Did white people cause the current state of africa?

>Small tribes (pre-colonisation) didn't have this problem, with tribal wars settled internally

No records of problems ≠ no problems

The Bantu migrations should be proof enough that there were large scale population displacements and "refugee" issues for a very long time.

>The Bantu migrations

Those were not refugees, nor were they displaced because northern Africa was deemed uninhabitable. It was simply a territorial expansion as a result of technological development

Just look at pic related, all this polution is the product of techs that the somalians can not handle.

Yes, white people are responsible for Africa no longer being in absolute barbarism.

>Those were not refugees, nor were they displaced
Exactly like modern "refugees". You can't tell me that a war in Syria is somehow forcing Sub-Saharan Africans to leave their homes

But it is, goy.

All those syrian refugees from nigeria, Pakistan and Kosovo need welfare.

Do you have any idea what it feels like to be a poor afghani and having to flee the brutal civil war in syria from refugee camps in turkey to germany and then be denied welfare?

>Did white people cause the current state of africa?
Yes

>And in what way?
They introduced medicine and technology, and keeps giving them foreign aid which created a population boom which is still ongoing. Africa's problems are due to overpopulation.

I bet it was comfier in tribal times.

I thought the population boom was because they're growing economically.

That's because you're a fucking moron.

Tribal life is comfy. Now they have poverty and aids.

They're not really growing economically, except if you count chinese resource exploitation economic growth.

And no, they have a population boom because of high birth rates and falling mortality rates due to western technology. Ethiopia's population in the year 1900 was 4 million, today it's more than 100 million.

>they're not really growing economically
>As of 2015, Nigeria is the world's 20th largest economy, worth more than $500 billion and $1 trillion in terms of nominal GDP and purchasing power parity respectively. It overtook South Africa to become Africa's largest economy in 2014.[13][14] The 2013 debt-to-GDP ratio was 11 percent.[15] Nigeria is considered to be an emerging market by the World Bank;[16] it has been identified as a regional power on the African continent,[17][18][19] a middle power in international affairs,[20][21][22][23] and has also been identified as an emerging global power.[24][25][26]

>le niggeria will be a superpower by 2050 meme
Lol.

How do you jump from "growing economically" to "a superpower by 2050"?

>you have to live like me or else you're a fucking idiot worthy of enslavement

/pol/ rots the brain

Kill yourself you double nigger homofaggot penisman jewboy.

post colonialism is always bad.
it's been that way through out history.

they'll recover in about 100 years.

Do you even USA and Latin America, brah? What about all former colonies of SEPTEMBER Asia and Asia proper?

No, Africa sucks because it's full of Africans.

introduction of firearms

I'm sure the fact it is kind of a barren wasteland compared to those other places you mentioned has something to do with it. It sure did have a a lot to do with why they were slow in development in the first place afterall

USA was a different type of colonialism but I bet you already knew this.

Few white people in a sea of black people can't did much influence
Also, Jesus, Moses and Mohammed were "white", I don't think their books made life of African black people comfortable.

how can you compare the colonialism by the british in america to the spanish colonialism in south america?

all you have to do is look at both types of colonialism and the result they've had today to see the effect...

also, a lot of these ex-colonial powers still had control over the african mines and industry.
tiny rowland for example.

>In 1885, at the heyday of European imperialism, Africa was a continent apart. It had no nation-states, no caliphate, and no empire. It did not even have the crude military dictatorships that at the time passed for states in Latin America. It was a continent of clans, of segmentary tribes and of a few sacred monarchies. Societies were what mattered, and the state was a construct many could live without. Boundaries did exist, but not in the European sense. They were linguistic, cultural, military, or commercial, and they tended to crisscross and overlap, without the neat delineations so much beloved by Western statesmen since the treaties of Westphalia. Colonial European logic played havoc with that delicate cobweb of relationships. New borders were drawn not so much in violation of preexisting ones but according to a different logic. African borders had been porous membranes through which proto-nations were breathing, and the colonial borders that superseded them were of the pre-1914 cast-iron variety. Then, within those borders, vast enterprises of social and economic rationalization were undertaken, all for the good of the natives, of course, and for the greater prosperity of the empire. African social and cultural ways of doing things were neither taken into account nor questioned; they were simply made obsolete. Karl Marx and Rudyard Kipling agreed: empire was progressive. The Europeans rationalized African cultures to death. And it is that contrived rationality that they bequeathed to Africa when they walked away from the continent in the 1960s.
>The problem was that this rationality had not had time to filter down from the exalted spheres of government and philosophy to the real lies of ordinary people.

(continued)
>The Europeans had destroyed a traditional culture, planning to rebuild it along wonderfully rational lines at a later date. But history forced them to walk away before they could complete their supposedly benevolent alternative system, thus giving renewed tragic relevance to Antonio Gramsci's famous remark that the moment when the Old is dead and the New is note yet born is a very dangerous moment indeed.

Europeans didn't know what they were doing. They took their philosophy, politics, and technology and gave it to a continent that had never even considered these ideas and expected it to work. Of course, a lot of the colonialists had good intentions. They saw it as their duty to bring Africa and other places in the world into modern society, but it appears to have backfired greatly.

Most Africans would honestly be better off living in traditional primitive tribes like before colonization

>shiddddd Leopold 2 was only doing it for the prosperity of the natives

You realize Africa's problems aren't caused by illegal border crossings, right? Just like nomads in North Africa and Central Asia don't give a shit a borders and no one stops them, no body is going to care if some tribe in Tanzania wanders into Uganda.

The problem is that it's hard to run country that contains people of different tribes/ethnicities/linguistic groups. There's too much tension.

Because South America has been doing soooooooo well post colonialism hahahhaha no

Only if you make it that way, America #1 go back to

>Did white people cause the current state of africa?

Yes, when they gave the independence to their colonies after WWII (Africa Addio). If you don't trust me, just take a look about what happened on Rhodesia.

Do you know how much tribal/ethnic tension goes on in Africa? They've had genocides.

I'm sorry, but I don't think these things would've happened if Europe didn't try to force their idea of nation-state son them.

SO basically we expected too much out of a race of retards.
Thanks

If in 16th century, the Aztecs, Mayans, Incans, etc. conquered all of Europe and set up agrarian, human-sacrificing kingdoms across the continent, Europe would become a shithole trying to follow those political systems real fast.

It has nothing to do with intelligence really, the problem is just that you can't just suddenly force all your politics and philosophy on a group of people that has been alien to those ideas for their entire history. It won't sit well with them. You have to let these ideas slowly grow and spread throughout other ideas.

Actually illegal border crossings (for example by Fulani herders) are a very large cause of conflicts in Africa.

A lot of things

1 - way too many different interest, religions and lineage of power
2 - way too big to put any kind of collective identity, everyone have it's own views in what means to be African
3 - constant war for resources , with basically no distribution whatsoever
4 - easy route for illegal activities, not only increasing crime but also putting one elaborated mafia web as the ones in control
5 - easy route for all kinds of illegal labor, not only exploiting the land, but also everyone on sight, the lack of laws about it give free pass to almost anything
6 - playground for white elite, either to sell Jesus or test new vaccines, usually with a retarded proud smile on face, it's only helping them after all

Maybe, but without colonization we would likely not have SUPA ACTION MOVIE MOVIE MOVIE AAAAA NEW YORK?! NEW YORK!! MOOOOOVIIIIIIEEE

Yes the russians did. By funding and arming every two bit marxists militia on the continent they managed to turn decolonization into a decades long clusterfuck of civil wars that uttely curbed any chance at economic developement. And in the places they won it was even worse when you added marxist economics into it.

So every country on earth is hard to run? Unless you're a microstate you have different tribes/ethnicities/linguistics.

Yeah, but most of those countries still have a large majority that all has the same tribe/ethnicity/language/religion/etc. so the tension isn't continuous throughout daily life.