Why can't Africa just follow the developmental model that Asian Tigers did? It's worked well for Singapore, Taiwan...

>Madagascar being a hub for sweatshops and vicious exploitation is success

>Africa will never devel-

What about Malaysia?

They can build their economy first and worry about quality of life later. That's how it usually goes with developing countries.

Oil until it busted and the collapse in 1998 I think but correct me on this

It's much better to do the latter first then the former development wise.

Also Kerala focused on QoL and it's much better of then the rest of India barring 3 other states in it which are close.

Because Africans are not hard working as Asians.

Latin America couldn't follow that model either for the same reason.

So better than most of its working-age population has to work in the Gulf States. It literally relies on remittances.

>muh HDI

Amartya Sen is a commie who devised the "Human Development Index" as a propaganda tool for unproductive socialist economies which spend a lot of other people's money in welfare, like Kerala and Cuba.

He isn't a commie though.

That's a "just-so" ism user.

It's actually pretty over estimated and even natural without human intervention. Though yes erosion control is needed
As were the Asian tiger economies
This is false if you've ever met african women subsistence farmers, sellers and crafters
After the genocide there is intentional effort in destroying caste differences and forming change so that as their economy grows they won't go tribalist like Xhosa and Zulu on SA

I define who is a commie and who isn't.

>After the genocide there is intentional effort in destroying caste differences and forming change so that as their economy grows they won't go tribalist like Xhosa and Zulu on SA

Lol no.

>After the genocide there is intentional effort in destroying caste differences and forming change so that as their economy grows they won't go tribalist like Xhosa and Zulu on SA
So a multicultural society literally cannot function? Then why are Singapore and Malaysia some of the most successful economies in ASEAN?

I think the idea of Human Development Index is fair. It means that you can't skyrocket to the top of a ranking by having a select few people owning ludicrous amounts of oil wealth if your country's actually really shit to live in for most people.

I've seen this pic before. This is in Australia

That greentext is pretty bs though. You know how hard it is and fucked up living in a place where your neighbors turned mob bent on blood are now your neighbors again or how that guy you nearly killed is now works for you are your restaurant.

Cambodian genocide aftermath is equally as fucked up.

>why can't africa just overcome centuries of european colonialism and exploitation at the drop of a hat

European here, it was shit when we found it desu

>70+ years
>Drop of a hat

Not really.

Empire_of_dust.jpg

What was indochina. What was the opium war. What was the occupation of singapore. What was the the British control of Hong Kong.

In the context of history it's not that big. Mind you that the Cold War happened and economic setbacks like the oil glut which fucked up oil prices for oil based countries in Africa AND foreign interference.

Also it's more like 57 years to be hones and that the earliest. some got independence alter on like Eritrea or South Sudan.

What are you trying to get at referring toa lacklustre documentary.

Turns out, Asia went through colonization too.

Very different methods and ways of rule between both and both had complete different post colinisation starting points, but yes you are correct

In the scope of things, Africa really wasn't colonized for that long either.
I'm not saying that colonization isn't a huge factor in post imperialism Africa, but it certainly isn't the only factor.

It's like one of the biggest factors. Not the only but a pretty huge one that's the figurative pink elephant in the room.

It's like the Dio Brando of history for Africa

The thing is though, practically the whole rest of the world was colonized as well and each area reacted differently. This is obviously for a couple of reasons, but the point im trying to make is that a lot of the problems Africa has today were around long before the Europeans came into the picture.
It would be more productive if, especially now that imperialism in Africa has been largely removed, people recognized all the issues which caused Africa's current situation, instead of pointing to the European boogeyman. Fixing them is more important than looking for a convenient scapegoat.
Of course, all of these problems were made a hundred times worse by imperialism, but the underlying issues were/are still there

Because Africans are too incompetent

ITT: A bunch of sheletered little white kids

South african here (white), africa doesn't develop (in fact its regressing as it gets blacker) because darkies are subhumans. Their IQ is abysmal. Full stop, no other explanation needed. Our colonization helped them greatly but they can't maintain it.

You mean Sub-Saharan Africa?
Blacks

>inb4 banned for "rayseesm" boogieman
Fuck this to-be-SJW site! Got banned many times for just saying N****r. They told me to put "rayseesm" in /b/.

Oh yes it was

Bringing dictatorial money driven systems and exploiting etnical diversity to create racial divisions under the old divide and conquer philosophy often leaves deep marks un any country

You look at a town like Windhoek and go "meh this isn't so bad," then travel outside the main city and it's miles of fucking shitty prefab houses and other garbage.

Namibia is a nation of 2.3 million in a massive desert and extremely limited means of development.

Like they can even use farming as a way to develop it's citizens and that's like the best way to start for many people with limited education.

they cant farm though, theres a greentext about a guy who did volunteer work in africa and the fact of the matter is africans cant think ahead and agriculture that requires investment is rarley done since they squander their money if they even manage to grow crops.

Why on earth do you expect humans that emerged from 80.000 B.C to function like humans that emerged in 42,000 B.C?

>pic related,
its India, going to mars

They have a significantly lower IQ.

This, it's also why Haiti has never come close to its relevance as a colony since they declared independence and executed the white population/seized their assets that hadn't already fled.

"I have no idea what Latin America is like" the post.

Do they speak Latin there?

>emerged

From what?

Rwanda is the Germany of Africa. The Tutsis are hyper efficient, as far as black Africans go.

Resource curse. There's not a lot of incentive to increasing the wealth of the populace.

No. Spanish and Portuguese, in Brazil generally.

that map of now landlocked Paraguay

>Argentina faps

>SUPERPOWER BY 2020

t. Pablo Pacho de Burrito

>why can't two regions with a mean IQ difference of more than a standard deviation (15 points) develop the same way?

>why can't regions with wildly different geography, natural resources, etc. develop the same way?

Yes really, pre-colonial Africa was basically Mankind: circa 2000 BC. It was nothing less than primitive.

>natural resources

there are many things africa lacks, but resources is not one of them

Really is though, I could easily live in parts of costa rica and belize (maybe panama) and be very comfortable.

Where could I say the same in Africa? Even Africa's "best" countries are still shit tier for the most part. South Africa, Rwanda, Namibia? Yea I think I'll sit on the beach and listen to cumbia in costa rica instead...

>Yes really, pre-colonial Africa was basically Mankind: circa 2000 BC. It was nothing less than primitive.

Not really though. do you even know what 200 BC was or is?

>To evaluate the colonial legacy, we need to distinguish it from the situation and trends at the beginning of colonial rule, which in most of Sub-Saharan Africa occurred during the European “Scramble”, 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 (Hopkins 1973; Austin 2008a). 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 relatively low or at least fragile, making it costly or difficult to pursue intensive cultivation, especially in the absence of animal manure.

Those minerals wer either useless at the time, needed more modern tech ot extract or find or just weren't spotted until pretty damn late

>Believing a shitty greentext and anecdotes?

Bet you took that article about African languages having no concept of time at direct face value

Also volunteers are jackshit worthless in the vast majority of cases.

Yeah, Asia did well because they worked hard to attract foreign direct investment and business instead of charity.

>China
>Vietnam
>Tigers
isn't China just benefitting off a large source of Cheap labor and Vietnam following China's example since they're both commies employing capitalism?

How do you think Taiwan, Japan, and SK got to where they are now?

They got massive help that us basically charity to reach that spot though from multiple entities user.

U.S.A needed it's allies to do well. USA didn't need allies in Africa per say, just people who aren't with the reds; asides from that they can rot in poverty for all they care.

>talking about pre-colonization usefulness of minerals
>in a thread about post-colonization

Free money from being allied to America and used to box in China.

This is why China is so insistent on controlling the islands in the South China Sea, because they see it as a way to break out of the naval encirclement created by South Korea, Japan and Taiwan.

Yeah, but the key is "different" natural resources. You can't transplant Chinese rare earth metal mining ideas onto African diamond mining, for example.

He is referring to the fact that East Asia had a strong resource abundance before colonization so they already had their footing as nations before colonization which eases decolonization. Since Africans could not access their resources until decolonization they have not had the centuries of prep time to build stable nations Asians had.

cape town's pretty nice.

Gums, Germans and Steal

Most African pre-colonial states/nation's got wrecked and neutered so there was no continuium from those entities to now since it was a massive disjointed jump between the two.

What do the Germans have to do with it? They had German East Africa and Tsingdao and not much else.

I believe he was memeing my friend.

Africa was most prosperous during colonialism.

Stone tools and mud huts, sounds like africa to me.

Mexico is different from South America. You guys use the term "Latin America" because you don't want Mexico to be part of the same continent but it is.

In geography only. Mexico is just as much a thoroughly corrupt shit hole as the majority of banana republics to it's south and spanish speaking bros on the other side of the equator. More so than a few actually. Comparing it to the US or Canada, bc it's in north america is silly.

I meant culturally. You think it's the same just because they all speak spanish but it's as silly as thinking Irish and Americans are the same because they share the same language.

USA also has corruption too. Why didn't people want to put Hillary in power again?
The difference is that there's more punishment while in South America the rich people can get away with it.

Chile is in the 38th in the HDI ranking.
Argentina is in the 45th place.
Mexico is 77 in the HDI ranking.

Brazil is the 8th richest country in terms of GDP. It's also huge as fuck and it has a lot of inequality so there are very rich places and very poor places.
Right now things are changing in terms of corruption with the operation car wash targetting corrupt politicians.

Also, the Asian tigers are all along the busiest trade route in history. There's not much point in a trade lane circumnavigating Africa unless you really really wanted to stop by South Africa on your way to Europe or Asia.

I think Taiwan got little to no aid outside of military aid.

Go to a therapist or something dude

Because they had the societies and economies to do so in the first place, as well as, (in the case of Japan and South Korea) a vast financial crutch called the USA, they also happened to be in position for that economic growth during the golden age that was the post-ww2 global economy.

Fucking hell. It's a decent book but it doesn't even pretend to have an answer to this particular question.

Actual answers:
-lack of human capital. Whether you think it's innate or due to a lack of education funding or whatever, literacy, numeracy, and higher education rates are crazy low in sub saharan Africa.
-lack of institutional/cultural capital. East Asians have been living in complex bureaucratized states for thousands of years. SSAs haven't.

S-so this is the power of capitalism.

economics.mit.edu/files/4123

The Colonial Origins of Comparative Development: An Empirical Investigation

One of the most influential papers on colonial development

see

Nothing is wong (lol) with the pictures on the left side. The same structures are still there in fact. The difference is that they replaced an authentic home grown culture for more materialist consumerism and largely vacant sky boners, "the needless waste created by capitalism without philosophy, the needless colonization of planets, the needless circulation of slanted media, and the needlessly tall buildings that symbolize all of this!"

Those sky boners contain shit that help develop that economy.

>he thinks colonialism ended

siliconafrica.com/france-colonial-tax/

No they got aid from the U.S.
Uncle Sam was pretty generous back then and that's an understatement. Yes not for altruistic purposes but generous nonetheless.