If European colonialism/imperialism was so horrible, why are some colonies doing better than others today...

If European colonialism/imperialism was so horrible, why are some colonies doing better than others today? wouldnt they all be equally shit from all this oppression?

no that's retarded

>Majority of former colonies are shit.
>Hey. """""Some"""" are not!
This is dindu nuffin tier logic.

Also Singapore's prosperity was something they built themselves. Under Great Shittain they were just some run-of-the-mill colonial port.

then how come african countries arent like singapore although they both got their independence at around the samt time?

Because some people got their shit figured out while some didn't?

Are you thinking I'm exonerating the locals by saying what I said?

>why are xbox huge countries with high rural populations not as developed as 1 city-state?

Watch out, he's going for the resources arguments next.

i dont know too much about singapore or colonialism in africa, but someone needs to explain to me why singapore and hongkong for example are on different levels of development than most of africa although they both went through times of european domination.

what are the reasons why theres this huge difference?

So if they knew what they were doing they wouldn't be so poor?
So colonialism is not responsible for those countries poverty?

Colonialism is part of the problem why they're shit.

Every colony in the world wanted independence. If European colonialism wasn't so horrible, why was that the case?
1) iFrican colonies were mostly resource extraction sites with little infrastructure built. The infrastructure that WAS built however was to cart resources around to- say- ports, instead of servicing local economies.

In addition a lot of well-off African cities/better ones at least are port cities.

2) Euronigs grabbed wide swathes of territory and inadvertedly united people who weren't united in the first place.

3) Plain colonial cruelty the likes Germans and Belgians practiced. #NotAllEuropeans though.

>1) iFrican colonies were mostly resource extraction sites with little infrastructure built. The infrastructure that WAS built however was to cart resources around to- say- ports, instead of servicing local economies.

so they built less infrastructure in africa than in singapore for example

but you said singapore is wealthy because singaporians built all themselves and britain was just a stain on it.

shouldnt africans have built infrastructure themselves as well by now at, if the singaporians did with success on their own?

>2) Euronigs grabbed wide swathes of territory and inadvertedly united people who weren't united in the first place.
but diversity is a strength.

Isn't it weird how all the shit tier ex-colonies are located in Africa, the mid tier ex-colonies in Latin America and the actual good ones are in East Asia? It's like it has to do something with the people living there.

Probably has something to do with nationalistic movements wanting sovereignty. If you actually look at Africa GDP prior, during and after colonization, you'd realize that Africa is SIGNIFICANTLY wealthier ever before in human history. But go ahead and keep repeating progressive nonsense about Africa being prosperous until the white man came.

Kinda hard to do that if after Independence, you resort to leadership squabbles and civil wars.

>but you said singapore is wealthy because singaporians built all themselves and britain was just a stain on it.
If Singapore remained in the same way as Britits made it- a port city made to channel goods around- they would never be as wealthy as they are today.

>If Singapore remained in the same way as Britits made it- a port city made to channel goods around- they would never be as wealthy as they are today.

most likely true, that colonialism made the local economies stagnate, yet this doesnt really explain the difference between africa and singapore.

quads of truth

So you're saying colonialism was shit, but Singapore is now good because Singaporeans are competent civilized human beings whereas sub-Saharan Africa is still shit because sub-Saharan Africans are incompetent tribal primitives?
Pretty racist imo

Do you know where Singapore and Hongkong is located and do you understand the concept of international trade? They could ruled by a group of monkeys rolling dices and they'd still prosper.

so then how is european colonialism responsible for africa being poor when location is the most important factor?

Because they aren't located by the world's most popular shipping lane.

Both Singapore and Africa were pretty poor under colonialism. Singapore rose up after colonialism because of its location, which allowed it to attract international financing. The scale of international shipping in the area meant that corporations needed a stable haven for their regional capital and investments. It's also why there's so much focus on the Rohingya right now because of the threat their purge and displacement introduces to the nearby shipping lanes.

Africa meanwhile only remained economically relevant after decolonization because of its natural resources, so international financing favored strongmen who could extract these resources cheaply for their bottom line. A little instability helps keep the status quo and prevents a powerful central government from dictating the balance of the industry.

>every colony must have had the same treatment
>colonialism can't be cruel while also increasing the living standards in the present

spend some time thinking up an actual argument instead of just posting stupid questions.

>Every colony in the world wanted independence. If European colonialism wasn't so horrible, why was that the case?

>every colony wanted independance
>therefore they would have been better off as independant
think ur making a leap here m8

Yeah and now China is going to come in and fuck africa even more because Euros pulled out too much.

the digits don't lie

Nnnnnope. Whites have to go back. African for Africans.

Yes people's actions. Which lead to changes in society. Are you dumb or drunk?

Because Singapore is a port city on the very busy straights of malacca an Africa

You don't understand the difference between colonialism and imperialism. Imperialism is taking things over, while colonialism is that plus settling there in large enough numbers to create your country part 2.

>but diversity is a strength.
Diversity only works when the society's advanced and stable enough to prevent fighting between various groups. That's why NYC isn't collapsing into civil war but South Sudan is.