What kind of historic variables could explain Australia's success as an empire while at the same time explaining...

also, note that Australian natural flora sucks at being agricultural viable, relative to wheat, rice and other grains. Hunting and gathering was sufficient enough to live off for a very long time.

Therefore the aboriginal population wasn't as connected in the western since, making it easier to take over when Europeans finally came.

nothing to do with aboriginals being less developed, rather they didn't need to. Life seemed cozy

ur right habibi

It's more like 10 points after corrections, but even conceding the 15 points gap there are plenty of non-African countries around that level that achieved more either now or in the past.

Those are african americans

But really just chalk it up to the sahara and all the native deadly diseases and critters. Colonialism explanation is "we wuz" tier

This desu

...

nah, they were pretty agressive mate they tried to kill the brit invaders with spears and shit

Is that HDI?

its the spanish portugese french and british empire and their colonies

And how is it that african "exploration" countries are way, way worst than the american ones? I would ask if iberians are superior in that regard, but it seems that portuguese africa is awful as well (the small spanish colonial empire in Africa is all kinda okay tho).

Meant the colours of the respective colonies, dummy

How do you explain the settler colonies of South and Central American being so dismal, while the exploitation colonies of Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Taiwan are doing quite well in comparison?

Simple. White people just know better than everyone else. We let the stupid latinos and stupid blacks have their land back and they just instantly reverted to living in filth and shit. It's in their blood.

There's basically three things that've made Australia rich.

>1. English speaking
This one's pretty simple. Speaking the language of global business means that Australia is a top destination for university students.

>2. Too dry to support a large population...
With a small population on a large land mass, you have lots more minerals per capita to exploit. Australia isn't actually all that resource rich, but compared to Europe, the resources are shared between a single country, a lot less people, and haven't been touched since civilisation began.

>3. ...But wet enough to be sparsely vegetated
There are huge tracts of land that can't support towns or cities, but they can support grazing animals and cropping grain over large areas. These areas can't produce nearly as much as Europe or America, but because the area is sparsely inhabited anyway, much of that produce can be directly exported.

Those are the three main exports of Australia. If you consider the English language as a sort of "agriculture of society" then all three are primary industries. Our exports have no added value component, require no manufacturing, basically nothing that really requires a skilled, intelligent, or competitive workforce by global standards.

But that won't stop politicians from patting themselves on their backs, as if this practically inevitable success was in any way the result of their work. Hopefully they'll all be swinging when this house of cards comes crashing down.

fpbp

Incas were superior to europeans though.

>Exploitation colonies of Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan

Yes, it's HDI by former colonial master.
UN categories are as follows...

Blue = Very High Development
Green = High Development
Yellow = Medium Development
Red = Low Development

>How do you explain the settler colonies of South and Central American being so dismal
There were no settler colonies in Central America, those were explotation/plantation colonies.

The only Spanish "settler colonies" (Argentina, Uruguay, to a lesser extent Chile) became so after independence, and they are the three most developed Spanish-speaking former colonies.

Also, Hong Kong and Singapore were commercial city-states, not plantation colonies. Taiwan is a different case altogether, it wasn't a Western colony but considered part of Mainland China.

ANGLO

Just say it. It's because of IQ

A lot were cooperative or neutral

He means exploitation colonies.

Singapore and Hong Kong are city-states based on trade.

Taiwan was part of Mainland China

Malaysia was more "developed" because it necessitated that but had common traits with other exploit ion colonies as well as migrants being brought in as middle men.

Taiwan was a Japanese colony.

>correlation

>Australia
>Empire
PNG (former), Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Christmas Island
Pretty fucken sick empire ay ya fucken dumbcunt coalburning autist

>Australia's success as an empire

Australia is not an empire, nor has it ever been.

Their totally disorganized structure sort of meant that was just a bit of a nuisance, and you could easily ply them with piss and ciggies to fuck off

this. things would've been different if the aboriginals could've raised Zulu tier armies.