Would Africa still be a shithole if we never decolonized it?

You don't need all that many schools and hospitals to support the small ruling European population in the territories.

You'll find in most cases of African colonization the only infrastructure that was built was to facilitate the exploitative industries that attracted investors. Even the 'schools' and 'hospitals' you mention were almost always segregated between facilities built for the whites who lived and worked there and then if any facilities were made for the natives they were typically philantrophic ventures by private entities like local missonaries.

Whites didn't build schools for blacks, they build them for the whites who lived there. Whites didn't build rail roads for the convenience of natives, but to facilitate the for-profit exploitation of the colony.

It was the niggers who got supported, there were too few whites to actually do it on their own. Most of the soldiers in the colonies were black, most laborers were black, most clerks were black etc you got the idea.

I have no idea whether that was the idea behind colonial railroads but it remains a fact that it was a money sink. I'm not an Anglo, but I know the English Cape-Cairo railroad project was a titanic waste of money.

>British Commonwealth
>Zone Franco
>decolonisation
You are fucken kidding.

It probably wouldn't be as technologically advanced (Lagos wouldn't have skyscrapers, for example), but there'd certainly be far fewer ethnic conflicts.

Depends. The communists kinda forced our hands by funding various loonies. You can't resist pure savagery forever. Then again maybe we could have drained soviet finances by forcing them to fun more and more we wuz movements.

It would be more of a shithole
Sokoto would have eventually got its shit together and steamrolled from congo to mauritius
Ethiopia would be cleansing muslims and somalis
Congo would be anschlussed by... kongo with portuguese bought guns
Zulus would become an actual empire and eventually get their shit together
Oman would still be called Oman and Zanzibar and would completely own the finger lakes
It would be day in day out of ethnic and religious cleansing and war crimes and warlord stories 10x as fucked up as we have today

>English Cape-Cairo railroad project was a titanic waste of money.

Because it wasn't Completed as colonies splintered up into independence. The parts that were laid still functioned and facilitated movement back then

Nope barring the very small shoestring budget concession companies usually had the burden of building shit fior their needs in return for monopolies or other benefits.

>It was the niggers who got supported, there were too few whites to actually do it on their own. Most of the soldiers in the colonies were black, most laborers were black, most clerks were black etc you got the idea.

The commissioned officers and anyone not a grunt was white, many whites worked in administrative roles and like the military blacks could not be promoted to anything above the low clerk roles on top if education bring so underfunded due to the nature of how much issues colonial education had in general with its limitations and very low output if educated folk.

Yes.

But the quality of life of the natives would still be similar

>anyone not a grunt was white

Forgot pic

Education was generally.

-Extremely underfunded since missionaries in most cases and private organizations.
-Quality of the education and teacher varied heavily. Also colony mandates for education had an effect.
-Cost a lot of money that many locals who engaged in wage labour to get children. schooling could not fund well enough.
-Limited schools built for primary and much more if secondary which also cost money.

So the few people that did make it were very few in number as time went on because of the weak educational foundations.

Problem with africa is not because nignogs being niglets it is because western aids(no pun intended) stop any kinda of industry growing. If western countries actually cared about africa they would make factories and farms there. Not give them fucking shoes and food. Most warlords put more spending on military because they will get food aid anyway. They managed to create an entire continent based on welfare. Impressive. See

pols306.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/moyo-on-aid-in-africa-wsj.pdf

The muh and argument us so old and tired it's not even funny.

?

About the same as detroit and chiraq in the civilized cities outside cities would look like woeld war z

>Forgets that Muslims had been enslaving them since the 7th century

Still a money sink.

Because this shit ain't black and white, aid helped a fuckton of people, and people always conventionally forget their nations and mnc's engaging in corruption, destabilization, propping and laundering.

Education was not a money sink for colonies. Read earlier posts 3rd parties did it.

Not true.

>They live in harmony with nature before Europeans invade them, and they've would still been if its not for colonisation
Africans are more like local fauna doing what instinct tells them rather than active agents seeking to better their circumstances?

Is this even English?

>aid helped a fuckton of people,
Yeah it did. It also created a continent-spanning population of welfare recipients because local producers can't compete with free gibsmedats

Aid just keeps them alive for that day. It just enforces corruption. Not saying aid should be cut immediately but multi stepped process towards african agriculture program would be better. Or alternatively aid should be given according to corruption level of countries. Yes people will suffer but something has to be done. Acting like problem doesnt exist will just make it worse. Thou purpose of aids is pretty much so that people would feel better about themself.

>Yeah it did. It also created a continent-spanning population of welfare recipients because local producers can't compete with free gibsmedats

Africa doesn't even have welfare stop comparing aid to to it. Local producers have issues because many issues that would take me too long to list all of which regardless if aid or not require mass money and political power both which they do not have.

>multi stepped process towards african agriculture program would be better.

That is happening though.

>Or alternatively aid should be given according to corruption level of countries.

Corruption is still an issue but much better off then it was before.

>Yes people will suffer but something has to be done.

Easy for you to say. Considering the bullshit that many poor nation's have to deal with that no one really cates about.

>Thou purpose of aids is pretty much so that people would feel better about themself.

No its to fix issues and to prevent it from escalating further into MUCH WORSE shit.

Aid lubes the wheels of international trade

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

'Trade Invaders: the WTO and Developing Countries' Right to Protect' looks at the downside of free trade policies and economic liberalisation. ActionAid's case studies - from Brazil, the Gambia, India, Nigeria, Pakistan and South Africa - describe how, time after time, farmers have been ruined and factories closed down as cheap goods from abroad flooded in after trade barriers were lifted.
The removal of tariffs on textile imports has forced 20 factories in Nigeria to close with the loss of over 16,000 jobs. A further 18 factories are threatened with closure. Since 1998, almost two-thirds of jobs in the sector have been lost.
In the Gambia, cheap imports of chicken, eggs, milk and rice have flooded the market, depressing prices and putting many local producers out of business.
"Developing countries are facing an invasion. These stories are a warning of what might happen if rich countries get their way at the World Trade Organisation Hong Kong ministerial later this month," said Aftab Alam Khan, head of ActionAid's trade justice campaign.

actionaid.org.uk/news-and-views/poor-countries-have-right-to-bar-trade-invaders

The AoA allows the rich countries to retain their farm subsidies while preventing developing countries, from providing similar level of subsidies to poor and marginal farmers. All attempts by the G-33 countries to push through their proposal on food security at the WTO, by treating public stockholding programs as allowable Green Box subsidies, have been stymied, particularly by the US and the EU.

On the other hand, issues like the Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA) where developed countries stand to benefit the most, continue to be pushed at breakneck speed, pushed aggressively by the WTO Chair, Roberto Azevedo.

allafrica.com/stories/201510090190.html

For all you people that complain about Globalism...Have you ever considered that Africa suffers under it?

1/2

>Want to redistribute land? Impossible—at the last minute, the negotiators agreed to add a clause to the new constitution that protects all private property, making land reform virtually impossible.

>Want to create jobs for millions of unemployed workers? Can’t—hundreds of factories were actually about to close because the ANC had signed on to the GATT, the precursor to the World Trade Organization, which made it illegal to subsidize the auto plants and textile factories.

>Want to get free AIDS drugs to the townships, where the disease is spreading with terrifying speed? That violates an intellectual property rights commitment under the WTO, which the ANC joined with no public debate as a continuation of the GATT.

>Need money to build more and larger houses for the poor and to bring free electricity to the townships? Sorry—the budget is being eaten up servicing the massive debt, passed on quietly by the apartheid government. Print more money? Tell that to the apartheid-era head of the central bank.

>Free water for all? Not likely. The World Bank, with its large in-country contingent of economists, researchers and trainers (a self-proclaimed "Knowledge Bank"), is making private-sector partnerships the service norm.

>Want to impose currency controls to guard against wild speculation? That would violate the $850 million IMF deal, signed, conveniently enough, right before the elections. Raise the minimum wage to close the apartheid income gap? Nope. The IMF deal promises "wage restraint."

>And don’t even think about ignoring these commitments— any change will be regarded as evidence of dangerous national untrustworthiness, a lack of commitment to “reform,” an absence of a "rules-based system." All of which will lead to currency crashes, aid cuts and capital flight. The bottom line was that South Africa was free but simultaneously captured; each one of these arcane acronyms represented a different thread in the web that pinned down the limbs of the new government.

>A long-time anti-apartheid activist, Rassool Snyman, described the trap to me in stark terms. "They never freed us. They only took the chain from around our neck and put it on our ankles."

>>Want to redistribute land? Impossible—at the last minute, the negotiators agreed to add a clause to the new constitution that protects all private property, making land reform virtually impossible.

This is important and is something Africa needs. Land redistribution in Africa has been used by corrupt governments to take land from anyone noticeably successful and redistribute it to well-connected political allies who then have little interest in making optimal economic use of it.
Meanwhile, outside investment is strongly discourages if the government can just take anything that looks nice.

Are you having a stroke?

>Want to redistribute land?
>Want to impose currency controls to guard against wild speculation?
No? Because this and you don't want shitty corrupt governments pegging their currency to the dollar then hyperinflating until there is a huge gulf between the official value of their money and the black market value.

the premise by the Op is that after the colonials formally pulled out, that Africa was free to do what it wanted and failed to develop.

In reality, the structures that were created by the colonial countries were not dismantled and allowed for wealth to be continued to be extracted.

Don't forget that only a moron would expect Africa to magically transition out of a tribal society and become fully functional modern states.

>this triggers the racist

It saddens me that colonialism happened. It would have been incredibly interesting to see where this could have gone if had been allowed to naturally progress.

Depends. The German mission never made its money back. The Congolese made money hand over amputated fist.

I nonironically can't blame the sjws too much when I see this. European colonialism wiped out so much. It's a trade off because we've received an incredible standard of living but, the world is so much more homogenous and pseudo-westernized now. The world use to be a more diverse array of various kingdoms and cultures left untouched capable of self-sustainability pre-globalization. If nothing else, things were far more fascinating from an anthropological perspective.

>It would look like 1700's Spanish South America.
Great?

No, with social hierarchies being little less than ethnic pyramids, brutally poor farming castes, little industrial development, and exploitation of the natives to mine natural resources.

>Muh Victoria 2 memestates would rts roll le continent >;3

Bump

Leopold got all the money but Belgians got nice buidldings due to him funding construction as well as Belgian and various Euros getting jobs within the Congo Free state.

Religious Missions aren't meant to generate money if that's what you mean.

and helps many nations actually invest stuff into their key shit like education and healthcare. since many poor nation budgets lack good tax funding. It's not black and white and all aid isn't done by 1 entity.