Why did Africa in general got worse after colonialism?

>can't even read the source

>Africa thread
>someone posts IQ memes
Everytime

Use of western crops which allowed their population to grow massively but are also prone to failure in africa

>western crops

What? Various crops were introduced from Asia and the New World but nonetheless do you mean like back in the colonial days or now because both are due to different reasons.

What are you fuckin' blind

not an argument

I blame communist and to a lesser extent American interference as the primary reason why Africa sucks. Too many African dictators who were supported by the USSR.

>implement government
>"AYO WHITEY GTFO MUHFUGGA AYO"
>white people leave
>African "intellectuals" come in
>they don't know what they are doing
>those who do know what they're doing get overthrown by a butthurt warlord
>everything goes to shit

Problem is that the colonial boarders are still in place today. Too many ethnic groups in one country and you get insurrections every other day and no one can build infrastructure.

this. Foreign aid is actually to blame for many of their problems today. Back in the day a black mom had 12 kids but 9 of them would die before adulthood due to disease and malnutrition/starvation. Today all 12 of those kids will live because of foreign aid then have 12 kids of their own. They're stuck in a cycle and every time we try to make the situation better we're actually making it worse. Sadly the only way this will end is with a lot of death

TL;DR A genocide would actually HELP Africa in the long run

You can very easily blame Western interference in general. At first, it was wildly exploitative colonialism suckling up all the resources without investing nearly as many into providing infrastructure or education. When colonialism failed, we made the Africans into economic vassal states by strategically aiding and supporting groups and governments, but only if they would sell their resources to us for pennies.

They were told to enact ruinous policies by economic advisors.

Leaders who preferred lining their own pocket were supported by the west or the east. Leaders who supported independence were killed.

This isn't actually complicated.

African populations would be relatively small if Islam and Christianity didn't invade them for the last 800 years.

African history is a battle between Christians and Muslims. This initially didn't create the rampant overpopulation, what really caused overpopulation was War and Oil.

War and Oil are the major factors for rampant overpopulation in Africa, and the endless conflicts for control of Oil.

Neither is yours.

wut? It already is ending. African standards of living and income per person rates have been improving for around a decade now. You are right that aid doesn't help though, only investment can help, aid is worthless.

half of the sub-saharan population is less than 18 years old. The growth per capita is obviously not stable relative to their lack of capital and this can end in either 3 ways

>genocide
or
>Soros, Rothschild and all the evil jew faggots put their money where their mouth is and start making insane monetary investments in the region
.....But that won't happen so the most probable solution is.....
>Refugees welcome!!!

what did he mean by this?

War and Creation, Peace and Stagnation.

>Soros, Rothschild and all the evil jew faggots put their money where their mouth is and start making insane monetary investments in the region
China is already doing this, which is why Africa's economy is growing. Africa's biggest problem is a lack of infrastructure which is easily fixable with investment. Obviously, China is only doing this to make money, but the end result has been positive so far.

South African murder and rape rates have been steadily rising (outpacing population growth of course) since apartheid ended. Zimbabwe is a shithole now too. Black people just don't have the patience needed to build a nation.

Kek. The 'emotionless' chinks try to revitalize Africa while Soros is too busy donating hundreds of millions to protesters, ACLU, and the Human Rights Watch

but also it's the most resource rich continent and the people there are perfectly suited to their environment. It had domesticatable animals and arable land but the black Africans just never took advantage of any of it for some reason. Europeans needed to take it because they were in contest with each other, and it's not like the Africans were using it.

It's laughable how liberals attempts to paint investments in infrastructure as "neo-colonialism" while trumpeting ineffective, paternalistic foreign aid.

Based National Interest got it right:
>The answer to this question lies with how China has essentially treated Africa not as a continent in need of saving or lecturing, but as partners in a long-term business deal. Exhibiting no self-appointed missionary zeal, China has approached African states with an amoral and persuasive message based on mutual benefit.

In this way, China treats Africa with far more dignity than Western governments and NGOs, who view the Africans as hopeless children who need guidance. Instead, China strikes business deals that exchange loans, infrastructure aid and goods in exchange for African commodities, political support and access into its vast and emerging markets while leaving Africans alone in finding solutions to their problems.

The fact that Western media sources consistently condemn China’s no-strings-attached attitude towards dealing with African regimes as proof that this is a disservice to Africa’s peoples actually demonstrates a certain lack of understanding that the West has of the worldview of many Africans.

nationalinterest.org/feature/what-china-knows-about-africa-the-west-doesnt-16295?page=2

Fuck I screwed up the greentexting

i really abhor how people treat African peoples like helplesss children. the continent's been fucked up quite a bit in the past but this endless subsidization that the West has going on is ridiculous.

>Why did Africa in general got worse

get worse

or

>Why did Africa in general got worse after colonialism?

Why Africa got worse in general after colonialism?

It really does them no favors either. I suppose I support medical aid to keep diseases like AIDs under control, but the endless dumping of crap into the continent does it no good.

Honestly, I'm not yet decided on whether or not Africa is capable of sustaining a functional civilization (the continent has so many fundamental problems); however, I am certain that even if it is possible, the liberal west's approach will never get Africa there.

Should we just leave them? But them whites will be evil for not helping them with food a-and free stuff! What would the UN say about this!

It's because the chinese are not burdened by the knowledge that their past consisted of fucking over black people and thus having all their actions judged in that context

Based Chinks

Who's this alphamale doing the cia pose?

Some blue-collar farmer living in Mozambique

Aid isn't useless you fucking idiot. Despite its issues it has helped nation's far more then hindered.

Nigga Chinese investment is small and HEAVILY overblown by the media. It's not even notable in the continent and hell several African nations have other African nations that invest in them more then China.no one pays attention to the infrastructure not made by Chinese recently.

It's pointless to discuss about this topic when this basic fact is unknown to most people

the cold war

And the fat boy is Chinese, like actually from China, look it up.

Its full of niggers.

>Chinese investment is small
Source? Chinese investment is significant enough that African people surveyed are beginning to prefer the Chinese model of development over the American model. China invests more in the continent than any other country afaik

Because large portions of it got infected with Communism immediately after.

...

Not to mention the rise of dictators and cult-like atmosphere they foster among their supporters.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyphotilapia_frontosa
neat

Because means to kill each other were introduced, and old societal structure and hierarchy was destroyed, but not replaced with anything.

Had the colonial empires slowly withdrew, over a few generations, gradually giving the colonies autonomy, Africa would be doing fine.

Nowhere gets better after colonialism.

You're fucking stupid.

Hong Kong? Singapore? The United States of America?

Speak for yourself.

Hong Kong and Singapore are city states which cannot be compared to nations. How much did Malaysia and China suffer for those city states to gain wealth still concentrated by "elites" ...HSBC was founded by Sir Thomas Sutherland, opium trader. The white man loves to justify his intrusion on others because he writes the history books. I'm far from someone who hates success or an SJW sympathizer. I'm the most intelligent man on this board.

T. Known Boss

Africa is in average better off now than under colonialism. Here's why it was hard.

Shit made up borders separating tribes and forcing enemies together.
Nation, state and representative democracy completely worn concepts to most natives.
Beauracratic impartiality completely foreign concept

>Hong Kong and Singapore are city states
Not an argument, the people in Singapore and Hong Kong knew how to take care of themselves

WE WUZ

not enough water

>still concentrated by "elites"
The amount of wealth generated by new technology dwarfs anything that was "stolen". How could tiny Hong Kong armwrestle Mao's China into giving them free stuff during their rapid postwar growth period?

It's almost like post colonial nations that didn't genocide their natives tend to be unsuccessful wow

...

Self determination is a meme. The truth is the native africans as a whole didn't rule themselves any more after colonization than they did during it. In either case there was/is a marked differentiation between those that rule and those that follow. The decolonization of africa mainly favoted the former group and not the latter, exactly the same way as it did during colonization. Gradual federalization into more competent governments would have been better.

Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Kenya, Botswana, basically all of latin america regardless of what they think.

Progressive politics is just implied white supremacy repackaged by college feminists to have a more patronizing tone. White man's burden turned into white women's burden.

Early in the post-colonial era, all of the African nations got together and decided to recognize each other's borders as fully legitimate and not disputable, in order to prevent armed conflict between the emerging states. For the most part, this agreement was successful.
However, with no external threats, these new states had difficulty at building legitimacy relative to any of the traditional polities (tribes and kingdoms and such) which the colonial nations had empowered throughout their rule (easier and cheaper to force cooperation out of existing polities than create an entirely new one which would be fully viewed as foreign). The result of this is civil war.

Couple this with the fact that the infrastructure established by Europeans was built to funnel resources from native polities to colonial centers of power. For example, look at Zaire, its shaped like a fucking funnel with the spout at an awkward port city. This creates a situation where whichever native polity can seize control of the colonial economic center effectively seizes control of the state, without directly suppressing other polities. These other polities in turn will maintain their autonomy and attempt to seize the colonial economic center. In all of this process, no attempts are made to develop a more natural and integrated economy for the state - just the enriching of the native polity who won the last civil war.

tl;dr For Africa to develop stable states like Europe did, they need to start shooting at other states instead of other factions

The abitrary creation of national borders, the divisions between cultural groups and colonial powers leaving very very quickly without slowly creating independence as they did in places like Egypt, India and Hong Kong.

Except it is an argument you fucking clown. It's a lot easier to "take care" of yourself when you have 10 times the amount of wealth as the other guy. They gained that wealth through the exploitation of the surrounding nation state.

00/10

Suck a dick, faggot

It was an awesome life compared to be a syphilitic weakling like your ancestors shit out of your grand mommy's womb is some European hellhole.

This is an actual counterargument so you deserve a respectful response.

That wealth as previously stated is concentrated within the hands of a small group at the expense of many. Cest la vie. Hong Kong was connected to and still has connections to Britain and can leverage themselves accordingly to their own benefit as opposed to a city such as Guangzhou trying to oppose the party line.

Better for who?

Not for the indigenous people of the British Commonwealth, that's for sure. If you think it's "better" for people in Latin America, I invite you to take a trip to Honduras. Still a beautiful place to live. Can't appreciate that quite the same as the castizo when you're working the fields for 11 hours a day or Ochoa is beheading people near you. East Africa is its own monster but the place is right fucked almost anywhere.

t. John m'tembadonk

>Can't appreciate that quite the same as the castizo when you're working the fields for 11 hours a day
Or having to take part in constant flower wars to get sacrifices for your blood thirsty gods

Intermingling of aboriginal and human dna triggered the birth of a race of overmen known as the australian. The desert makes hard men..

I'm sure the eagle warriors enjoyed it.
Their victims, not so much.

The Jesuit Spaniards were bloodthirsty indeed, Inshallah.

Please just go to /pol/ and never come back

Haha faggot you know it's true.

Well I'll speak for Madagascar.

The first president forced the big French owned farms to be given back to peasants like during the Merina kingdom. He didn't think that they'd become less productive it seems but luckily rice cultivation skills have become accessible and boasted fertility dramatically for the poor farmer who can't afford large amounts of foreign inputs.

Secondly the French having gotten their asses whooped (or rather French and Senegalese) or at least left ineffectual in the arid South destroyed vast communal "estates" of managed and cultivated prickly pear cactus landscapes.

It provides a boon for herders, provided tricky terrain to fight herders and boosted populations dramatically. A Frenchmen brought a different species with a parasite that makes a red dye (some say intentionally) that wrecked havoc to the mass opuntia landscapes causing wide sprees famine.

Back in December that region was rated as a famine disaster again. The old opuntia stricta never really came back and to this day the people suffer.

This is also a region of heavy mining by foreign nations but the Merina in the central highlands don't care.

Sad man.

>Kenya
kek
only one tribe has a lot of the runners, they're the Kalenjins, and the national running team is about 50% Kalenjin.

Here's an argument

short ver.

Holy shit this board is so civilized compared to /pol/

Why is that board the only one where we're allowed to discuss current events again?

its a containment board for /r/eddit, just as /b/ is a containment board for normies and tumblr

Most of africa hasn't reallydeveloped nation, they're mostly stuck at the tribal stage

This board is good because it doesn't discuss current events.

If we did, it would be just as shit as /pol/.

>Naming two countries out of 54

>B-but /pol/ isn't the containment board! It's the other way around!

>between 1994 and 2009, the murder rate [in South Africa] halved from 67 to 34 murders per 100,000 people. Between 2011 and 2015, it stabilised to around 32 homicides per 100,000 people
Yeah, really steadily rising

sauce pls

>"We have long been told a compelling story about the relationship between rich countries and poor countries. The story holds that the rich nations of the OECD give generously of their wealth to the poorer nations of the global south, to help them eradicate poverty and push them up the development ladder. Yes, during colonialism western powers may have enriched themselves by extracting resources and slave labour from their colonies – but that’s all in the past. These days, they give more than $125bn (£102bn) in aid each year – solid evidence of their benevolent goodwill.

>This story is so widely propagated by the aid industry and the governments of the rich world that we have come to take it for granted. But it may not be as simple as it appears.

>The US-based Global Financial Integrity (GFI) and the Centre for Applied Research at the Norwegian School of Economics recently published some fascinating data.

>What they discovered is that the flow of money from rich countries to poor countries pales in comparison to the flow that runs in the other direction.

>In 2012, the last year of recorded data, developing countries received a total of $1.3tn, including all aid, investment, and income from abroad. But that same year some $3.3tn flowed out of them. In other words, developing countries sent $2tn more to the rest of the world than they received."

theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2017/jan/14/aid-in-reverse-how-poor-countries-develop-rich-countries

>Colonial period
>West exploits, and humiliates Africa
>Africans get annoyed
>Africans get independence
>West says "sorry we fucked your land up, here's some aid money"
>oh cool
>"but yeah, you're gonna need to open your markets up to our trade"
>wait what
>"Yeah don't worry..if you do that,one day you'll be like us"
>really?
>"yeah whatever, sign here"

>By what measure.

By any.

came here to post this. First post is again the best post.

>By what measure
Literacy, political freedom, poverty, malnutrition rate, GDP per capita, higher education. FFS, Africa has midrange economies and economies catching up to European levels.

Piss poor handling of borders and decolonization. Also in some cases the cold war fucked them over.

>want to have a discussion of decolonization
>/pol/ always ruins it

>some scientists, who are likely political in their motivations, think the studies into IQ and race aren't accurate

Nice meme

Explain to me why black people generally act far more aggressively than white people? Explain to me why their civilisations are NOWHERE NEAR as advanced as white ones (or Asian ones, which are also very advanced)?

Do you SERIOUSLY believe there is no *general* IQ difference between blacks and whites?

I would absolutely concede that INDIVIDUAL blacks can be intelligent. This is not the claim that is being made though.

Blacks and whites and Asians are distinct gene pools, aren't they? That's why we look differently. Since we have clear physiological differences - height, hair type, skin colour, facial structure, etc. - how can you be so certain that intelligence (or BEHAVIOUR at the least; which will influence how one scores on an IQ test) is not another one of these differences?

Please make a coherent and logical argument with reasons. Thanks.

"That's racist" does not, of course, constitute an argument. Whether a fact is "racist" or not bears no relevance on whether it is TRUE or not.

*why we look different

Funny how nobody ever replies to posts like this. They always shitpost about "muh IQ" or "muh lazy Africans" or "muh dindus ruined da colonies".

Explain why Africa has always been less developed for hundreds and hundreds of years, long before colonialism?

Explain why Africans are *in general* much more aggressive than white and Asian people?

Civilization as we know it is not a linear thing. African tribes not "evolving" can be explained in one of three ways: they perfectly fine with their current means, their conditions were far too awful to develop a big enough safety net to create large groups of people, or they were too far away from other civilizations to learn how to do it from them.

Or maybe it's just because all Africans are genetically inferior to der Ubermensch, which is why it should be totally okay to wipe them out and strip-mine their continent. Civilization is a game, after all.

>cold war

Yeah this tends to get forgotten but the reason they're "3rd world" is they were unaligned (officially) with either the US (1st World) or the USSR(2nd World). So they were caught in a tug of war between two giant assholes for decades.

...