Why is Africa the only continent that can't come together in any meaningful way and assimilate with the rest of the...

Why build up societies when you can just move to ones that are already built up?

There are countries growing economically in there. You won't know it because everyone here only searches for the bad stuff.

See that is an actual issue. Except it isnt the masses leaving its the highly trained indivuals leaving that is the issue for these nations. Look at brain drain.

Because up until 50 years ago, the majority of Africa was a bunch of extractive colonies designed to benefit European nations' coffers at their expense. When Europe decided to be nice and decolonize, they went about it in arguably the worst method they could possibly do (just leaving, little-to-no effort to help transition governments), and then acted surprised when there were a bunch of civil wars and failed states. It's the geopolitical equivalent of breaking a kid's hands and mocking his handwriting afterwards.

Also, there is more to Africa than mud huts and Ebola. Though most of the countries (especially in central Africa) are impoverished, countries like Nigeria are developing and industrializing rather rapidly.

Exactly.

I meant to reply to , not .

Stupid fucking sandmonkey

>Turkey
>Sand

Do you have a job or do you constantly make these threads?

North America and Australia were colonised. The natives were mostly wiped out and European society was simply transferred into new land. It had nothing to do with assimilation. If these natives hadn't been wiped out they'd probably be doing worse than Africa today, seeing as both were less socially complex than Africans. Latin America is about halfway between what happened in these places and what happened in Africa, so it's about half way between the two in development. It was also colonised much earlier and over a longer period and gained independence earlier giving European institutions much more time to take hold and the independent nations much more time to develop. This is in contrast to Africa, where Europeans left after a few decades without developing any institutions, except in the handful of places where they settled. So comparing Africa with other colonised regions is retarded.

The difference between Africa and Eurasia takes longer to explain, and since I suspect this guy is right, I'm not bothered writing an essay-lenght post about it. Put simply, Eurasian societies developed agriculture thousands of years before sub-Saharan Africa, giving them far more time to develop complex civilizations. Furthermore, these civilizations were highly interconnected and shared in their developments. Africa was far less interconnected except on the peripheries, and the late start to agriculture gave them little time to develop. What did develop was often annihilated by the slave trades, for example in the Kongo, which might have been Europeanized if not for its collapse under the pressure from the trade.

All this meant that Africa was far less developed than Eurasia before industrialization and thus far less capable of industrializing. In places like continental Europe and Japan, and later China, Thailand, Turkey, Russia, etc, complex societies were able to adopt developments made in Britain. Even in colonised countries like India and Korea, the preexistence of a native framework for development allowed industrialization to occur. In Africa, there is a correlation between precolonial development and modern success, so it's clear that the lack of precolonial development influenced modern poverty.

Of course things become much more complex when you talk about individual regions instead of making sweeping generalisations about continents, but I've wasted enough time already.

This. Many people dont realize this but the number one factor for economic development is a stable government and rule of law. Not low taxes or natural resources. Africa hasnt really gotten its shit together until recently. Economists are optimistic

.

Remember that western aid to africa is bullshit, The west has always and will always take more than it gives to africa.

>Look at asia
Middle eastern countries can't come together and much less with the far east.
These region might as well be separated nothing will change.

Shart detected. You are one of those subhumans that chimp out without control.

America for the Amerindians. Go back to europe.

>Middle East
>Asia

Kek

The map makes no sense, because there is no chance that you would have cooperation between some of the countries in those regions, due to both religious and tribal reasons.

The real problem is that living in more complex societies over time tends to produce a higher IQ, and since Africans have never had the benefit of doing so, their IQ has stagnated far behind the rest of the world's and might never catch up.

It's literally in Asia.

>Even sub human South Americans have managed to create a society.

You are on an American image board for most of them Asia= yellow people= china, korea and japan.

OP baited you, he posts this every day and doesn't care what anyone says

Lets not exaggerate. Maybe not Europe-tier but many parts of precolonial west/central Africa were more developed than you might think.

is pretty much right