Post-Colonial Development

Ask yourself what these places looked like before any Europeans arrived. East Asia was a highly advanced place by the standards of the day.

Sub-Saharan Africa, not so much.

A sense of some identity greater than immediate tribal relations.

Besides Singapore all those other countries have had pretty awful post colonial development

If this was true why didn't Asia surpass Europeans given they score higher. Applying IQ to history and genetics is retarded.

I'd say Malaysia at least is solidly middle of the road.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

Looks still well ahead of Africa to me. Malaysia and Brunei even manage to be shades of green.

what is iq and human biodiversity...

The discussion is about Asian nations that achieved prosperity. None of the ones you mentioned fall into that category.

OP was referring to countries like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong and China.

Japan and China were never colonies.

Wrong whitey, we wuz KANGZ and sheeiit!

We are human user capable of the same intelligence regardless of race. There are geniuses and stupid people in all races.

Europe benefitted from a more divided political structure and more coastline than China. Asians have the highest IQs. Deal with it.

Sure they are.

And there are more geniuses in certain races than others.

Race for the most part is a social construct. What I mean by that is humans decide what the races are. But that doesn't mean there aren't differences between the categorizations that humans created. East Asians are clearly genetically different from ozzie abbos, and while our racial categorizations aren't 100pc accurate, they still give us good regional breakdowns. And it turns out that people native to Australia have far lower IQs than people native to East Asia. Even accounting for education, these gaps persist, So yes there are genius abbos and retard asians, but proportionally, geniuses make up a larger part of the asian population than the abbo population, and retards make up a larger part of the abbo population than the chink population.

Switzerland wasn't a colonial power. The just kept to their mountain-jewing

Niger is one of the least developed. Go figure

>Countries full of Celto-Germanic peoples do the best

Really makes you think.

An abbo can be as intelligent as an east asian or ashkenzai jew.

What makes you think IQ is any more important than the thousand other factors? Oh yeah, racist confirmation bias.

Not the user you replied to. IQ is clearly not the ONLY factor, but it would be a mistake to dismiss it when there are clear differences between peoples.

Nigga do you fucking get it? Of course there can be a genius abbo with a 140 IQ, but the AVERAGE IQ of the population is lower than east asians. The bell curve for asian IQ is further right than the bell curve for abbo IQ.

See pic related to fucking get shit through your head.

I think this would be more useful if countries were scaled from their original size based on GDP per capita to adjust for population density. As it is it makes it look like India is more thriving than Australia.

>How did the Asian colonies manage to pick themselves back up
>Asian Colonies
Which ones?

Because Southeast Asia is Africa-Tier with the exception of, I dunno, Singapore.

>Because Southeast Asia is Africa-Tier with the exception of, I dunno, Singapore.
How rude. Going by HDI Brunei and Malaysia are quite nice and Thailand and is sort of okay, Indonesia and the Philippines and Vietnam are further behind but in general (besides real crapholes like Laos and Myanmar) they are definitely above Africa tier.

Those guys look like they're in uniforms.

They're obviously doing better than many African nation's. Whose army is this?

>Which ones?
Taiwan (former Japanese colony), South Korea (former Japanese colony), Singapore (former British colony), Malaysia (former British colony), Brunei (former British colony). Indonesia (former Dutch colony) is in the G20 so let's include them too.

Flips. Some shitfight with their Moosleem rebels back in 2013.

The colonies that received productive aid, whether African or Asian, developed. The issue is just that so much of Africa was a battleground in the Cold War.
Anyone who tries to attribute something like the course of world history to a two or three digit number describing an incredibly complex system is patently stupid.

>biodiversity
This is an oft-misused term.

Reminder that Niggers didn't do civilization until long after populations out of Africa did.

Is Hong Kong that huge circle next to southern China? lel

Taiwan la

That's clearly Taiwan.

No one reading this?

geography, stability

iq is never static now or through out history. Trying to attribute it to historic population or groups before the test was devised (originally meant to test for retardation in kids) is just plain stupid.

Ever notice how Niggers got civilization long after non-Niggers did?

user do you know how extremely massive the gap of time was form the emergence of modern humans until the first civilization?

And non-Niggers did it.

America

Colonization generally ended earlier/never happebed.

>Even accounting for education, these gaps persist,

Lol Abbos have completely different nation and place in that nation then East Asians do and completely different history. OF course their results are gonna be night and day especially if you compare their nations education polices historically.

1. Far East: struggle of USA which prevented total european colonisation.
2. East Asia: islam.
3. Africa still under european (neo)colonialism.

Nice meme.

>t. Mud blaming Whitey

Or you're a White cuck.

Because Asia already had civilization.

This is stupid and like asking why Japan was able to pick itself up after 2 nukes but Africa didn't.

>Going We Wuz

Hey tumblr.

>Europeans done with Africa
>leave and take the economy with them
thats the point, Europe fucked africa without a condom

The Natufian skulls that have been found had Negroid characteristics. Heavily prognathous people taught Indo-Euros how to farm

this should exclude north africa and south africa to represent tribal africans

>African GDP per capita rises
>Whitey holding Niggers down

We Wuz Kangz N SHIIEEETTT!!!

>Afrocentric

Nice try Tyrone.

Decolonisation is meme. British empire became British Commonwealth, French - Organisation internationale de la Francophonie. Just changed labels.
Yes, US Liberia is bad. But better than others.

Japan had massive help.

That's a completely retarded as fuck arbitrary thing to do. What is that to accomplish?

He didn't say they were black boy.

>Say Non-Niggers did it

>Brings up Natufians like they were Niggers

Sure he wasn't.

They could be helped because they accepted the help. African colonies literally chimpes out and went full "GTFO WHITEY REEEEEEE". Hence they btfo'd themselves.

Classic Veeky Forums quality.

>this is what abbos actually believe

>cant handle the truth

Because you conflate one place to the entire continent.

>mugabe is all of africa.
xD

>whites were not kicked out of their colonies ASAP even though they offered transitional governments to the natives
ok kid

Genetic intelligence for different populations

>Notoriously, output per head in Sub-Saharan Africa is the lowest of any major world region and has, on average, expanded slowly and haltingly since 1960. During the colonial years it was much more so.

>extraction colonialism fails to introduce many things needed fora nation to function well. No modernization of local property rights or developing of government systems to support that alongside a MASS disconnect of the Africans from the governing system with no say or way to work with it at all except in some extremely limited and gimped manner in some cases so little to no say in policy.

>Colonial extraction in Africa could be seen most decisively in the appropriation of land for European settlers or plantations, a strategy used not only to provide European investors and settlers with cheap and secure control of land, but also to oblige Africans to sell their labour to European farmers, planters or mine-owners.

>Even in the “peasant” colonies, i.e. where the land remained overwhelmingly in African ownership, we will see that major parts of the services sector were effectively monopolised by Europeans. Then there was coercive recruitment of labour by colonial administrations, whether to work for the State or for European private enterprise . Of potentially great long-term importance was the unwillingness of colonial governments to accept, still less promote, the emergence of markets in land rights on land occupied by Africans, whether in “settler” or “peasant” colonies. South Africa let black own land but they sperged out and removed the law because it was afraid that they'd grow to strong. Capitalist systems weren't introduced properly.

>Late colonial states engaged in hardcore state interventionism introducing statutory marketing boards which would later effect later developments. Britain basically gypped West Africa cocoa farmers by cutting their profits in half with it to fill their own accounts back in London.

>In "peasant" economies cash crops were spreading due to the will of Africans to engage in entrepreneurship and workings with the economy. African elites became clients of colonial or overseas States. Thereby they forged relations which, though unequal, benefited themselves as well as the foreigners. Whereas dependency theory emphasised the primacy of foreign agency in determining historical outcomes, Bayart insists that African elites played a calculating and key role in establishing the “extraverted” pattern of African political economy.

>from 1879 to circa 1905. At that time the region was, as before, characterised generally (not everywhere all the time) by an abundance of cultivable land in relation to the labour available to till it. so lots of land, not many people in many places.

>This did not mean “resource abundance” as much of Africa’s mineral endowment was either unknown or inaccessible with pre-industrial technology or was not yet valuable even overseas. For example, many of the major discoveries (notably of oil in Nigeria and diamonds in Botswana) were to occur only during the period of decolonisation.

>Moreover, the fertility of much of the land was low or at least fragile, making it costly or difficult to pursue intensive cultivation, especially with no animal manure. Sleeping sickness prevented the use of large animals, in the forest zones and much of the savannas. The extreme seasonality of the annual distribution of rainfall rendered much of the dry season effectively unavailable for farm work. The low opportunity cost of dry-season labour reduced the need to grow labour productivity in craft production. Soil thinness restricted returns on farming techniques that were land extensive and labour-saving. Slave trade further aggravated the labour scarcity

>The strongest economies in the West are dark green

Really gets those neurons tingling

If it was Celt and Germania genes responsible for it then Spain should be dark green too.

>Pre-colonial economies were thought of being overwhelmingly subsistence-oriented. but this has changed over the years. West Africa engaged in a lot of extra-substinence but the "Dutch Disease" with slave trade damaged it but it resumed in the 19th century switched to other things.

>Given the relative scarcity of labour, and in the absence (generally) of significant economies of scale in production, it was rare for the reservation wage (the minimum wage rate sufficient to persuade people to sell their labour rather than work for themselves) to be low enough for a would-be employer to afford to pay it. Hence the labour markets of pre-colonial Africa mainly took the form of slave trading and slave keeping.

>The same abundance of land made political centralisation difficult to achieve and sustain. Political fragmentation had facilitated the Atlantic slave trade, in that larger States would have had stronger incentives and capacities for rejecting participation in it . This fragmentation later facilitated the European conquest. Ethiopia was the exception that proved the rule, with its fertile central provinces and large agricultural surplus supporting a long-established and modernising State that, alone in Africa, had the economic base to resist the “Scramble” successfully.

aw neat, a thread on Veeky Forums that i've actually studied in semi-depth an- oh wait shit i forgot its Veeky Forums and we're talking about Africa.

> By no coincidence, most of Sub-Saharan Africa was colonised at a time when the industrialisation of Europe was creating or expanding markets for various commodities that could profitably be produced in Africa. The land-labour ratio, the environmental constraints on intensive agriculture and also the specific qualities of particular kinds of land in various parts of the continent gave Africa at least a potential comparative advantage in land-extensive primary production. By the time of colonisation, especially in West Africa, the indigenous populations were increasingly taking advantage of the combination of these supply-side features and of access to expanding overseas markets. From Senegal to Cameroon thousands of tonnes of groundnuts and palm oil, and from the 1880s rubber, were being produced for sale to European merchants.

>Colonial rule in Africa was intended to be cheap, for taxpayers. The British doctrine was that each colony should be fiscally self-supporting. Thus, any growth in government expenditure was supposed to be financed from higher revenues seen in Ghana with cocoa beans exports. In French West Africa too there was a major programme of public works in the 1920s, although, as also in Ghana, within a few years expenditure had to be curtailed when export prices fell and the growth of revenue ended.

>After 1930s Depression, and especially during the Second World War administrations were obsessed with development. In British West Africa the new statutory export marketing boards accrued substantial surpluses by keeping a large margin between the price paid to producers and the price that the boards received for the crop on the world market. The surpluses were kept in London, in British government bonds, as forced savings from African farmers, which assisted the British metropolitan economy to recover from post-war dollar shortage. France actually got more in tax from Africa than it spent in Africa according to PAtrick Manning.

>even though they offered transitional governments to the native

user they just booked it in a fuckton of cases. Belgian Congo was given independence out of no where actually.

Others they had a short transition period.

In the case of South Korea and Taiwan, that was because they received massive funding form the US post-WW2.

India and China are mostly due to their recent industrialization and massive population (notice how the map shows just GDP and not per capita).

As for Africa, it's because most of the colonies there were extractive states. That meant that their government, their infrastructure, and everything else the Europeans built was meant to funnel as much wealth back to Europe as humanly possible, since there was no intent to actually have European settlement. It's no coincidence that the African country with the largest GDP (South Africa) is also the one that had large-scale European colonization.

Meanwhile, decolonization was a total clusterfuck. Case in point: the Belgian Congo (now the DRC). When they became independent in 1962, they had a total college graduate population of twelve. The entire Congolese intellectual class could fit comfortably in a doctor's waiting room. No reparations, no transitional government, just walking away and telling them good luck on the way out. And then people wonder why African countries weren't able to fully industrialize.

>In the case of South Korea and Taiwan, that was because they received massive funding form the US post-WW2.

This is a very important point. The extent to which the US helped SK, Taiwan, and Japan after WW2 (and more recently, helped the PRC) should not be underestimated.

Also, East Asian cultures were well-suited for a sort of authoritarian capitalism. More so than African ones.

Heck, I'm one of those people who thinks that intelligence disparities between races are probably real, but even I don't think that's all it comes down to.

>We Wuz Kangz
>It Whitey Fault

thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/the-wealth-of-colonizers-or-lack-thereof/

thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/colonialism-did-not-make-africa-poor/

>Also, East Asian cultures were well-suited for a sort of authoritarian capitalism. More so than African ones.

You don't even need that really. In Africa's case Capitalism wasn't even developed or the institutions to support it.

In South Africa

>South Africa had gold and diamonds, but their profitable exploitation required that the cost of labour be reduced far below what the physical labour-land ratio implied. C. H. Feinstein’s quantitative exercise indicates that without such coercive intervention in the labour market, most of South Africa’s mines would have been unprofitable until the end of the gold standard era in 1932 (Feinstein 2005, 109-12). If South Africa eventually obtained a “free market” comparative advantage in mining, it was only after several decades of using extra-market means to repress black wages, notably through land appropriation and measures to stop Africans from working on European-owned land except as labourers rather than tenants.

fuk, Britain swol as fuk boi

[spoiler]I'm proud[/spoiler]

The French were mostly kept out of Asia is why

> didn't leave Central Asia in the best state.

Implying it hasn't been a shithole since the mongols fell

why is "asian" in quotation marks?

>measuring tribal societies in gdp
Really makes you think

niggers should be thanking us for slavery, it increased their gdp and they didn't need hands anyway

to stop wealthier whites and arabs skewing the statistics

we should be looking at the africans who were powerless before the colonialists

Strategic locations helped a lot of areas in Asia develop, for instance, Singapore and Hong Kong. Others benefited from having huge populations, like China and India.

Overall, for the economic development of societies, you need stability. Africa has just been unstable since colonialism, whereas Asia, despite issues like Vietnam, Korea, etc., has been for the most part stable. China and India weren't affected by civil wars and proxy wars as much as most African states and looking at a places in Asia that were, you can clearly see Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam lagging behind regional leaders like China/India. South Korea and Japan were able to develop under the stability provided by the United States.

Had you seen a more prolonged presence of EuroAmerican nations in Africa, not in a colonial relationship but more so along the lines of the way America treats Northeast Asia, you probably could've seen something similar in Africa.

But again, stability is the key. There are a whole list of reasons you could say why Africa was more unstable, but I'd say the whole drawing of borders based on geographic boundaries and not tribal boundaries impaired stability the most. I'm not trying to denigrate Western powers since Westerners have clearly done great things for colonial areas like Singapore and Hong Kong, but that really has ravaged Africa.

It's probably a pretty sound estimate. It's not like these were the 1500s and people had no clue what Africa was. Most likely empires had economists studying the profitability of colonies prior to settling them.

Or are you admitting that Westerners undertook colonialism because they were altruistic and not your story book selfish whitey figures?

>exclude the areas that benefited most and had the most extensive colonization so we can see the affect on the rest of the continent where colonization was much harder and less successful for reasons beyond "whitey be selfish"

And America went into Iraq to bring democracy and freedom

*revisionism intensifies*

Lie all terms in the U.S it's vague as hell. Asian includes All of Asia.

>It's probably a pretty sound estimate

No most of those estimate into the past are based off guesstimates and vague assumptions.