can we blame the modern state of africa on colonialism, european fake states made to divide and conquer the tribes, tribal civil wars in the post colonial era because of said fake partitions and european support for colonial allied dictators?
Basically the white people fault?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
Typical nigger mentality, looking for someone to blame instead of actually doing something to improve his situation.
youtube.com
been watching several documentaries on black nations.
the history is the same.
white people made fake nations among enemy tribes.
enemy tribes engage in civil wars after independance for decades.
western support for corrupt dictators.
Isn't how learning history is funny?
So they can magically fix fake nations in less than 20 years to first world?
wow, I love being redpilled.
Africa's continued "Underdevelopment" or "Maldevelopment" and fractious political situation has been a deliberate policy by Western powers even after Decolonization. Modern forms of exploitation don't require the same kind of military occupation and direct control as colonization did, much more effective to have pliable client states receptible to pressure & influence carry out the day to day business of administration.
You can't blame the borders drawn by colonial powers because all they did was help those countries become multicultural, and everyone knows that diversity is a strength.
Why would the West want to keep Africa poor and breeding bioweapon refugees that invade and destroy the West?
well they're population growth certainly is.
*their
Colonialism was more of a symptom of African weakness than a cause of it.
You have to understand, Africa isn't the anomaly, the West is. The Industrial and Scientific Revolutions only happened on one place on earth.
Africa simply did not develop as quickly as Europe did; nobody did, and few human beings can resist power well enough to ignore it when it's right in their face. The Europeans were no exception, and they used their newfound power all over the world.
Certainly, colonialism and the Cold War didn't improve the state of affairs in Africa, but the transition from tribal politics to republican nation-states is something that takes centuries.
Africa started out behind and has stayed behind.
Money, natural resources, and cheap labor mostly.
show me those coutnries under white rule, to see if they were so bad. Its easy to blame other people, but God judges us all the same, and prior to the republics europeon colonialism was the height of civilization on this earth. In any case, infrastructure is never a bad thing, and if those nations are so fake then they don't have to respect them and could just balkanize.
The only fault of europeans countries was not continue colonial system.
Europe also supported the forced transition of white Rhodesia into black Zimbabwe
Obviously it's also the fault of the people who continue the tribal civil wars, but yes. Also foreign aid from the west often does more harm than good.
The borders that were designed by the colonial powers during the decolonization is the biggest reason behind the ethnic violences.
Great post user.
...
If Africans are too intolerant to accept diversity then they deserve the civil wars desu.
The International Monetary Fund and World Bank, which are controlled by rich countries, force African countries to have minimal barriers to investment and trade and limited government involvement in the economy as a condition for loans. This prevents them from developing their own industrial capacity (through protectionist tariffs or state-run enterprises) and from uplifting their population (through government investments in education, healthcare, social security, etc). So they are only relevant to the global economy as sources of cheap labor and resources, which is exactly how the rich countries like it. They stay poor and dependent on IMF loans, and the cycle begins anew.
>Protectionist economic policies are good
Literal retard alert. Open investment means money coming in.
That's why African countries that broke with the IMF and capitalism, such as Zimbabwe, Tanzania under Julius Nyerere, Ethiopia under the Derg or Guinea under Ahmed Sekou Touré have been so successful, while countries that have embraced neoliberalism like Botswana are poor shitholes.
Oh, wait.
Just admit you don't know anything about African history and is only regurgitating clichés about the Third World.
Is he getting paid to post this every day? Or does he have a strain of super-autism?
How do you explain Ethiopia
no no user, religion is an important part of history but you weren't supposed to take it seriously!
no. if you have millions of 120+ iq men in 30 years they could turn a 3rd world slum into a thriving first world country that's striving for hegemony. proof is in asia. proof is if you're a capable individual then you understand how a society of you could crush. nobody has to help you build yourself up. the capable simply build themselves up even against the resistance of the whole world.
africa has low iq people who simply can't function in the modern world. genetics determines your height, hair color, eyes, and if you're mentally disabled with stuff like down syndrome or not but somehow people don't think it's iq related? wishful thinking by the deluded.
Name one(1) third world skin turned I to a thriv8jg first world nation in 30 years.
No, while colonialism was certainly not "good", it's not the cause of all their fucking problems.
Jesus Christ, economics should be mandatory.
hahaa this guy actually thinks he is right. Show me proof that intelligence = civilisation 1st world XXXDDD.
Certain parts of Africa are horrible, i've travelled there, but at least try and understand the history to why it became the shithole it is today
Japan, Korea, Thailand, Iran, Turkey, Russia.
Hell even Algeria, who had been colonized far longer then any other part of Africa, is still in a considerably better condition then the majority of African states.
>fake partitions
They just havent learned to be multicultural yet.
War and tyranny would exist with or without colonialism. The extent to which current wars are to blame on arbitrary borders and support of dictators is limited to small specific examples which do not explain everything.
Like most difficult decisions in the real world you have to make a trade off which has both advantages and disadvantages, the alternative to supporting a dictator might be allowing marxist rebels to tear a country apart. Some people chose the latter, they would have inevitably gotten independence eventually anyway and all they did was shave a few years off in exchange for decades of civil war.
Think about this for a second...
Not to be melodramatic, but in war people get raped, especially the kind of war where civilians have nowhere to go and soldiers are undisciplined. Women. Girls. Boys. Children. They all get raped. Children get raped. It's true. This actually happens in the real world. In fact it could well be happening somewhere right now.
Compare this to some generalissimo living in a palace with a few adult women whores relaxing by the pool.
Some people compare the 2. They look at a child being raped by a communist "revolutionary". They then look at a guy they hate being rich. They do this and decide they would rather see the former than the latter. People like this pretend they are morally righteous and holier than thou, fighting against evil colonialist oppressors. In reality they are pieces of shit. It has nothing to do with morals, it is all about hating people who are better than them. Rich people like colonial governors and "reactionary" presidents. White people like you. Intelligent people like me. Hate. Hate. Hate. Hate. Hate.
The Soviet-funded Derg completely fucked the country after ousting Haile Selassie
He was still Ethiopian.