Would Africa be a better place if it was kept under colonial rule?

Aah, yes. Had Ian Smith simply accepted black majority rule he could have seen his country become a shithole fifteen years earlier!

It would have been better of not being colonized desu

Rhodesia was allready a shithole during the white minority rule

>all those landlocked Saharan states
oh boy

Nomads wouldn't need access to sea trade

Better than it was under majority rule.

Arguably the only colonies that had it good were the german ones

It is arguable that Africa was better off under European rule, as times were relatively peaceful and it wasn't full of civil wars, mass disease and poverty, and the myriad of other issues modern Africa chases, but we will never know.

>concentration camps
>poisoning wells
>literally hunting natives
>pushing women and children off into inhospitable desert
I mean shit, it's no Congo Free State, but German Namibia was pretty shit.

I'm confused, why did you list all it's good traits and then say they made it shit?

Let me rephrase, they had it better, not good.

Haha I sure do hate those niggers, dude!

>it wasn't full of civil wars, mass disease and poverty, and the myriad of other issues modern Africa chases,

But it had all that too back (and worse) then barring the civil war (and that is replaced with military action against rebellious natives).

>not indefinitely, though it would have been better off with a more gradual decolonization instead of the mess that happened IRL,

Gradual decolonization is impossible because it can be extended indefinitely, sabotaged, set up to be vague as fuck, or set up in a way that the nation when free is completely fucked in every orfice by the colonial power.

Because Ian Smith made the entire scenario a total quagmire because of his autistic delusions and having that Victorian mindset 60 years late.

Though that's true in some cases (see how France "decolonized"), there is a such thing as decolonizing too fast. Part of what made the Congo and Angola such a shitshow was that the Belgians and Portuguese just up and left with little warning. Just out of nowhere, they told the locals they had 6 months to organize a government.

The British decolonization of West Africa, while not without its problems, was probably the best way to do it. They moved relatively fast, but they still spent years preparing the incoming government.

>polfags lick eachothers ass: the thread

we have this thread all the fucking time about africa

Angola (and there's other luso's) was a 13 year war though.

Yes, but the Portuguese colonial wars never really had an endgame. They just abruptly ended when the Carnation Revolution happened and the Portuguese left.

Rhodesia was a net exporter of food. Zimbabwe has a massive famine every couple of years. Its like saying Hiroshima was a shithole anyway so who gives a fuck about a nuke.

Yeah, especially Congo, Belgians turned that piece of land into a Garden Eden.

No, most colonies were extremely exploiting, mind that the upkeep of a colony was extremely expensive so europeans actually had to exploit the colonies so they don't make huge losses on them, which they in most cases still did, because most colonies simply didn't have enough ressources to pay for their own upkeep.

Most african countries are still being exploited, just by local elites and global corperations instead of european monarchs, so it probably would not make much of a difference, it would have been a shithole nonetheless.

LE MAGA KILL SHITSKINS AND KIKES AMIRITE GUISE XD

It's just that easy to trigger reddit, lads.

>implying those modern tribes aren't still landlocked and at the mercy of the coastal elites for foreign trade except they're nominally inside the same borders (though in practice they tend to be embroiled in "civil wars")

And behold

>hahaha I acted like an obnoxious cunt and that annoyed you, I win

>force savages out of their desert
>uuu somehow it's wrong to do them
>force them to go back
>uuuh somehow this is wrong too
Fuckin Hottentottens

>say that colonisation was good
>you literally responded with
>LE MAGA KILL SHITSKINS AND KIKES AMIRITE GUISE XD
>direct quote
>somehow I'M the obnoxious cunt
REALLY made me think.

>say that colonisation was good
So that's what you mean by
>I'm confused, why did you list all it's good traits and then say they made it shit?
when someone brings up the genocidal policies of the Germans?

Yes.

>lads
I shit on your mother's cunt, britbong

>Rhodesia was a net exporter of food.

Only because it's other industries collapsed and in Zimbabwes case asides from the bad allocation of white farms is ducked hard by climate shift (and food prices are gimped currently for poor nations

>Yeah, especially Congo, Belgians turned that piece of land into a Garden Eden.

It's was complete shit though not even remotely close to Eden

There is an inherent and inescapable contradiction in claiming to "bring civilization" to a society while at the same time trying to keep that society entirely dependent.

German colonization eventually became the most humane of all the European powers. Sure, the early years were rough, but after things settled down it was actually pretty good.

Kek.

obviously.

Maybe so, but more importantly why is this map upside down?

>google Tanzania
>compare to South Africa
my god he's right.

>"liberals and egalitarians will literally ignore all evidence that conflicts with their ideology" -The Post

Because if you were to commit to it you'd basically make your own monster, or be out civilized (same way converts are more religious) as well as now having to fathom the savages being able to fuck with you through the methods you brought/used against them.

Except the people it was given control of aren't officially allowed to touch its government or economy for 50 years

Why are all these names upside down?

Germany was the ONLY colonial power where treatment of natives actually became a central issue in elections. Once the liberals took over the Reichstag, Germany's colonization was reformed, and in a very short period of time, it became the progressive of all the colonial powers. Bernhard Dernburg, a German industrialist with a reformist agenda, was put in charge of managing all the colonial projects. Under his leadership, all forced labor was banned, and natives were given free healthcare and education. Although Dernburg was eventually removed from this position for unrelated political reasons, his successors maintained his policies. It's a sad truth that Africa would be in much better shape today if Germany had won WW1.

>a landlocked country gets boycotted by the whole world
>for some reason it doesn't became a super power in half the decade it was allowed to live

Who would have thunk'd

Look outside the white areas in the cities.

See this freiburg-postkolonial.de/pdf/2010-Bendix-colonial-fear-of-underpopulation.pdf

interesting. the only bit of German colonial history I knew about before was this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maji_Maji_Rebellion
Some stupid Shaman thought he had a magic paste that made bullets not hurt his warriors.
As a result of charging machine guns thousands died, and the Lions of Tanzania to this day are considered more man-hungry than the rest of Africa because they grew a taste for human meat following the massacre.

>climate shift

Fucking lol, is climate change a retroactive thing now