What would happen if a group of whites, say 2-4%, moved to a 3rd world, non-white country and assumed all managerial, directorial, and governing positions? Would this country flourish or fail? What are your thoughts?
And in case anyone says this is /pol/ material, what would Africa be like today if the social stigma of whites governing non-whites never existed and the revolts and expulsion of the whites during the 20th century never occured?
you just made it more like /pol/ material
It would be like Apartheid South Africa
Prosperous but segregated
...
Just to add to your last point: I did my thesis on Mugabe and his impact on the Caucasian population in Zimbabwe in 2007 and it was kind of funny to say the least. Long story short, white landowners had several farms and employed many other Zimbabwe citizens. Mugabe robbed these farms from them (for being pinkies) and then gave it to native born Zimbabweans who then proceeded to do nothing with it and now a lot of people were left unemployed
College educated whites who moved there with earnest intentions of bettering conditions? Yeah, of course.
Average white people like Cletus and Jim Bob? No, nothing would change.
Thats pretty much most of latin america, you be the judge of what it's like.
I really wish Boers and Rhodesians weren't such short-sighted fucks, and understood that people get angry when you treat them as second-class citizens. A country without racial tensions, like Namibia or Botswana is miles ahead of Zimbabwe, simply because majority of the population never wanted to murder these few people, who actually had an education and knew how to run a country.
It depends strongly on the group of white and the political circumstances.
For best results, use Americans or British.
Germans, Dutch and French are still okay, Iberia is bad, and Italy and Belgium are abandon all hope-tier.
>we could have had a GDP per capita of $6500 before electricity and the automobile
do you want us to think Indians are stupid
Cletus and Jimbo aren't the type or people that would abandon the family homestead and move to Coontown to make a living.
There's so much wrong with using this chart to justify that claim.
This probably doesn't sound too good but I firmly believe that humans instinctly and subconsciously detest other races and if given the choice would segregate themselves. It's human nature to want to stick with your own "pack". When we say that everyone is equal and race is a social construct it creates problems. Racial tensions will never ever ever ever disappear. I'm not even trying to be edgy either.
I'd say that once the real wealth comes the whites would naturally profit. The natives would range from upper mid with the majority being lower mid to poor. When the see the whites prospering they become jealous and say that they're taking advantage of what is rightfully the natives. This is when the real problems start occuring. Once the country becomes comfy they start to forget what life was like before the whites came.
>A country without racial tensions, like Namibia or Botswana
As someone who has been to Namibia I can assure you this is not true. While not at bad as in South Africa or Zimbabwe, these is ever apparent tensions between the few remaining whites and the blacks, and always will be.
South Africa.
>what were Boers
>American or british
They'd just kill all the natives
They would probably get killed themselves.
first define "White"
That minority would run the country in manner where they receive the majority of the benefits.
Would collapse due to sanctions placed on it.
nigga people literally shit in the streets the only difference now is that the money goes to the people in-charge of India rather than someone in London
>French are still okay,
Can you name a French,German or Dutch colony that is not a total shithole. Just one
Belgium is still a de-facto dutch colony.
>Belgium is still a de-facto dutch colony.
No it isn't.Belgium was more important than the current Netherlands when Burgandy was a thing.Then it was part of Spain,Austria,France and became independent.Stop memeing Wilhem Von Basten
This. The international community would lose its collective mind over the establishment of another minority-ruled state, even if it improved the conditions of those who lived there.
Stop lying to yourself. Dutch children don't learn Belgian, but Belgian children do learn proper Dutch.
The point was that most of the world was moving ahead in the early 20th century while India remained behind
>nigga people literally shit in the streets
Tbf it wasn't always like that
>the only difference now is that the money goes to the people in-charge of India rather than someone in London
So? Despite the corruption you can clearly see how much better the living standards improved for your average Indian
>Stop lying to yourself. Dutch children don't learn Belgian, but Belgian children do learn proper Dutch.
Most Belgians speak French.Even Flemish.Only Flemish cucks speak Flemish
Namibia was German before the ewige Anglo took it away from them
I was thinking Tanganyika and Namibia.
Frankly, I should have switched Portugal and the Netherlands.
>Frankly, I should have switched Portugal and the Netherlands.
But by that logic Spain was a better colonizer than the Dutch,the French and Ze Germans.So your whole comment is retarded
indo-european scum ruin every region of the world they touch
prove me wrong /polintb/
For the Portuguese I was thinking of Goa and Macau specifically.
Really, it would take an entire new thread to iron out the tier list effectively.
Anglos definitely go first, Italians definitely go last, but everything after that would require some actual thinking.
City states don't count for shit and it really depends on the colony.In the sense of
>Native societies that were colonized by X fare better
Spain should be the top.But English colonies for inmigrants are superior.Again not counting trade hubs as it is just unfair
Semi literate farmers
>Born near the eastern edge of the Cape Colony, Kruger took part in the Great Trek as a child during the late 1830s. He had almost no education apart from the Bible and, through his interpretations of scripture, believed the Earth was flat. A protégé of the Voortrekker leader Andries Pretorius, he witnessed the signing of the Sand River Convention with Britain in 1852 and over the next decade played a prominent role in the forging of the South African Republic, leading its commandos and resolving disputes between the rival Boer leaders and factions. In 1863 he was elected Commandant-General, a post he held for a decade before he resigned soon after the election of President Thomas François Burgers.
The Anglosphere definitely beats the Spanish speaking world.
Of course, one of the primary factors is what percentage of the native population gets killed by plague. The higher it is, the more prosperous the colony.
Also, if the colony includes East Asians, especially Chinese, you are likely to do better.
Duh
latin american elites are mostly foreign. the results vary but do not compete with developed countries
Yeah it's obvious from the get go.
>expulsion of the whites during the 20th century never occured?
What expulsion? People only left because of the unpredictable future and course of the government but they never were kicked out.
Depends on the country.
In Namibia that mostly didn't leave.
In Algeria they got shown the door rather brusquely.
>detest
i consider detest too strong a word for that
most people i have known might not want a foreign stranger sleeping in their guest room, but most have no problem respectfully conducting business with people from different cultures, races, religions, socieconomic classes
Colonies do better based on investment was put into the colony and it's development of political institutes and it's civil society not on how much natives were killed.
Trade hubs are better off because THEY NEEDED to be developed to make the most off of it and needed a managerial class of natives since not enough Europeans can fill the spots.
Well, I'm thinking specifically of places like the United States, Australia, and Canada that experienced extremely high mortality rates among the native population.
If you compare them to, say, Nigeria, where the native population didn't all die of smallpox or fire water, you see a distinct difference.
This is incidentally why Latin America tends to have medium levels of development.
You would be correct that the economic and political investment in a given colony varied dramatically.
This being said, I'm more than willing to argue that the US and Britain did a better job, on average, than Italy or France.
Wasn't Algeria a part of France as like a province or is it just me confusing that with some guy in history back then saying "Algeria is like province across the sea"?
pretty much, you don't need to invest in the education of gold miners and plantations workers, you don't even need to teach them how those resources need to be processed to become a finished product
amerca was settled by entrepreneurs not the military, all their problems with the natives were born from the colonizers not understanding the noble savage myth is just that. if they had recognized from the beginning the natives had power struggles and their chiefs were clever political manipulators instead of considering them all nature-attuned saints conflict at the level reached might not have become the only clear way forward
It was considered part of France.
This is incidentally why the Algerian War was so bitter compared to other colonial wars. You had a million plus Pied Noirs who had been born in Algeria, whose parents and grandparents had been born in Algeria, and were going to lose their homeland if the insurgents won.
So you had secret organizations within the French military conducting their own campaign of terror against the natives, and attempted coups and mutinies when the French finally decided to cut their losses.
Germany lost those places though AND the period of German rule was pretty short and less then what the other successor ruling nations were for those colonies (Britain and SA)
Singapure was a shithole during the colonial era.But due its location it just became extremely wealthy when other Asian economies started growing
From what I understand, the extremely brief period of German colonialism was fairly well organized, other than that whole genocide against the Herero and Nama.
For example, Lettow-Vorbeck managed to use native auxiliaries to wage guerrilla warfare against the British for four years, because the German native auxiliaries were so much better than the Indian ones that the British brought to occupy German East Africa.
I'd be lying if I said I was an expert on the subject.
>Singapure was a shithole during the colonial era.
It wasn't though. It had the institutes and the structures of a good state and an educated local base (Chinese I might add they didn't use Malays).
People only say it was a shibboleth just to feed into the rags into riches story of Singapore. IT was never shit
Government and the people would diffucult and obstruct foreigners at every opportunity.
A couple of years ago lots of Portuguese went to Angola expecting to make a career there, and came back just with bad memories.
They got fucked over by everybody at all possible times, nothing can ever get done. You could see it just as well with that chink and his gravel.
I'd expect China to be better at this than Europeans, because they don't care even remotely about the well being of the locals.
>You could see it just as well with that chink and his gravel.
Completely different case though.
What about land grabs from the whites in southern Africa and people like Mugabe declaring that "whites will never return"?
that is the case in Latin America and they are all still shitholes
Better than most of Africa
Now what would happen if the elites in Latin America were switched out with Scandinavians, Brits, and Germans?
>Would this country flourish or fail?
It would definitely improve look at Botswana which has White people running most critical infrastructure and the country is at least functional. But it wouldn't flourish you need a large number of 100IQ+ people for that and naggers simply lack the intellectual capacity
Aha
so our excuse for botswana being functional is white people
Not exactly the economy of Botswana relies heavily on the export of diamonds. Of course Botswana is not the only resource rich African country but the sole reason it's not a failed state is White people running all the critical physical and economic infrastructure. For example you can't run a reliable power grid with just Africans they simply lack the mental capacity to undertake something like that.
really
i'm not surprised you'd think that
seeing as you quoted a study from lynn
a person who excluded iq studies done on africans based on whether the score was high
but keep believing it's the 50k whites in botswana that are the reason the country is doing ok - if it makes you feel better
but don't feel bad when more countries become botswana like
Because the boers and Rhodesian had to deal with gimme dats Bantus who immigrated in Mass invading south Africa and murdering and eating the khoisan and then holding their hand out for food from their farms. Bantu were essentially a plague of locust
Not really. They drove the tribes off in war and then would come in and enslave the native people through government programs
What is revolution for 100
Revolutions depress economic output. Most colonies were the same way after the Great War.
This.
OP didn´t say that whites would colonize these countries, he said he would manage them.
they* would manage them.
currently? The crime rates would significantly be reduced, the economy would improve, the europeans would be living in first world conditions, the africans / primitive population wouldn't change much without a cultural change, africans in burgerland are basicly given entry to the best universities and social funds as long as they gain grades in school, check the difference between university allowance & grades between races, yet they provide for more than half of the burgers crime rates with only 13% of the population, is a huge net loss in terms of tax taken vs tax provided, and the entirety of the Africas and middle east combined total papers produced from higher education is lower than Sweden and Norways combined papers, so I assume the amount of papers african americans produce per capita is also severely low
It'd make sense if Africa had lower IQs, being that Africa has more of basically every environmental factor that lowers intelligence.
Infectious disease burden, malnutrition, heavy metal toxicity, and plain old parents not reading to their kids.
White :some dude with at least 80% native European ancestry
now define "european"
Should've genocided the Algerians.
>What would happen if *thing that happened a lot of times* happened?
is that why you send your children on masse here for education huh Nedercuck?
2-4% of what population
How do you define whites
How rich are these whites
How skilled are these whites
What jobs can't these whites do
How will they deal with plague
How do you stop funded rebels overthrowing this state
Why are blacks accepting white rule
What materials does this country possess
What infrastructure does it already possess
What stops the whites infighting
What type of government is there
>asking the /pol/tard for actual rational tought
you absolute madman
>implying there's anything called ''''''''''''rational thought''''''''''''''''''''''
Read Kant pleb.
>Muh feels beats reals
Pls.
lets ignore the fact that living standards, access to education and political participation have gone up tremendously since the british left.
go the fuck away you madrasi scum. You got culturecucked so hard by the aryans that literally nothing exists of your pre aryan society.
>oldest tamil literature is literally called sangam
Singapore was about as shit as British Madras, bombay or Calcutta. The only difference is that it stayed as a port and city state.
>itt people act as experts of "peaceful prosperous SA"
>white man rules
>everybody prospers
>jews/asians/muslims rule
>only the jews/asians/muslims prosper
>africans/negroes rule
>everybody declines
General rule of thumb
>everybody prospers
except the jewel of the british crown kept having famines all the time.
This
I would also add that it would only 'appear' to be prosperous, and that the average black would likely be in just as shitty condition as now.
the quality of blacks increased somewhat after apartheid. The quality of life of coloured improved by quite a lot after apartheid ended.
Your entire post is quite literally just a beautiful collage of logical fallacies
you´re like 70-80 years back
It actually took a massive spiral downwards. They're literally starving to death in what was once known as the Africa's breadbasket
I am talking about south africa
Mugabe is a Nork tier dictator without a sugardaddy. Extending his failure to every post colonial nation is a fallacy.
Also the user that I responded to conveniently left out that India after independence has been making progress on the HDI scale on any metric while remaining in a far more hostile neighborhood than the british had when they were colonisers
Blacks are starving in South Africa aswell lad.
>using India as an example
Their wealth grows because they have 1 billion people whom they can exploit for cheap labour. The standard of living is utterly appalling
they were starving before apartheid you dunce.
>india is exploiting poor
only their profits are being reinvested into their own country so that the next generation has a better quality of life.
The shit quality of life you see now was infinitely shittier under enlightened british rule. American GIs being deployed to calcutta in WW2 were shocked that the india they had seen in movies was completely different from the things they experienced. The British specifically asked the americans not to disperse State department propaganda about liberty to Indians
>2-4% of what population
Throw some darts at the 3rd world and pick
>How do you define whites
Scandis, Brits, Germans, French
>How rich are these whites
Ranging from blue collar to upper class
>How skilled are these whites
Directors, instructors, managers, overseers, typical white foreign workers
>What jobs can't these whites do
Manual labor that the natives would take
>How will they deal with plague
Modern medicine. It's 2017
>How do you stop funded rebels overthrowing this state
Either reason with the natives or show of force. If this has happened just say "failure"
>Why are blacks accepting white rule
They were given coffee and a powerpoint presentation momentarily before showing that they will benefit directly if whites intervene
>What materials does this country possess
Rain forests, oil reserves, mineral reserves, coastline, population equaling a european large euro country
>What infrastructure does it already possess
3rd world conditions
>What stops the whites infighting
The knowledge that it's either work together to succeed or die
>What type of government is there
Remnants from colonial rule 100 years prior + any changes since then
You make this more complicated than it has to be
Hey I was bored so made up the kingdom of some uninhabited Norwegians islands as he was like 50th in line to the Norwegian throne or something
>starving before apartheid
???
You mean before it ended? No where near the rate the rest of Africa was starving
And as for India, if you could show me some statistics that show how the quality of life for -18s is, I'll reconsider my stance
>breed a zillion new rats
>globalism takes its course right around transfer of power
>wonder by the gdp goes up
And the people still shit in the street and starve to death daily while never being able to see a hospital with running water. I'd like to know which ass they pulled this 6200 out of. Maybe 6200 rupees
So 2-4% of a Countries population is replaced with whites.
Why not a specific ethnic group, like oxford students? Societal cohesion would be vital to stop bickering
>blue collar to upper class
I don't speak American but English sorry, what does that mean
>typical white foreign workers
So basically just an English Victorian factory village?
>PowerPoint says they will be good
Imperial rule mainly relied on having pro-imperial client chiefs (basically the Roman model), you just need to keep the chiefs on your side and the peasants are fine
>it's the current year
Yes vaccines are very expensive to buy and need to be stored in specific conditions, how will you procure money for these drugs so your soldiers can be fit
>mineral and oil
How easily can these be obtained, does a tribe live there, does the tribe use these rescources, does the tribe understand the value of the rescources, if not how do you stop them learning the value and then waging guerrila economic wars
>unironcially using Cold War terms
Just because a country was neutral does not mean it was shit, Switzerland and the Netherlands were neutral but good
>work together or die
Didn't stop the Hungarians diminishing royal power allowing the ottomans to conquer them, or the polish margraves bickering whilst they were partitioned
>government
I meant in this fantasy what government do you make not what did this colonial nation have
>unnecessarily complicated
I have a vivid imagination and like writing stories
here you go, consistently reducing mortality rates.
>not dying = high quality of life
You're embarrassing yourself
Also
>no source
>scale isn't even complete
books.google.com
Here are the actual sources of india's literacy rates
en.wikipedia.org
the article which has actual values in a neat little table for you.
Go down to the state level literacy challenges that have been solved. A large part of india's illiteracy has to do with it's large population, increasing lifespan and low initial literacy. Simply put many more illiterate people are surviving into old age and skewing the rate of literacy downward.
Literacy rate is down there
>X axis is years
>Y axis is mortality rates/1000 live births.
tradingeconomics.com
set the slider to max to get a comparison of the GDP increase after independence