If colonial exploitation is to blame for the dismal state of sub-Saharan Africa...

Ukraine is weird. It was one of the richest parts of the USSR, at the time they declared independence, they were richer than Poland. Now it's the shittiest country in Europe if not the world.

>It was one of the richest parts of the USSR, at the time they declared independence, they were richer than Poland
lmao

Slavs are whiter than West Europeans

Neocolonialism doesn't happen in America or Asia

Russians happened

this

>le (((ebin))) (((meme)))
(((XDDD)))
Czechia and the former East Germany seem to be doing okay.

yes and no, history is never simple

when most african countries became independent in teh 60s they were in a lot of cases better off than south korea and india and a bunch of asia

however they faced a couple of unique challenges others didnt
>infrastructure built entierly for extraction of raw materials and nothing else
>very large, low density countries
>borders essentially completely random, very little sense of nationality
>very little educational facilities, most important technical jobs done by white colonisers who then left
>cold war going on, soviets and burgers trying to depose regimes left right and center

despite this the 60s and 70s were an alright time for a lot of africa, they exported raw materials and cash crops, usually by implementing state control of the economy, and amde money. they also took out loans. they used this to build infrastructure and invest in education. life was good

but there were problems, economic slowdown in teh west meant reduced demand for african crops, a fair amount of the money they got was poorly invested in showpiece projects. furthermore teh insurgencies raging in countries still ruled by europeans, and bush wars funded by the cold war were intensifying and resulting in increasing influx of arms to teh region.

then the 80s came, the 80s were not africa's decade. increased international competition and rising energy prices led to declining national revenues causing falling wages and living conditions. this caused debt crisis in many countries as thye found intrest payments increasingly difficult to meet. in the late 70s most indpendence movements were successful in africa but their success was usually followed by civil wars between soviet and american aligned factions. most of the continent stagnated and this is when it really started falling behind the rest of the world in development terms, especially when it was overtaken by asia.

continued in next post

Low IQ in both cases
Naturally low for Sub-Saharans, artificially low due to pollution and fallout for Slavs

I'm no historian, but in my understanding most latin-american countries were colonized earlier and for longer, giving them some time to acclimate to Western traditions of government. Europeans conquered an left Africa in a much shorter timeframe.

europeans live there

but nah the real reason is they were already civilisations.

No it's just a coincidence that the most heavily colonized places are still the least wealthy, and the places that did the most colonizing are still the most wealthy.

then comes the 90s, when it all goes to shit. first off the end of the cold war was actually pretty bad for africa, soviet investment in teh continent disappeared overnight leaving massive holes in many countries economies. furthermore since the US no longer feared regimes switching to communism their investment, and european investment, declined sharply. furthermore the flooding of the black market with soviet arms led to rebels groups across teh continent becoming far better armed and further intensification of conflict.

eventually governments ended up having to seek help paying their debts, teh IMF came in and implemented 'restructuring' basically neoliberal economic policies to get rid of state control and bring in the free market. however this was totally counterproductive, teh state monopolies were the only thing providing any kind of economic stability and without them organizing exportation of cash crops economies collapsed left right and centre. furthermore austerity measures implemented to repay debts meant mass laying off of civil servants and mass evasion of tax. there was pretty much a continent wide economic collapse and a corresponding collapse in state control in large areas of most countries.

at this point the only sources of wealth left on the continent are mines, and with jobs rare and weapons in plentiful supply pretty quickly all kinds of armed groups form trying to seize control of these natural resources. these conflict take on increasingly chaotic nature as many governments literally only control the capital city, rebels get crazier and crazier, eventually resulting in hands getting chopped off, cannibal warlords and genocide.

so yeah teh 90s is an economic collapse, turned into societal collapse turned bloodbath.

cont

so eventually the 'west' gets its shit together and realizes that tehy need to forgive africas debts and intervene to prop up states to stop the ridiculous violence going on there. towards teh end of the 90s most of the violence was put to an end and steadily increasing demand for natural resources from china has fueled a return to economic growth in africa, however a lot of the problems left by the colonizers still remain. furthermore most african regimes were corrupt from the get go and essentially became legitimized racketeering networks in the 80s and 90s and this hasn't really gone away.

also democracy in africa is a bad joke

The Nineties saw less investment but not any reduction in debt.

This is debt that was always taken by unelected leaders, often already deposed, and always paid by taxing everyone.

>also democracy in africa is a bad joke
They've made some great strides though, just look at the Kenyan election

Rwanda did gud tho.

The only thing that are slowing them down are lack of access to sea and resorting to meme-tier energy generation (to appease western donors)

Communism did more to promote the wealth inequality it promised to destroy than all of the colonial regimes combined.
A far better correlation, and a global one is how communist these nations have historically been and how rich/poor they are.

Yeah, only a few people died instead of dozens and they're going back to the polls in October to do it all again! Kenya is fucked and always has been, Tanzania just to the south is much more stable

Kagame is no better than Mugabe !

>If colonial exploitation is to blame for the dismal state of sub-Saharan Africa

It isnt
Africans being backward subhumans is the cause of them being conquered, not the result

The fact that the sitting president would allow a second round of voting is an incredible step forward, and yes people did die but so many fewer than previous elections and fewer compared to other countries, bringing in independent arbitrators to ensure fairness, allowing the election to be covered by reports, all huge strides

>t. butthurt congolese

Kagame didn't destroy a white nation, so no, Mugabe is worse.

Doesn't change the fact Kenya is a shithole and a horrible mistake of British policy, after Mau-Mau they should have killed every Kikuyu. Would have been a huge improvement

Quality posts but your mispellings are triggering my autism like no tomorrow

Good read

Most of the tiny third world countries try to go full renewable because it means Westerners pay for their infrastructure.

but Nigeria and Southern Africa are wealthier than the parts of Asia colonized by Europeans aside from Malaysia/ME-countries?

A better question is, why are Equatorial Guinea and Gabon doing so much better than pretty much all of their neighbors?

Malaysia was a poor nation back then. The richest country in SEA back then was the flip, which was actually behind Japan in Asia.

It took several massive land reforms for malaysia to play catch up with philippines in late 80s/early 90s

Sssssh you're ruining the narrative.

They're the Gulf States of Africa.

Nyabarongo hydroelectric plant was a mistake

>Malaysia was a poor nation back then.
Malaysia was an Asian Tiger

Rhodesia was never a white nation at all.

>south korea and india and a bunch of asia

South Korea had a war but pre war it was better. India has a much higher educated pool of people and investment from Indians and brits. Burma as a mere case was originally thought to become rich because it was a smaller India but somehow it turned into a least developed nation in the 80's with a rash of horrible policies.

Not in the 60s/70s they are not.

It's only when they have sorted massive land reforms (and increasing cash crop production), that they had more time/money to invest in manufacturing industry

It's worth noting tho that the filipino gdp was reliant on cash crops, not industrial or financial output. It was sort of a given that they'd fall behind as other countries actually made an effort to industrialize and move away from an agricultural economy, rather than put all their eggs into land reform.

Good read user, Its interesting that Asia in the 50s had the same economy as Africa was, my grandfather used to work with african diplomats during non alignment movement in the 60s

How about that World Bank and IMF constantly advising countries in crisis to invest in cash crops?

Not the UK, of course. They got sweet loan deals.

We have Mahathir

These, desu.

Soviet foreign policy fucked them over and transitioning from a planned economy to a market one overnight is a bad idea.

It's not a bad proscription per se. As you said regarding Malaysia, cash crop income was/is reinvested in other industry. That really is smart policy, doing what you do good right away so you can sustain yourself and work on what you don't do so good in, like making things or serving things. The problem with the filipino economy was, well, it never really did that. Land reform was the main topic even when the economy was doing well, as if it was supposed they could just be a cash crop economy indefinitely. Now that it's trying to diversify after the marcos stagnation and post-EDSA disorganization it's in a pretty shit position, one that it cannot fix with cash crops.

It's not about cash crop per se, it's about diversification. Naturally cash crops offers extra cash for poor peasants, provide employments to general populace as well as some hard cash to govt coffer.

In flipland case, this sector could only do so much to their economy. They failed to industrialize when countries like malaysia and thailand were actively investing in both infrastructure and manufacturing sector (using money they've got from commodity sector). Couple that with marcos' wild ride, shit was bound to implode and boy it did, spectacularly, during asian financial crisis of 1997

Don't make me say it

Government instability and civil war tends to do that.

It did a lot, actually. For a very brief period before the second world war per capita gdp and (urban) income made flipland a first world country, all on cash crops. They deserve some credit for that, even if it was based off some pretty extreme circumstances, namely the rest of the first world reeling from sustained economic depression.

Economy isnt everything
When OP said "the state of African countries", he meant overall

Nigeria may have a slightly better economy than say Vietnam or Burma thank to ressource and Chinese investments, but it's still many times shittier and backward simply because nigger gonna nig

Pic related

Is Malaysia's land reform really that successful or is it just an exaggeration?

Very successful

About as successful as any other program of land reform. Land reform is actually quite a simply program, it's simply that sometimes political landscapes make it more difficult to achieve than it otherwise would be.

Well I'd be happy if we can even achieve half of what they did here.

Kinda ironic that it was a filipino that oversaw malaysian land reform projects yet we still couldn't replicate it after some 30 years later

business.inquirer.net/236597/visit-rural-malaysia

user Vietnam has massive Chinese investments too.

Neocolonialism.

It obviously isn't. All things considered they were doing pretty shit before and pretty shit after when compared to the rest of the world but at least they now have modern technologies they wouldn't have had before

Wrong
Neocolonialism tries to civilize these shitholes

I wasn't aware that Rhodesia existed before whites showed up.

Its not a meme. Communism was a jewish idea.

Karl Marx was a vocal critic of Judaism.

>Mike Tyson was a vocal critic of niggers
>therefore he isn't one

Lots of jews are against religion, all the most dangerous jews are non-religious.

Because the entire nation was propped up on the Black underclass of labourers and workers and could not function without them. who's gonna be your farm labourers and miners and house servants?

The entire nations paranoia and laws revolved around Blacks autistically so.

>Because the entire nation was propped up on the Black underclass of labourers and workers and could not function without them. who's gonna be your farm labourers and miners and house servants?
Ah of course, I forget how Rhodesia has existed for thousands of years under black only rule. How silly of me.

>The entire nations paranoia and laws revolved around Blacks autistically so.
Because those who created the nation (whites) were rightfully aware that blacks were most likely to be their downfall. In the end they were justified and blacks ruined the whole thing.

South Africa was settled by white people, like Australia and Canada they made an effort to make it a nicer place to live than pure exploitation colonies.

>Mexico high HDI
This chart seems inaccurate

Why?

The absolute STATE of modern Afrikkka

So rwanda had nice building, what's the big deal?

Maybe it's high HDI in the grand scheme of things? They have a functioning state and infrastructure

Overpriced, plagued with delays and cost overruns(it was supposed to be finished 3 fucking years ago), the design is outdated and for a dam with such size, it can only generate about 28MW electricity from its two turbine which I bet is the same design from 20, 30 years ago. To say how "advanced" indian civil engineering (and indian engineering in general) are

China offered to build another dam for roughly the same size (and price) but this time, it will have 4 turbine with installed capacity of 120MW, more than quadruple the energy generation of this Nyabarongo hydro plant

newtimes.co.rw/section/read/189015/

....But no, instead they turned to the same indian company that build the existing obsolete hydro plant that will add a paltry 17MW to existing 28MW it generates, with more delays and cost delay almost guaranteed

ktpress.rw/2017/02/india-and-rwanda-seal-nyabarongo-ii-power-deal/

I know Kagame tried play a juggling act with chinese and indian influence but he really got ripped off big time by india

Because it's not the cause, it's an excuse.
South Korea, Singapore and Romania were all in a similar or worse state than Ghana when it became independent. Japan and Germany were still mostly leveled.
Sixty years later, Ghana is still one of the best African countries but hasn't advanced much at all, while Singapore and SK and even Romania have moved far ahead.

>Japan and Germany were still mostly leveled.

They both had a legitimate ruling base with modern experience , mass education, developed previously and much better economies and American help post war as a bulwark to soviet influence.

>what is marshall plan

>Mexico
>high functioning state

Singapore is a massive trade hub (basically everything in Asia goes through it) with a much larger educated base of Chinese middlemen.

That's the institute of statistics training centre, among few of specialized tertiary education institution that Rwanda is building to increase its pool of skilled workers (along with teachers college and teaching hospitals), supplementing existing universities and polytechnics

Back then, to drive Rwanda's development, a lot of professionals (doctors, engineers, economists) were recruited from neighboring uganda, kenya and even zimbabwe but now the focus is to develop local talents for next stage of growth

Certainly make a lot of sense than buying new fighter jets, presidential jets and mercs for high ranked officials

>declare independence
>ask for loans to industrialize your country
>Western World: lol no
>ask the Commies
>they agree
>Murrica: oh shit, are they commies now?
>putsch, coup, civil war
>repeat

Rhodesia fucked itself up because it was too autistic to deal with the problem that could ahve been dealt with decades. Ago fucks sake ONE GUY (Garfield Todd) was like maybe "we shouldn't be dicks to the Africans" and he got kicked from PM because white supremacy was the name of the game in Rhodesia.

>In response, Todd's ministers resigned en bloc, and following the appointment of a new cabinet, his party forced him out of power; three months later he was replaced as party leader and Prime Minister by Edgar Whitehead

>Ah of course, I forget how Rhodesia has existed for thousands of years under black only rule. How silly of me.

Stop being obtuse Rhodesia only functioned with it's mining and framing profits off the backs of extremely underpaid African labour with no rights and obsessively tailored it's polices to gimping said population to retain it's social supremacy. It was a "white nation" but only because of the very negros they despised.

I don't want to be mean but the Rwandan average IQ is not high enough to benefit from such institutions. Even if the software is there, the hardware just isn't.

It does benefit form those though by being a place of education and one where people can actually improve themselves and their community by getting more educational training and filling skills gaps.

Your mentality is pretty much a catch-22 of underdevelopment leading to more underdevelopment because "it ain't worth it lol they can't use it" which has fucked up education in colonial settings (racial beliefs fucking with policy).

The primary advantage of Singapore, and how they sold themselves as a trade hub even though they were basically a poverty-stricken swamp and there were other strategically placed options in the Malacca Strait like Malaysia's Port Klang, was that they had a functioning and educated civil service established by the British that kept the country running through the hard times, educated leaders who knew what had to be done to sell Singapore to the world, and a harbour that they managed to convince the British not to dynamite on their way out.

The real question is can africans be educated. All the evidence points towards "no", because their IQ is not high enough.

A good example is the US public school system. Billions of dollars poured into what are basically glorified daycare/prisons.

People make the fallacy of thinking that intelligence and education are the same thing. They're not.

It's basically to upskill existing statisticians so they could do more specialized works. Plenty of sectors needs statisticians and being able to train them locally would save a lot of hard currency

newtimes.co.rw/section/read/216731/

why don't you actually go to an african country and interact with the people there
they aren't stupid

>existing statisticians
All 3 of them? Probably indians too, kek.
Africans would be much happier if they reverted back to their traditional lifestyle. Civilization is not for them.

I've actually been to an African country, and they really are pretty dumb by western standards.

Mexio being a pretty nice place to live in the grand scheme of things makes the whole illegal immigration thing even funnier. Although a lot of illegals are from central america these days.

Meritocracy is yo answer. The problem with american education is that positive discrimination allows for less deserving people to go through simply due to their skin colour. There is no such thing in Rwanda when everyone else is about as melanin-rich as the next guy.

Besides, the fact that plenty of kenyan and ugandan professionals working in Rwanda right now shows that there is demand for more skilled workers in Rwanda. It's more sensible and sustainable to train locals to fill in for the jobs instead

>less deserving people to go through simply due to their skin colour.

The select for poor people though who can fit in with the thing they are joining.

You don't understand. Affirmative action exists because of the fact that in a meritocratic society, blacks would not be able to compete against whites or asians because they have a lower average intelligence. The problem with American education is that it makes the assumption that anyone can be educated, when in truth large swathes of the population (and larger swathes in the black community than in the white and asian communities) are simply too stupid to be educated.

You can't train the stupid. You can't train the average African. I feel really sorry for intelligent Africans, it must be really disheartening to be surrounded by retards.