Can Africa be unified like China?

>every Africa question is race baiting

Niggers are too dumb to form their own states so they lazily keep the borders made by whitey

An external force could.
Themsevles, they will start to balkanize even more.

There are no blacks, africans dont give a shit if you have the same look as them like our psychotic slave spawn here in America.

You don't know africans I gather.

Then it can be harder to unite as they dont see themselves as equals

Mongols did a decent job of it.

Niggers dont know what equal means, they treat eachother like complete shit constantly in Africa.

Too bad communism is discredited, if nothing else it's been pretty good at taking over shit in the past.

Why are you people so obssesed with Blacks and Africans.
Get a hobby.

thats not communism.

it's not about Africans, it's about competent dictatorship, and how the CCP was able to meme people across a vast geographic area who spoke different languages (one village could speak a different dialect from the next village over, even), eat different foods (Sichuan vs Dongbei vs Canton vs Xinjiang cuisine are all different), have different physical features (Northerners are taller and paler, Southerners are shorter and darker and more like Southeast Asians), and follow different religions (Buddhism, Islam, Taoism, ancestor worship) all into a single national identity that didn't really exist before.

Mao had the Mandate of Heaven, the Kuomintang had it before him and the Qing dynasty before them. All three of these groups controlled China.

Africa doesn’t have a thing like the Mandate of Heaven in its collective culture. The various ethnic and cultural groups of China have always been united, separated by periods of civil war and reunification. Culturally, the Chinese have always been about uniting all of China.

Repeat after me: Africa isn't a country, it's a continent.

China wasn't really a country either, it was an empire spanning multiple regions that could easily have been their own countries, being as different from one another in language and genotype as the countries of the continent of Europe are from each other.

>in language and genotype as the countries of the continent of Europe are from each other.
Without getting into the nitty gritty of it, this is mainly due to the fact that euros practiced a phonetic alphabetic script while the Chinese used a logographic script. It also took around 4000 years for the Southern Chinese to be seen as Chinese.

tl;dr Theoretically barely possible in reality impossible

African Bismarck when?

>It also took around 4000 years for the Southern Chinese to be seen as Chinese.
The first Southern Dynasty was established in 420AD, that's only about 640 years from the establishment of the Qin.

not possible, with stronger nations directly benefiting from Africans divided nation, they would never allow one power to control.

its also very easy to prevent such a thing, give weapons to the other side until they fall apart.

China benefited from the proximity to the USSR and Taiwan still got away. Africa has no large neighbor to prevent foreign involvement.

The revolution was basically the end of the "Mandate of Heaven". It effectively died with the Qing

Might as well ask if all of South America or all of Europe can be unified

In terms of scope and diversity, China is basically like a Roman Empire that was able to reunite after falling.

I wonder how things would look like had Rome managed to hold onto all of its territories.

There might not have been the European colonization of the world. It was the division of Europe that drove the Age of Exploration. Without any one of the European kingdoms able to dominate all of Europe's resources, they were driven overseas to find the resources they needed to compete with the others. It's why China never bothered to explore and colonize, because they had all they needed within their empire and trade overland to the west and by sea to the south.

It really was not the communist party. it was because Chinese believed in patri linear descent, from the father's line. Thus the different dialect groups could trace their origins to the central plains.

Bantustan needs something similiar if it wants to unite.

China is far from unified.

Just because the revolution said it was no longer so didn’t make it so, to a peasant working his fields it didn’t make much change

>Can Europe be unified like China?

It's been tried multiple times, it has always collapsed

Should've adopted a logographic writing system

Nah, the logographic system worked for the Sinitic languages descended from Old Chinese but it becomes a clusterfuck when you try to apply it to other languages (look up kanbun for an example of how many hoops the Japanese had to jump through when using Classical Chinese to write Japanese before the invention of the kana)

Besides all the territories of the Roman Empire were speaking Latin so it's not like language unification was the problem

And here I thought they were driven to exploration because of the mongols?

Mongols got them in closer contact with Asia, Muslims led to the search for an alternative route to Asia, desire for autarky under the theory of mercantilism drove them to colonise the places they found

So they need an African Bismarck?

Actually no wait they need an African Qin Shi Huangdi.

Literally no chance unless it was done India-style

Maybe you can get an india-ish union, though you should get arabs out of it at some point(pakistan and bangladesh)

What a mess.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Africa

Start with unifying one country.

Because the Eternal Bantu doesn't want unity
He wants domination

Africa is a continent. What continent is united?
>inb4 Australia and Antartica

Africa is behind only Asia in size. Is Asia united? Recall this stretches from Eastern Turkey to Japan.

What's funny is your pic even acknowledges the size of Africa, but talks about it like a country

Like their own EU at a regional and/or continental level sure. China style not really.

No
Africa's fucking huge, and the west (and chinese, ironically) would need to all total war with each other to pull out influence in Africa.
Africa doesn't need to be united, but if a country had a left wing, antiimperialist revolution and successfully kept capitalist influence out, Africa could start pushing influence out and keep their money inside the continent.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_China

> but if a country had a left wing, antiimperialist revolution and successfully kept capitalist influence out, Africa could start pushing influence out and keep their money inside the continent.
And if they close off like that who are they going to sell their shit to to make money to keep?

Not full isolationism, just kick out foreign companies or nationalize them

>if a country had a left wing, antiimperialist revolution and successfully kept capitalist influence out
Do you not know the biggest supporters of African left wings are 1. China; 2. Soviet. China is also the biggest supporter of pan African independent movement in cold war era. Therefore, most African countries are more willing to do business with China than western world.

And then they all starve to death and beg for western aid.

Great, no nobody wants to do business with you because you will just steal their assets.

>"nationalize"
In other words steal property from its owners then be surprised when no one wants to work with you anymore. Why would I, or anyone else, invest in an African nation that can just take property from me when they want to and cost me my investment?

privatization was not better. Only chosen ones got financial actives. Typical worker got nothing, surprisingly not small amount of rich people after privatization are Jews.

Antarctica isn't united.

Ah, yes, that's why nations that have private industries are shitholes while those nations that nationalized their industries are doing so great, right?

I find it mind boggling that people actually argue for nationalization despite the enormous corruption in the governments, especially in Africa, at least private industries have to keep themselves afloat, nationalized industries end up being subsidized by the state and ultimately collapse in on themselves when public funds are taken away and they have to compete with private enterprise that had to be at least somewhat efficient to survive in a market with actual competition. Look no further than what happened in Yugoslavia, most of its industries collapsed when they were taken of the governments tits and only those that were actually able to compete on the free market survived.

Not that it's perfect, far from it, but at least it works and even if it ends up with, as you say, only the chosen ones get financial benefits, its the same in industries that are nationalized, except the "chosen ones" are those within the government. At least in a free market the worker himself can establish his own enterprise.

fuck no. they all hate each other and will until the end of time

Nationalization sometimes is not bad way for transfer, for example, oil and diamond industry from hands of foreign owners to hands of national owners. It's patriotic act which does difference between colony and independent country. Also in monopoly case, it's way to correct economy.

Venezuela's nationalization of USA's oil was good.

>Nationalization sometimes is not bad way for transfer, for example, oil and diamond industry from hands of foreign owners to hands of national owner
That's nothing but populism implying that, if owned by the state, the wealth would somehow trickle down to the workers when actual examples of this contradict you. Furthermore it stops investment in your industries as no one wants to invest into something that can be taken away from them. Only failed states go and nationalize shit to get a quick buck.

>Nationalization sometimes is not bad way for transfer, for example, oil and diamond industry from hands of foreign owners to hands of national owner
That's why economically stable and prosperous countries go about nationalizing their industries? Again, privatization is far from perfect but despite its shortcomings is far superior than state-ran industries as can be seen in eastern Europe DESPITE the shitstorm that privatisation caused (and I say that as a citizen of one of those states).

In the long term nationalized industries just cause massive inefficiencies and fail to compete with private industries, are susceptible to corruption just as much, if not more, than nationalized industries and in the end enrich a small clique of bureaucrats in the government.

But this is what is happening right now. Foreign interests stealing Africa's assets

"stealing"

Most of those assets were created by foreign companies to begin with who invested the time and money into equipment and work force. Without them you're back to Africans digging diamonds out of the ground with their bare hands or running the existing industries until you run out of machinery and experts willing to work (for massive financial gain). Take a look at Zimbabwe, you can't just take shit away from people and pretend your uneducated work force can replace them and keep them running and efficient.

Deal with political instability and constant wars if you want to have a stable and prosperous society. As of now its Africans themselves sending money out of Africa because that's a safe investment to make if you have any sort of capital. Keeping it in Africa is just a risk. If you're Mugabe from Nigeria and have money to invest, you'll invest it into a European or American companies because they won't disappear in the 182th civil war or get nationalized by brutal dictator number 12.

What a shithole.

I wonder how SA would fare had they not stupidly put the Army and Police Force out of work instead of having them continuously train the best non-white personnel they could get their hands on to balance it out.

Dude It's straight up exploitation, they don't deal with these conflicts, they exploit them, to keep costs low. The USA is the biggest offender. Has more projects in Africa than anyone, but is like 5th or 6th in capital investment, because these projects are mostly focused on extraction and deals with the local governments or warlords to get it for cheap. None of this investment is creating African jobs or wealth, the opposite.

I will say the USA has been declining It's presence in Africa over the last few years. Though I am anxiously awaiting the 2018 report, which will have 2017 numbers, to see what has happened this past year under President Trump. I am hearing word that it is continuing to decline under his America first mandate.

The USA has low key been waging dark wars in Africa for resources since forever. How many people knew he we had troops in Niger before the ambush?

Attached is from the 2016 Africa Investment Report, 2015 numbers

(You) #
Another page from 2016,2015 numbers notice the number of projects and capital investment China had in the above post, but yet was number 2 in job creation.

Posting 2017 report, 2016 numbers next.

Reminds me of Italy

Note how USA projects decreased %13 in 2016, which is a good thing for Africa, IMO. Note how the number of Chinese projects almost doubled, though

>Note how the number of Chinese projects almost doubled, though

Now note how the number of jobs the Chinese created in Africa more than doubled

The whole continent may not unite, but I could regional alliances, as wealth grows for all, with the continued proper investment and trade in Africa.

>posting chinkshit propaganda
Most of the jobs go to Chinese emigrants that moved to Africa while they treat Africans like sub human animals. There's what, over a million Chinese in Africa now? They're doing literal colonization.

This is not chink propaganda. The African Investment Report is published every year by the Financial Times, which is based in the UK.

Every thing that doesn't agree with your worldview is not fake news and propaganda, user

Yeah, what China is doing in Africa is new age colonization, but It's alot better than what the West has been doing in Africa by far, and is the reason why some of the world's fastest growing economies are in Africa.

And what you said about them exploiting Africans HAD been true, but there has been a shift to cooperative growth the last few years. This article, by an African, addresses this, and what is behind the shift to a more cooperative model

forbes.com/sites/amyjadesimi/2017/03/14/how-chinas-60-billion-for-africa-will-drive-global-prosperity/amp/

...

>dark wars in Africa
thedrive.com/the-war-zone/15121/us-military-reveals-contractors-flew-to-the-rescue-in-niger-but-little-else

thenation.com/article/secret-us-military-documents-reveal-a-constellation-of-american-military-bases-across-africa/

>the USA is in all of Africa

USA is in Africa more than any other single country, but has been declining for years. See

I don't know. I saw this from a Kenyan friend. I think more and more Africans are getting "woke"

These businesses have a vaccuum affect, they suck gdp out of the country. The profit goes back to the home country and workers are paid horribly low wages which keeps locals poor.
Imperialism was meant to both suck resources out if countries and use them to create new markets. To keep foreign business in power is to the same affect. These aren't just businesses that make money, but the have huge control over politics and almost always side with their home countries.
It's not a global free market, the market is skewed. Like in Iran, British and US oil companies had the ability to get the governments of their own country to install a monarch to keep their companies open.
The reason it looks like countries who nationalize their major businesses do worse (even though this isn't true at all, just look at Saudi Arabia, British East India Company, etc.) is because countries which want to nationalize their industry have been having their wealth sucked out by foreign imperial powers and their companies for years. So their economy was always fucked. This then vilifies the imperialized countries in the imperializer's country (Venezuela, Nicaragua, Iran, etc.)
Also, imperialist countries have a deep unity between its business and government. They're one entity with two limbs.

>niggers
>organization

Choose 1 mate

I believe every large body is capable of becoming a unified first world country.

>Before EU Europe was a disorganized mess
>Before China asia was a disorganized mess
>Russia was a disorganized mess prior to the modern era
North American got lucky because it got a head start with the help of Europe.

I believe, in a few hundred years, africa will achieve first world status and be taken seriously in world affairs.

by force

They need a strong, charismatic leader with a dream.