with the lack of reliable crops and the lack of domesticatable animals.

Your point makes no sense. Maybe your issue is forming a coherent thought, not the facts of life that offend your feelsies.

>Why have the former Asian colonies performed so much better than the former African colonies in the post-imperial era?
Like which ones? Hong Kong and Singapore did well because they became trade hubs, the island chain countries of southeast asia and india did well because they are located along trade routes and used smart economic strategies to draw foreign investment that still allowed them to build up local industry, peninsular southeast asian countries did "well" because they went communist and built up their local industries (though they're actually still very shitty places)
and also is a fucking retard because japan was never a colony

This is where we introduce the possibility of a second X factor trait, considering Asians double white populations and still need to cheat off of them to get 2nd place in world relevancy and success.

>This is why one society will prevail superior to another until the end of time.
funny how this has never happened before in all of history

Until the 70s and 80s, South Korea was considered a third world backwater with no potential. Things change. Also, much of Africa was controlled by USA or USSR backed puppet regimes that ruined the country. China and Japan held their own or simply weren't led by foreign-backed despots.

>Pakistan
>Bangladesh
>Uganda

we have yet to experience all of history

more history happened as I was typing this post

Now that I think of it I came to this board to make a thread about the Nolan diagram. It's been one hour since I found this and have been shitpost ITT.

the future isnt history yet

Because they've actually become independent.

There were and still are functioning African states, as there were secular, developed Middle Eastern countries.

>Middle East
Used to be fertile and more forested like the Mediterranean.
>Greece
Still had some arable land, and had domestic crops from Asia.
>China
Mostly not a jungle.
>Japan
Close to China and has some arable land as well as good fishing waters.
>Brazil
Run by right wing dictatorship for years, chronically exploited for its resources.
>Venezuela
Has always imported a fair amount of food and is currently run by a corrupt, authoritarian former bus driver.
>Congo
Incredibly humid and flood-prone, and run by a total nutjob dictator for decades during the 20th century.
>Russia
Much of its land is tundra or taiga. Besides, it had noticeably higher living standards (relatively) in the past.

couple of comments

about russia, they produce tons of crops from their European part, not like they aren't using the land

>authoritarian former bus driver
what could be worse

Not my area of expertise but there is the matter for the apocalyptic plague which destroyed over 90% of the population effectively destroying most traces of advanced civilization.
>What about ruins.
If they happened to build their structures from wood and earth like many African civilizations then we are shit out of luck on that department.

We also have to factor in trade. Between the coasts there are multiple ragged mountain ranges and deserts which while not completely prohibiting trade make it a massive pain in the ass (like the sahara)
>But east Asia has the Himalayas!
The silk, spices, and gold made it worth it.

I would also assume the endemic hurricanes and tornado would also fuck them up as well as a relative lack of draft animals.

>Smart people create arable land themselves.
>Why don't the poor just buy more money?

Not really. The educated class is basically non-existent in numbers in colonial Africa and the colonizers used Europeans for pretty much every position in the government (and Indians in the case of Eastern British Africa), Portugal used mestizos to fill up spots White Proteus couldn't but then ounce settlers grew in number they slot their power because the lack of White Portuguese to do those potions was alleviated and a heritage heir achy was attached to mestizos.

French indoChina was different case since it's educations was much better then it was in colonial Africa because due to distance and the need of a ruling class France needed to educate local elites and a middle class to help with administration and the economy.

This cna be seen in "Colonial Exploitation and Economic Development
The Belgian Congo and the Netherlands Indies Compared"

>Why don't the poor just buy more money?

It isn't poverty, it's foresight. Rather than seeing the tangible benefits in the future of committing work and investment now into making where you live prosperous, you simply pick some shit off a tree and hope it grows back in time when you're hungry again. That's instant gratification and a hallmark of stupidity and low impulse control.

One of the main components of a successful society is a culture of saving and foresight. Africa never cared to create arable land. Africa never cared to try to domesticate her multitude of animal species. Africa sat around in the sun, fought, and ate what was available. Then they got cucked hard when people with a better vision arrived. Europeans turned Rhodesia into a breadbasket and it predictably went right back to shit after being ousted.

>while Africans were still living like hunter-gatherer subhumans

Great way to get anyone knowledgeable to instantly discard your post. By the time of early European contact only like a very few at best or so very small groups remained hunter-gathers and a good amount used to be non-hunter gatherers until they were pushed into doing so due to outside factors or just really shitty land that can't support a decent population then got beaten as other groups came in.

>Why hadnt natives developed that same knowledge when they lived in a subcontinent that is much like Europe except even bigger and better to good extent.
Because Europeans didn't develop their knowledge independently either?
Something it seems everybody misses is that the greatest civilizations in the world just so happened to all have reliable contact with one another, while the "inferior" civilizations pointed to in subsaharan africa, australia & pacific islands, and the americas did not have this contact
funny how that works out - its almost as if the spread of ideas from one culture to another allowed them all to develop at a much quicker pace

Japan had China you retard.

>Rather than seeing the tangible benefits in the future of committing work and investment now into making where you live prosperous, you simply pick some shit off a tree and hope it grows back in time when you're hungry again.
You realize that the shift to agriculture from hunting and gathering was only because of severe desperation and actually made people unhealthier and with worse lives (at least in the beginning), right?

honestly though dude, look at all the correlations.

You can say that adding fertilizer (which in this scenario seems to be pulled out of your ass) will help in hindsight because you live in an advanced information era society where this is common knowledge. Think if you were a random tribal living on the Savannah, would you magically have a working knowledge of composting?

Also civilizations have never grown out of "vision". They are always outgrowths of what is needed and convenient at the time and it builds on itself.

>domesticate her multitude of animal species
Which ones. Also when cows reached the area they made extensive use of them

Also read pic related

I realize that harder circumstances build better people in the end, through time. And then once they achieve the technological means to master their situation and prosper, they take out everyone else who spent the past few 30,000 years relaxing in a hammock.

Overlap this with the tsetse fly map as well.

>strategic location

for what? Resources.

>African society

this is a misnomer, there does not exist a unified African culture.

>the parts of Asia that got conquered by Europe were already ahead of nearly all of Africa in terms of wealth and infrastructure

this is true.

we can ask why.

/thread

That's just an excuse. Asians trump whites in metric for education and intelligence. If you weren't a retard you'd know how much money parents and their government invest in education to get those results.

Thats mainly due to poverty factor. Huge population is still in poverty, it will increase to high 90s once the poverty factor has lowered far enough.

India has had high amounts of science development pre-industrial era. Their religion/philosophy is tied with math and numbers. On a literally autistic scale. When the greeks/romans couldn't count past couple thousands, Indians were already into 10^80000 infinities in terms of counting/mathematical calculation capabilities.

And better year, for the last 3/4 of the 2000 years, India/China dominated the economy/culture/science.

Too bad all of that is utterly irrelevant. The fact is, if the struggle for resources hadn't pushed some people towards agriculture, it's likely we would still be in the stone age.

Fertilization isn't the only way to maximize agricultural output. There is irrigation, crop rotation, and other more ancient methods.

>Also civilizations have never grown out of "vision". They are always outgrowths of what is needed and convenient at the time and it builds on itself.

I guess that depends on your definition of vision. I could build a shitty house now and deal with the consequences in winter or build a house that can survive the winter in a few months. There are different degrees of foresight involved. A lot of mathematical and scientific innovation wasn't simply done out of need, but vision and curiosity, which became extremely useful in coincidence. Colonizers weren't going to immediately profit from the opportunity cost of traveling all over the world and feeling out the best places to land and set up shop, but they had an idea that the future profit would outweigh it. There are different levels of this.

>Which ones

Any one that can provide labor or transport support. Ones that could potentially be used for meat. This is the part where you're going to say Europeans somehow had a monopoly on domesticable animals. That is false and you're operating from a position of hindsight. These animals would have been considered wild and harsh in their older forms, it was bred out of them. The same could have been done to African fauna.

>Middle East: dry and desertic

idiot

>China: Asian jungle

retard

>Utterly irrelevant

How? I thought we were talking about the differences in development with regards to geographical locations. That is perfectly relevant. People are a part of their geography.

oil is literally money.

The same reason why colonies where the native population was replaced by europeans are so successful, genetics

SA and Rhodesia had european tier standards of living for the europeans there during the apartheid, now they're literal hellzones of crime and poverty

>How? I thought we were talking about the differences in development with regards to geographical locations.
Not at all. Your whole post chain just extols the virtues of the agrarian man over the poor, savage, undeveloped hunter gatherer (who was far more well fed), as if his development didn't come from chance.

>retard: the post

>I realize that harder circumstances build better people in the end, through time.

Then Inuit and Aussie Abo's would be developed as fuck

>only like a very few at best or so very small groups remained hunter-gathers and a good amount used to be non-hunter gatherers until they were pushed into doing so due to outside factors

you sure are knowledgeable senpai

It was chance to begin with. What happened after was consequential. We are left with the results regardless, now we're talking about it.

Not necessarily. There are still confounding factors (length of time spent in environment, level of isolation, population bottlenecks, what constitutes a "harsher" environment than another).

Inuits may simply have picked a categorically shitty place to live in that offered no chance of human success, as it is arctic.

Abos still had a warmer environment and lush areas near the coasts.

>The same could have been done to African fauna.

But animals were domesticated in Africa. various Poultry, donkey's camels, cows (not sure if brought in or not ora mixture of brought in cow breeds from ages ago and local breeds),hedgehog, goats, sheep, Rat, dogs.

>as if his development didn't come from chance

you don't literally clear a field, sew seeds, harvest, mill the crop, and save the bounty for a bad year by chance.

Additionally, Asian states were usually stronger and more centralized even before Europeans arrived. Everyone marvels at Japans modernization, but Japan had an exceptionally modern state, with efficient taxation and a powerful middle class before the Meiji Restoration.

>but they had an idea that the future profit would outweigh it

It never did at all. Colonies were a net drain on the coffers. The trade deficit from the colonies to the motherland were heavily against the European nations that it cost THEM money because they had nothing export to the colonies that the colonies can use aside from a few things..

>We are left with the results regardless, now we're talking about it.
Then don't judge cultures by a standard they were never forced to meet. "smart people create arable land themselves" "picking fruit off a tree is laziness" "africa never cared to do all these things they had no reason to" are all awful, idiotic statements that come from a flawed basis.
>you don't literally clear a field, sew seeds, harvest, mill the crop, and save the bounty for a bad year by chance.
You don't get put into the situation where you have to do those things unless pressured to do so by outside forces.

Because what could be considered a hard environment is completely up to nonsense considering the reasoning behind it is adhoc as fuck.

That took years and years and years of trial and error

Evey centralized African state that existed got dismantled and/or torn apart so all social structure of a people/ empire was dead or permanently castrated and co-opted by the colonial state.