Was it really as remarkable as people say? Are there any parallels in history?

You want me to list every country we gave a defense umbrella and cheap credit?

Ask the filipinos

Japan, Taiwan, etc.

Tell me what free money and how much.

you can do anything with bottemless amero dollars pumped into your tiny country.

Meant for

South Korea doesn't compare to the rise of the nigger.

SHEEEIIIIIIIIT

Its remarkable to people who dont understand history.

This happened with the US/Western world's economy.

Because Flipshits can't stop having politicos who do nothing but steal public funds.

They're like Latinos, that way.

Massive funding from US and western capitalists during the cold war

Say that to other post-colonial asian nations

>no

China.

>when your lifetime of optimizing Starcraft early game grown finally pays off

There were 200 million africans in 1910.

singapore

Singapore 1950s-2010s
Japan 1950s-1990s
Hong Kong 1950s-2010s
Taiwan 1950s-2010s

And before that with Western nations
USA 1800s-1900s
Western Europe 1800s-1900s
Argentina Australia Canada 1860s-1900s

The average consciousness could adapt easier to western way of life in Korea. Other third world countries might just not be at that point yet.

What is this supposed to mean?

Different groups of people are not on the same level of rational society. East Asia was easy to get on the level of the West because they already came from a rational society.

Meji Japan is decent parallel. Sometimes you just have to knuckle under and modernize

Not to make this about Jigs, but how can one replicate thus success in Africa?

By removing niggers

Limit the franchise to educated elites.
Expand it gradually every 15 years.
Meanwhile invest heavily in education, mantain the rule of law, limited government, free trade, stable institutions and checks and balances.
Lower agricultural subsidies in Europe would help too. Third world farmers can't compete with rich nations because of this.

>East Asia was easy to get on the level of the West because they already came from a rational society.

Lol no.

>Limit the franchise to educated elites.
>Expand it gradually every 15 years.

That's a shifty idea you retard.

When you limit the franchise to a minority the vote will always be to the self-interest.

You could set it by law beforehand, or intrinsecally into the system.

Example: Only high school graduates that pass a special exam can vote. As high school attendance improves, more people will be able to vote.

Empirically wrong. The UK did not have a full male franchise until 1918 yet eventually it was expanded.

Those come with the issue that education budgets can be fucked with or education getting weak emphasis in spending to further prolong elite rule as well as not dealing with flaws within the educational system.

Also denying the franchise at this point is dumb because people already have it and they WANT to vote.

Also age imbalance in the voting.

That's heavily because denying the vote to many British men who fought in WW1 is pure evil since it brought many men who once divided by class now are united and fought as brother in arms in war.

Across party lines everyone accepted the 1918 Representation of the People Act because not doing so was stupid and career suicide as well.

Congratulation, now they're all office drones working to exhaustion, what an achievement. Better be a Somalian at this point.

Rather starve to death and die of aids, dysentery, or violence than work 9 to 5, are you kidding nigga.

Unless you are in africa

>work 9 to 5
52 hours a week officially, not counting the hours done during the WE and other extras, for an average of 2200 hours a year (still officially). Yeah, give me aids, thanks.

>t. brainlet

>capitalism only sucks when the Gooks do it
Hurr

Yes, explains Iraq and Afghanistan

Actually yes. They brought it to an unbearable level.

>Those come with the issue that education budgets can be fucked with or education getting weak emphasis in spending
Hasn't historically happened in countries with limited franchise. It's in the long-term self-interest for these elites to improve the economy by investing in education.

>Also denying the franchise at this point is dumb because people already have it and they WANT to vote.
Africa has dictatorships coming to power every other day and they deny the franchise to EVERYONE, which is worse.

Capitalism was always going to devolve to that no matter who did it. See early industrial living standards etc, etc.

>Africa has dictatorships coming to power every other day and they deny the franchise to EVERYONE, which is worse.

Africa is more democratic then ever before my friend.

>Hasn't historically happened in countries with limited franchise. It's in the long-term self-interest for these elites to improve the economy by investing in education.

Rhodesia and South Africa. Also see

That never really happened. It was simply do you support America and if you said yes America didn't touch you and left you alone..

Like at this point simply saying Africa can't handle democracy is a useless point because they have had successful or working democracies in many states. So the chain of logic that says "you can't handle it" falls apart when there's states on the continent that did it.

Like if Rhodesia didn't end like it did now it was gonna instantly end the minute a democratic election elsewhere in dark Africa went off decent and especially in places that were one party states or dictatorial and/or nearby like Zambia in 1991

>Africa is more democratic then ever before my friend
So? Half of the continent is still dictatorships, doesn't invalidate what I said.

Relative terms =/= Absolute terms

In relative terms Africa is "more democratic". In absolute term half of Africa is still brutal dictatorships.

>Rhodesia and South Africa
Both had the highest investment on education and to this day mantain the highest literacy rates in Africa as a result.
Thank you for proving my point. Pic related.

Nothing bad with a non-racial, expanding limited franchise. People should be ready for full democracy before you give it to them, to avoid disasters like Zimbabwe or Iraq.

>So the chain of logic that says "you can't handle it" falls apart when there's states on the continent that did it.
Which ones? Botswana, maybe Namibia.
Both countries with very small populations, ample natural resources, and still very far off from the point where you can call them "developed" or "successful". In Botswana the same party has been in power since independence. The real test of their democracy when comes if and when a mature opposition wins elections and real alternancy in power happens.

>The real test of their democracy *will come if and when a mature opposition wins elections and real alternancy in power happens

You pic has massive issue to it. It counts all literacy at all levels so it includes the people who couldn't go to school back then in the upper age brackets. Most of the young people are literate but that isn't shown well on your map.

>People should be ready for full democracy before you give it to them, to avoid disasters like Zimbabwe or Iraq.

Yet Kenya has a full democracy, Botswana, Somaliland, Ghana, the Gambia, fuckton of West Africa and more. Being "ready" for a full democracy is just so vague.

>Both had the highest investment on education and to this day mantain the highest literacy rates in Africa as a result.

because both places were much richer then the other colonies and actually HAD an education arm of the government and both needed Blacks to learn how to read just enough to work.
For a post colonial state the education was good but that's because education in Africa was non-existent so when those states are compared to western states (and rightfully so because they are white run states) their quality of education in totality is a farce.

Let me reprat myself once the rest of Africa caught up to SA

>The real test of their democracy when comes if and when a mature opposition wins elections and real alternancy in power happens.

You mean like Japan an Singapore which still hasn't gotten that test yet?

Also the fact that you only pointed out Nambia and Botswana (despite other places doing electiosn and exchanges of powershows you are pretty out of the loop on these things.

>You pic has massive issue to it. It counts all literacy at all levels so it includes the people who couldn't go to school back then in the upper age brackets.
This happens in every other African country too. Not an argument. Younger people in Congo are also more educated than their older counterparts. Yet Zim and SA are better.

>Yet Kenya has a full democracy, Botswana, Somaliland, Ghana, the Gambia, fuckton of West Africa and more.
Avoiding just ONE of these disasters as in Zimbabwe, Congo, 1960s Ghana, etc... makes it worthwhile to advocate slow democratization as a better alternative. Think of the millions of lives that could have been saved.

Not to mention that democracies in those countries you mention are far from consolidated. Many could still slip back into tyrannies. Living conditions are also far from perfect.

>both needed Blacks to learn how to read just enough to work
Every other country needed that

Sorry for the cut off but once those African states catch up or start approaching it to those two states the policies of those nations would extremely gimp the nation further.

Even if the education isn't as good the fact that by law a Kenyan isn't restricted in his educational pursuits and access to it would mean that Kenyan would go much further then a Black Rhodesian later on down the line.

Zim and SA had a headstart and better funding in being able to do so.

Congo got fucked due to mass foreigner meddling. Ghana changed for the better and Zibmabwe was the result of the prior government digging it own graves (see how the whites that didn't bitch out in other countries are in a much better condition nearby? Because they trucking cooperated)

Also Belgium just ditched Congo (ditch it now and your companies handle the rest instead of entering a long war) on the spot instead of letting the country get ready for election and voting like the African educated independence leaders DESIRED.

When Belgium announced it's separate those people were surprised as hell too.

South Korea's ruse was funded by Japanese reparations.

>You mean like Japan an Singapore which still hasn't gotten that test yet?
Japan has had an opposition Prime Minister in office, so your only example is Singapore, really, which is not considered a fully-consolidated democracy in some indexes like pic related.

>Also the fact that you only pointed out Nambia and Botswana (despite other places doing electiosn and exchanges of power
Your understanding of democracy is very limited. Democracy is not just free elections, but alternation of different parties in power, free speech, strong institutions, rule of law, protection of minorities, separation of powers and a host of other elements.

I mentioned Botswana and Namibia because they are the only two African democracies that score well on press freedom indicators. All the others are severely flawed democracies with poor press freedom. (And thus not "successful democracies")

>Every other country needed that

Those two states felt no need to progress any farther then that due to segregation of jobs and Rhodesian entitlement to "good jobs".

The ones who did get a HS had little ways to actually take advantage of it because of de facto and de jure discrimination. Let me ask you this why would those countries not let separate races just use the same public educational facilities?

Press Freedom Index (Reporters Without Borders)

In Japan the LDP runs everything. Also Japan is pretty bad on the press freedom front (72nd and worst of the G-7 and NIGER beating it at 62nd).

rsf.org/en/ranking

Seriously check it out lol.

Singapore is 151

>Zim and SA had a headstart and better funding in being able to do so.
Better funding, from having more stable economies, from having limited democracy that attracted settlers and investment. Circular argument.

I'm not saying Africa didn't have problems caused by colonialism, I'm trying to argue on a solution for fixing them. Successful countries don't make up excuses.

>Those two states felt no need to progress any farther
Regardless, you said limited democracies don't invest in education and I proved you wrong. They did, much more so than the rest of Africa, and would have been even better if they had no racial bias.

I dislike this meme statistics.

Singapore is not a consolidated democracy. Stop bringing it up.

Surprised about Japan but it's still not a dysmal score. The combination of all the elements makes them a democracy, of which press freedom is just one of them.

Still, Japan wouldn't be my go-to example of a "successful democracy", you brought it up.

Successful democracies are places like Canada, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand and so on.

Even South Korea isn't a real democracy. It's a quasi-fascist military state.

>Better funding, from having more stable economies, from having limited democracy that attracted settlers and investment. Circular argument.

Those places got rich fram resources by raping wages for Blacks and Coloureds so hard that it woull make any mining venture successful and any farmer able to afford a fuckton of black farmer workers because labour wages were rock low and ARTIFICIALLY kept low (to the point that black wages in mining only surpassed it's 1930's level....in the 1970'd). IT also helps that a government forcing people into certain jobs and gating them out of others gives you a massive labour pool

On top of that not having to put any money in the vast majority of your population means that yo can use all that accumulated wealth on shit that bumped up you numbers in various economic stats and splurge your white minorities.

>Successful countries don't make up excuses.

Shit changes. 1980's Africa is completely different form what it is now and is way better in every metric. Considering the amount of change hat happend it's pretty neat that come places went from total military dictatorships into democracies and hell even Yayha Jammeh stepped down and The Gambia had it's first elections.

>Regardless, you said limited democracies don't invest in education and I proved you wrong. They did, much more so than the rest of Africa, and would have been even better if they had no racial bias.

But they did have a racial bias user so lets not go into what ifs. Especially a what-if so nonsensical because when you have a place where your pres got kicked out because he was being decent to Africans and saying "what if they had no racial biases" OR another where the state put up so much laws to prevent non-whites from voting and the separation/loathing of other races is pretty ingrained in the culture is kidney naive.

Limited democracies do invest but solely in the interest of their favoured groups

>But they did have a racial bias user so lets not go into what ifs. Especially a what-if so nonsensical because when you have a place where your pres got kicked out because he was being decent to Africans and saying "what if they had no racial biases" OR another where the state put up so much laws to prevent non-whites from voting and the separation/loathing of other races is pretty ingrained in the culture is kidney naive.

The former was Rhodesia and they were very butthurt about Garfield Todd's policies such as the greentext to the point his minsters resigned and his party kicked him out as leader.

>allowing Africans to use the appellation Mr. Instead of African Male
>ended the prohibition on the sale of alcohol to black residents of the reserves.
>allowing for multiracial trade unions, thereby undercutting the growing white nationalist influence in the unions.
>Todd introduced modest reforms aimed at improving the education of the black majority by taking tax-money paid by Rhodesian property owners and appropriations from the British colonial authorities, and directing it toward black schools.
>His government introduced a plan to give elementary education to every African of school age. He doubled the number of primary schools and gave grants to missionary-run schools to introduce secondary school and pre-university courses for blacks.

The latter is south Africa and even in it's colonial days both Brits and Dutch shat on non-whites.

>Germany and Sweden
>free press

Pick one.

Ur not alone with that graph. The entire world has had an explosive GDP growth post war period.

Leverage out the general post WW2 growth and South Korea will have had a modest growth at best, no different than the UK during the industrial revolution or the likes.

SK's growth is paralleled, for sure.

They went from a country poorer than the worst African nation today to a first world manufacturing and electronics hub.

Not that hard with Uncle Sam and Tojo (and I think Taiwan too) babying you lol.

enjoy getting killed by some random nig warlord then

Worked out great for Latin America didn't it?

warlords aren't really a thing in Somalia. It's more Al-shabab.

PART ONE:
>(to the point that black wages in mining only surpassed it's 1930's level....in the 1970'd
So, basically you are saying that in the 1930s the Union of South Africa before apartheid (but with limited franchise) managed to have one of the best mining wages in the world?
Because I'm not supporting apartheid here (racial segregation), but franchise limited to the most basic standards of education (high school), which would make some 70% of the population in your typical African nation able to vote. Hardly a dystopia.

>[Africa] is way better in every metric.
VERY debatable. HDI and life expectancy have gone down exponentially. Countries like Zimbabwe or South Africa have seen crime, corruption and poverty skyrocket, while others like Ethiopia or Sudan remain mired in near-famine levels of poverty. Yes, SOME parts of South Africa have seen improvements, and even here it's in SOME areas, not across the board.

Compared to other regions of the world, Africa has done much, much worse.

>But they did have a racial bias user so lets not go into what ifs.
Even with these very questionable policies they still managed to give their black populations better living conditions than on the rest of the Continent, so the idea of having a limited franchise that guarantees free speech and stable institutions seems better than overnight majority rule.

PART TWO:

>Limited democracies do invest but solely in the interest of their favoured groups
The history of Western Europe, USA, and literally every place that has had a limited franchise proves otherwise. The US did not have universal suffrage until 1965.

I don't think you are looking at my point rationally, you seem to assume I'm some drooling /pol/tard and dismissing my argument without even seriously considering, when I'm far from being a /pol/tard.

The notion that the same universal suffrage that took the West more than a century to achieve can be implemented by Africans overnight was and remains completely idiotic.

It took the UK more than 200 years to get from a limited democracy to a full democracy, how can we expect uneducated Africans, Arabs and other third world peoples dealing with a legacy of colonialism, poor education and infraestructure to transition overnight?

History has shown, in ALL cases of reform, that gradual evolution always yields better results than radical change.

There's other things too. USA needed SK to do well and for Taiwan and SK to form a Japan-centric core or American support in the Pacific. America just needed a man that says yes in Latam and as long as you say the key words to assure that you are "good" you can do anything.

Latin America never had complete unrestricted access to the American market to export its goods, nor the US taking over a nation and staying long enough to dismantle corrupt institutions and corporate holdings as in South Korea and Japan.

Even then, some Latin American nations have fared very well.

>America
>dismantling corrupt institutions
They did no such thing. It took a military coup and a literal dictator to reform the country. America wasn't onboard with the coup but had no choice but to accept the regime change.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reforms_by_country#South_Korea
>From 1945 to 1950, United States and South Korean authorities carried out a land reform that retained the institution of private property. They confiscated and redistributed all land held by the Japanese colonial government, Japanese companies, and individual Japanese colonists. The Korean government carried out a reform whereby Koreans with large landholdings were obliged to divest most of their land. A new class of independent, family proprietors was created.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaibatsu
>Under the Allied occupation after the surrender of Japan, a partially successful attempt was made to dissolve the zaibatsu. Many of the economic advisors accompanying the SCAP administration had experience with the New Deal program under the American President, Roosevelt, and were highly suspicious of monopolies and restrictive business practices, which they felt to be both inefficient, and to be a form of corporatocracy (and thus inherently anti-democratic).

>During the occupation of Japan, sixteen zaibatsu were targeted for complete dissolution, and twenty-six more for reorganization after dissolution. Among the zaibatsu that were targeted for dissolution in 1947 were Asano, Furukawa, Nakajima, Nissan, Nomura, and Okura. In addition, Yasuda dissolved itself in 1946. The controlling families' assets were seized, holding companies eliminated, and interlocking directorships, essential to the old system of inter-company coordination, were outlawed. Matsushita (which later took the name Panasonic), while not a zaibatsu, was originally also targeted for breakup, but was saved by a petition signed by 15,000 of its union workers and their families.

The US never did this in any Latin American country. In fact, in Central America through the lobbying of United Fruit, it prevented this from happening.

>So, basically you are saying that in the 1930s the Union of South Africa before apartheid (but with limited franchise) managed to have one of the best mining wages in the world?

Not at all why would you say that. The wages weren't that impressive and the state prevented it from rising. It took 50 years for the artificially depressed wages to reach it's initial values in the 30's.

>Because I'm not supporting apartheid here (racial segregation), but franchise limited to the most basic standards of education (high school), which would make some 70% of the population in your typical African nation able to vote

That never hapnend thoguh. High school in Rhodesia had to be paid out of pocket and when Black wages are complete dogshit paying your kids primary and secondary tuition is too high. In Rhodesia Schooling is paid OUT OF POCKET. South Africa the High schools were designed only to produce low class laborers and not university students and on top of that forcing Blacks outside of Bantustans to learn and use English and Afrikaans in equal standing meant education suffered. South Africa actually passed laws to PREVENT religious organizations from running school and the per captia spending on education for Blacks was 1/10th the ones for whites.

>Even with these very questionable policies they still managed to give their black populations better living conditions than on the rest of the Continent,

not really. the Black areas were still indistinguishable from the other parts of Africa to pretty much every observer. They key point was that even despite the slight betterment in certain fields in everything else the blacks of those places were no different in wealth and standing then the rest of Africa. there's literal accounts of people going "oh gods what is this palce? Are we in Malawi" when they visit Black areas in those nations back then.

The rise of QoL in Africa is pretty blatant if you both to look at the stats.

Shut your whore mouth, Duterte is great.

>The wages weren't that impressive and the state prevented it from rising
Seems to me like apartheid made it worse, the wages were not bad for 1930s standards. Many Europeans emigrated to South Africa because of higher wages. While Black wages were not as high as those of Whites, they were not bad for the standards of the day.

>That never hapnend thoguh. High school in Rhodesia had to be paid out of pocket and when Black wages are complete dogshit paying your kids primary and secondary tuition is too high. In Rhodesia Schooling is paid OUT OF POCKET. South Africa the High schools were designed only to produce low class laborers and not university students and on top of that forcing Blacks outside of Bantustans to learn and use English and Afrikaans in equal standing meant education suffered. South Africa actually passed laws to PREVENT religious organizations from running school and the per captia spending on education for Blacks was 1/10th the ones for whites.
Again, it was still better than the rest of Africa.

>not really. the Black areas were still indistinguishable from the other parts of Africa to pretty much every observer.
>observer
>accounts
>personal anecdotes
Irrelevant

>The history of Western Europe, USA, and literally every place that has had a limited franchise proves otherwise. The US did not have universal suffrage until 1965.

Many places had those moments where not giving enfranchisement would cause a much huger issue. See the 1918 act in Britain in denying the war vets the vote, Blacks actually starting to get more aggressive and people tired of the South democrats.

>It took the UK more than 200 years to get from a limited democracy to a full democracy, how can we expect uneducated Africans, Arabs and other third world peoples dealing with a legacy of colonialism, poor education and infraestructure to transition overnight?

It took years for the first European countries to industrialist and other countries back then and now industrialize in quicker times. Here's the key thing. Once other people did it before you can learn form them, get help from them with their experts and learn from their mistakes.

Forgot pic

>Many places had those moments where not giving enfranchisement would cause a much huger issue. See the 1918 act in Britain in denying the war vets the vote, Blacks actually starting to get more aggressive and people tired of the South democrats.
Irrelevant to the discussion, these places invested in education heavily.

>they were not bad for the standards of the day.

They were god awful as time went on. Hell many other parts of Africa beat South African Black wages as time went on.
Apartheid didn't exist at the time (but pretty much did) but the artificial freeze in wages helped,many many industries much to the dismay of non-white labourers. They had to use shitty laws to make the resource extraction profitable over the decades. Acquiring wealth is pretty much a joke if your wages aren't allowed to adjust normally and grow.

Also see poldev.revues.org/78 (paragraph 23)

>Again, it was still better than the rest of Africa.

Not really once education caught up to those standards and don't come with the laws that gimped the population. Also once again South Africa is a WHITE state so you have to compare it to a western white nation.

>Irrelevant

No they weren't these were people who knew those places and worked with the people. They knew shit that goes on there and wrote accounts on it.

Black education was pretty much "lol you are on your own" in the states.

How is it irrelevant? Many of those places in the case of 1918's UK a large amount ot he men could not meet the enfranchisement qualification and were lower class on top of education not really being cemented in that era. Stop moving the goalposts

infact the it was same year the UK passed the Education Act 1918

This raised the school leaving age to fourteen and planned to expand tertiary education. Other features of the 1918 Education Act included the provision of ancillary services (medical inspection, nursery schools, centres for pupils with special needs, etc.). So it's pretty clear that education was pretty weak before then asides from the upper class and the mids who could afford it.,

These reports led to major changes in the structure of primary education. In particular, they resulted in separate and distinctive educational practice for children aged 5–7 (infants) and those aged 7–11 (juniors).

The Reports recommended child centred approaches and class sizes of no more than thirty. These recommendations marked a triumph of 'progressive' educational thought and practice over the more 'traditional' ideas and proved to be popular with many policy makers and teachers alike.

Did the U.S infiltrate South Korea and install military leaders just because they were anti-communist, even though some mild leftist reform (like workers rights) might have been pretty good?
Did the U.S send marines to the Korean parliament when the results went against U.S corporate interest?

I think this helps elaborate some other parts.

eprints.lse.ac.uk/60327/1/__lse.ac.uk_storage_LIBRARY_SECOND~1_libfile_shared_REPOSI~1_Content_LSEUSA~1_LSEUSA~2_blogs.lse.ac.uk-South_Korea_and_Taiwans_institutional_capacity_helped_US_aid_to_be_used_well_after_1945_while_South_V.pdf