People expected tribes with no knowhow to build a successful nation in 50 years

This is how it really went down

>A minority of communist backed radicals bitch for independence and start killing people
>Get punished by European authorities and gain the sympathy of useful western idiots
>Globalist buinsess tycoons see this display of western idiocy and step in
>Globalist businessmen pull strings in western governments who leave Africa
>Globalists, via the puppeteering of governments, put stupid radicals in charge to control Africa and send all the money to organizations like Microsoft
>Common people suffer and western idiots argue over decolonization while the gold keeps flowing in

Wake up sheeple

Yeah but they were still unified by a certain degree of cultural similarity, whether it was religion, language or political ideals, and they were tied together by a long, drawn out process of state-building and centralization. African 'countries' just threw together people who had nothing to do with one another or had completely antagonistic cultures. The Igbos, Yorubas and Hausas are the most obvious example, or the north and south Sudanese. Both were doomed from the start. European countries might have different regional languages like Basque or Breton, or religious minorities like Jews or Catholics/Protestants, but these kind of divisions pale in comparison to what you have in Africa, with completely different societies, even civilizations, lumped into the same countries.

The longest surviving country in Europe is France.
Spain, Great Britain, Germany, Italy and Russia all became entities extremely quickly. They hardly had a long drawn out process of state building. In fact the opposite is true. The smaller states that would eventually become united countries had long histories of conflict.

England and Scotland/Wales/Ireland often fought one another, so did Castile and Aragon, the same is true for all of Italy and Germany. The peoples to the east of Russia had been invading Russia for centuries.

They were all forced to live together. I could say the Protestant North Germans and the Catholic South were thrown together and antagonistic towards each other.

The Muslim Steppe people were suddenly forced to live with Orthodox Russians. The Anglican and Calvinist peoples in Scotland and Britain had to not only live with each other but also with the Catholic Irish.

These WERE completely different societies, cultures and religions than became single nations and to this day remain different (to a lesser extent in areas) yet still remain united.

I don't think smart people expected African countries to be successful back in the 1960s. Only rosy-eyed communist fanatics probably thought that the are would strive on its own.

If darwin's theory is true. They have to succeed after some time.

>Globalist buinsess tycoons see this display of western idiocy and step in
>Globalist businessmen pull strings in western governments who leave Africa
From where? Some globalist cabal headquarters on a private island outside of the West?

>Globalists, via the puppeteering of governments, put stupid radicals in charge to control Africa and send all the money to organizations like Microsoft
Proof? Not trying to imply that it's completely impossible but without more evidence I'd rather go with the former post.

>who had arbitrary lines drawn on their lnad to have successful nations
What's wrong with multiculturalism?

So much wrong with OP and this thread. First of all, the whole problem is that the national boundaries were not drawn in terms of tribal territories. They were arbitrary. Second, yes, it's hard to build a modern nation when your country has been ravaged for decades or not centuries by colonial practice. The apologists will get their panties in a bunch saying things like: "No! We gave them railroads, and modern stuff!" Yes we did, but we also did not leave an infrastructure in place for successful development. (Let's put in a railroad across this country, but let's only grow sugar cane since that's a profitable crop....)

>be given proven, successful cash-crop plantations and the infrastructure to exploit them
>still fail
Really jogs my noggin'

You can't thrive on a single crop.

How about Belgian Africa where they left nothing in their wake but fear and violence?

Waffle-land never even wanted the Congo, they had to put with it because of Leopold and his crazy schemes for the region.

>Africa is horrible because different tribes were forced to live with each other

>diversity is our strength!

:)

>You can't thrive on a single crop.
No, but it gives you a source of profits to then invest in other things. Of course, you'd have to be intelligent enough to take that opportunity and run with it. Guess that's too much to expect from sub-Saharan Africa.

Oh look, its the mudhuts all the racists talk about in africa.

>you live with your tribe
>that tribe over there has been your worst enemy since centuries
>europeans: ok we're leaving this shithole, hey you 2 tribes you're one country now, work the shit out

ayy

>Rwanda does it anyway despite getting genocided

Warring tribes with centuries to millennia of violence are not the same as immigrants from India moving to Norway or something

>that group of people across the way who've been your mortal enemies for centuries
>you're one country now, work that shit ou
Literally, Great Britain (English, Irish, Scots, and Welsh), "Germany", Italy and to lesser degrees, France and Spain.

>Warring tribes with centuries to millennia of violence are not the same as immigrants from the Middle-East/Muslim world moving to Europe, which they've been in conflict with for centuries
Really jingles my jangles

let's ignore the muslims, who's religious and political goal is total world domination

>Warring kingdoms of Saxons, Angles, Jutes and Danes and Irish and Welsh and Scots is not the same!
>Warring states in Italy is not the same!
>Warring dukes in Germany is not the same!
>Waring principalities in Russia are not the same!

Getting real tired of this.

Difference is, Europeans have left all this ethnic strife shit behind. You don't see an anglosaxon genocide on the welsh.

Europeans got ovoer it through thousands of years of warfare, Africa still has a few hundred to go.

>>be given proven, successful cash-crop plantations and the infrastructure to exploit them

Lol no cash crops are not really reliable to because prices fluctuate heavily. Also who the Africans could sell to during colonial items was super limted.

>Difference is, Europeans have left all this ethnic strife shit behind. You don't see an anglosaxon genocide on the welsh.

Yugoslavia and Germany said Hi.

l in West Africa post ww2 half of the cocoa farm famers ere forced to give around half their profits to Britain which said profits were put in savings account to help pay for the cots of rearing India's war time costs. Regardless of how prices were they STILL had to pay into the savings account they get nothing out of.

Funny thing is that people forget that the ability to grow cash crops varies place to place and if the colonial government even ALLOWED it lol

This
WW2 was the climax of European history and generally the end to intra-Western ethnic struggle.

Wrong. Belgium didn't want it during the Scramble. When Leopold could not hang onto it any longer Belgium agreed actually take it up.

>On 18 October 1908, the Belgian Parliament voted in favour of annexing the Congo as a Belgian colony. This was after King Leopold II had given up any hope to maintain a substantial part of the Congo Free State as separate crown property. The government of the Belgian Congo was arranged by the 1908 Colonial Charter.

Yugoslavia is what happens when you make one country out of several nations.

Germany was not so much ethnic strife as much as it was an omnicidal regime.

>multiculturalism is a good thing and will make the world more prosperous
>forcing multiple different ethnic groups to share a nation is the reason why africa is in its current state

Nice doublethink m8.

Except they asked for independence.
Are we supposed to babysit them now too? Even though you can't stop pissing and moaning about Western interference?
And before anyone rages at me for being /pol/, the whole thread premise was /pol/ and doesn't belong in Veeky Forums anyway.

>national boundaries were not drawn in terms of tribal territories.
Multiculturalism is our strength, though. How can it be a bad thing?

>bitch for independence
>exterminate all the white people in Africa
>find out blacks can run a country
>breed like crazy
>go to Europe
>repeat

Except why would you help them?
They really didn't seem eager to keep Whitey there.
If you tried to make a slow transition you'd end up with Malayan Emergency: Now With Black People

Come, if genocide was a bad things, the Germans should be the new Huns.

I blame the UN faggatory about muh democracy.

They didnt, cheaper having it the way it is now.

what issue with the UN?

>homogeneous nation states with cohesive identities are a pointless construct of 19th century romanticism except for when they aren't

>Except they asked for independence.

Actually user they were gonna give up the colonies anyways regardless of independence no matter what. Like America basically paid for France's colony expenses indirectly through Marshall Aid.

>Actually user they were gonna give up the colonies anyways regardless of independence no matter what.

Is that why the French fought two ruinous wars to keep hold of their colonies?

lol nothing has changed since colonial Africa. Now foreign powers control them economically rather than militarily.

They DID have Malayan Emergency in British Africa it was called the Mau Mau Rebellion.

>send all the money to organizations like Microsoft
no

Algeria wasn't a colony it was a part of France itself.

Also the costs of colony maintenance would go up as time goes on regardless of military conflict in those places on top of the whole burden and massive issues that would pop up.

Built by whites :^)

If the blacks were truly sovereign after decolonization, they could have just ignored the arbitrary borders the Europeans made for them and balkanized into their own little tribal areas.

This. Straight up neocolonialism.

Cause they're a detestable mix of inactive, incompetent, impotent, and self-righteous hypocrites.

Because setting up state from scratch is gonna be a huge issue that is gonna start a massive war.