Why has Africa been so shit after de-colonization while other countries like India are doing great

>Indians
>poo in hand
>Africans
>poo in sand then cover it
Africans > Pajeets

African countries are big as fuck

>parts of the country are still Congo-tier
Including it's supposed world class cities of Mumbai and Delhi, the pooing thing isn't a joke and they still send rotting bodies down the same river they bathe in

Its not all population.

The land and opportunity is where the money is at.

The problem with India isn't its people but its backwards ass culture and corruption. A lot of the Indians I met in college were the smartest motherfuckers I ever met.

POO

India has a large elite class that has the ability to organize society.

India understands nationalism and the modern nationstate, Africans do not.

India has more people starving per capita than Africa does

Read a book, dumbass

India is a literal shithole

Africa has been growing steadily as well duder

Once they get rid of the fucking Hinduism they will be a world power

India is not doing better than Africa

>brain drain
>Africa
Kek

Because of brown people. Which is incidentally why India is a shithole too. Both were better off under British rule.

Because Africa is a continent

Borders were drawn without regard to tribal lands. Also, there’s an invested interest to keep Africa shit so it can keep selling it’s vast resources off.

This

>DESIGNATED

IQ, brain size, etc.

>>>/reddit/

You idiot, Hinduism is the only thing that will push India forward.

Because Africans are not civilized. To expect Africans not to revert to their ancestral tribal lifestyle is very naive. In fact I'm pretty sure if there was no foreign aid Africa would've already reverted to being a sparsely populated continent inhabited by thousands of little tribes living in their own separate villages with a neolithic level of technology.

>>>Uganda

How good are the 'developed' countries in Africa? I hear a lot of good shit about Rwanda, Tanzania, Botswana and Kenya. I know Botswana has the highest AID cases in Africa.

So basically, never.

So is the move by some African countries to refuse second hand clothes in order to get their textile industry going a smart step? I am interested to see this play out

t. poojit

Isn't their parliament quite divided with factions based on ethnic/linguistic/religion?

Modern cities? I've been to India many times in business, and six times in the last 18 months. Where is the shimmering glass Shangri-La?

how so?

Also: even Amartya Sen is quick to point out that childhood malnutrition is worse in India than subsaharan Africa.

The more logical question would be, why the chinks are more developed than India?

I've read that despite having such a high infection rate their programs for managing HIV are top notch, nearly all HIV+ Botswanans have access to treatemtn

Because they have authoritarian political systems and top-down management. India is chaotic, many voices and opinions, etc.

Have you been to African cities too?

Because they have a unified population that can mobilize fast and hard and though they won't say it, they want to be the middle kingdom again with everyone kissing their arse.

India was less shit than Africa before colonisation, so it's not surprising that it remained less shit than Africa after it.

Yeah. State of gujrat(where the Indian PM is from) has childhood malnutrition worse than subsaharan africa

But it was more shit after colonization. In the 60s Africans had much higher standards of living than Indians or Chinese people.

Does anyone want a real answer? Or are we just memeing? I can do a couple-post infodump about why Africa is the way it is today, but I'm not going to waste my time if we're just here to shitpost.

Gotta remember most of Northern Africa deals with alot of drought/famine. Most of Southern Africa deals with a lot of AIDS.

Why does everyone seem to think Africa is like a Tarzan movie or Sally Struthers commercial? FFS

Might have to do with them being Christianized which is probably useless to them as a religion for developing a cohesive society with self determination.

Africa has collectively received far more aid than India.

And to be clear, that was a mistake. We owe them nothing and they rest on rightful clay belonging to the civilized man.

[citation needed]

>india is doing great

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Stay mad elitecuck

India has a ton of people living in it. Africa doesn't

>ctrl+f "poo"
>only six results
I'm disappointed.

completely this

>acres of diamonds
please show me where these acres of diamonds exist, and why having acres of diamonds is somehow useful for a civilization?
>powerful and docile animals
Horses die like flies to the tutsi flies, most African animals are hard to domesticate, >inb4 jared diamond zebra xDDDD memes
>never made axe, spear, or sparrowhead
patently false, just look at zulu weapons like en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assegai#Iklwa and there are plenty of others
>house save of broken sticks and mud
pic related, great zimbabwe, one of many examples
>never dreamed a sail
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_and_technology_in_Africa#Maritime_technology

nice "redpill" you got there

xDDDD what a cuck :DDD

Niggers are so bad at sailing they didn't even discover Madagascar

Why? What does Hinduism do?

Africa as a whole is an arbitrary regional that has no real cohesion that is nongeographical. The comparison neglects that fact that no region of India is as prosperous as Botswana and Morocco or as ravaged by war as the Congo.

>San halfbreed
>black

Nice try, Boer trash.

t. P*ki

t. Chr*stcu*k

t. Wannabe Arab

People said Confucianism held back East Asia. Then those cucks said it helped Asia when it made big jumps in development.

...

>In the 60s Africans had much higher standards of living than Indians or Chinese people.

Are you fucking kidding me?
You really think some enclave of whites in Southern and Eastern Africa is Representative of Africa as a whole?

Africa as a whole is much more interesting a region compared to India, the history of India is basically:
X conquers us, makes us relevant, gives us culture
Y conquers X, we submit to Y.
Z conqueres Y and we submit to Z.
They are are a mix of many cultures like the Mughals and even Anglos, but they seem to keep adopting only their most abhorrent cultural traits.

Native Indians are islanders (that mixed with a shit-ton of nearby civilizations) so they are not very different.
Egypt alone counts for more historical awe than the whole region of India.

...

saved

>"ant to create jobs for millions of unemployed workers? Can’t—hundreds of factories were actually about to close because the ANC had signed on to the GATT, the precursor to the World Trade Organization, which made it illegal to subsidize the auto plants and textile factories. Want to get free AIDS drugs to the townships, where the disease is spreading with terrifying speed? That violates an intellectual property rights commitment under the WTO, which the ANC joined with no public debate as a continuation of the GATT. Need money to build more and larger houses for the poor and to bring free electricity to the townships? Sorry—the budget is being eaten up servicing the massive debt, passed on quietly by the apartheid government. Print more money? Tell that to the apartheid-era head of the central bank. Free water for all? Not likely. The World Bank, with its large in-country contingent of economists, researchers and trainers (a self-proclaimed "Knowledge Bank"), is making private-sector partnerships the service norm. Want to impose currency controls to guard against wild speculation? That would violate the $850 million IMF deal, signed, conveniently enough, right before the elections. Raise the minimum wage to close the apartheid income gap? Nope. The IMF deal promises "wage restraint."

naomiklein.org/articles/2011/02/democracy-born-chains

leave

A rather simplistic explanation, and half-wrong. Distance had nothing to do with it.

Climate was probably a factor. But not in the way you think. Tropical crops like coffee, rubber, or tobacco are typically labour-intensive, which explains why Europeans would rather bring slaves or indentured labour to these regions to work these cash crops. This made the tropical regions into extractive colonies, which meant little investment in infraestructure, an uneducated population, more social inequality and less institutional development.

In temperate regions, tradicional food crops could be farmed instead (wheat, corn, rye, etc), which attracted European yeomen and farmers. This turned temperate regions into settler colonies, and encouraged colonizers to invest more in them as it was their own people moving there. This better infraestructure, combined with a more educated population, better institutional development and greater social equality, has an overall geometric effect on economic development.

>praising a Marxist dictator
Fuck off with your shitty meme image, you are not Veeky Forums.

Veeky Forums is a radical centrist board.

/ourguy/

>inb4 jared diamond zebra xDDDD memes

I keep seeing >jared diamond xDDDD but never any actual refutation of his points. Are zebras and African elephants (as opposed to Indian) in fact domesticible? Why are all the elephants in "African safari" movies actually Indian elephants?

Im thinking the lack of waterways. Not sure. Havent studied it. Im going to look into it. Notice the Nile any does pretty good. I know there are other waterways so not sure. Maybe extreme land cause it seems its either desert or heavy jungle but south america done ok. Fuck, i dont know. Lol.

...

For a non-meme answer, A lot of this comes down to US and EU trade regimes that force Africa to accept imports that could easily be produced in those countries. This is the free trade doctrine, or neo-colonialism to some.

Chicken dumping is a good example

>US President Barack Obama has given South Africa 60 days to remove barriers to US farm produce or face sanctions in a long-running row over chicken exports.
bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-34744729

>The South African Poultry Association argues that more American chicken on South African plates would result in the loss of 6,500 jobs and threaten the development of black-owned, small-scale chicken farms.
economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21678672-america-and-south-africa-are-beating-drumsticks-trade-war-playing-chicken
>Imported chicken is slaughtering the local industry, says poultry association
city-press.news24.com/Business/imported-chicken-is-slaughtering-the-local-industry-says-poultry-association-20160623

mg.co.za/article/2017-11-10-00-eu-chicken-dumping-starves-africa
>Victims of the EU’s shockingly immoral approach to trade in poultry include, to date, Cameroon, Senegal, Ghana and, more recently, South Africa. As a consequence of a flood of imports, 70% of broiler operations in Senegal closed. In Cameroon, 120000 people lost their jobs. In Ghana, according to the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, poultry processing plants were reduced to operating at 25% of capacity, and feed mills were reduced to 42% of capacity.

>At the 2016 UN General Assembly, Ghana’s President John Mahama claimed that the imported chicken crisis was a key factor for many people migrating from Africa to Europe. Ghanaians who embark on the risky journey to Europe are poultry farmers or entrepreneurs who “sell their shops and undertake the journey because they can no longer compete with the tonnes of frozen chicken dumped on African markets annually”.

I figure it comes down to how the colonies were run. India was used as a source of raw materials, but also as a market for British manufactured goods. As far as I understand it, most African colonies were used exclusively as sources of raw materials, so there was no reason to develop their infrastructure, economies, or governance.

African decolonization was a rather more rushed affair than Indian after WW2, because a lot of Africa had been controlled by countries that got fucked up by the war, like Germany, France, Belgium and Italy. When the colonial powers left Africa, they left behind countries that had no real economy, no real infrastructure, and a weak government in a country had never had any experience with responsible government or democracy. This probably made it easy for influential individuals to curry favour with the military and topple or corrupt the post-colonial government.

India, on the other hand, had both reasonably-well developed economy and infrastructure, and an existing civil society derived from both the old pre-colonial kingdoms (that were fairly advanced and complex when Britain conquered them) and from greater participation in the British colonial government (due to the necessities of running a much more complex country and economy).

elephants are a disaster to domesticate because they take an eternity to breed, that's why it never happened.

Ethiopia grew at 9% GDP last year.
Rwanda grew at 7.5% GDP.
Mozambique grew at 7.3% GDP.

Source: businessinsider.com/world-bank-fast-growing-global-economies-2015-6/#-china-1

But please, don't let the facts get in the way of talking out your ass.

I know it's not really history releted, but I don't know where to ask this, and I believe /pol/ wouldn't give me the best answear.
What made such economic boom in nigeria in early XXI century, and what the fuck happend in 2014 that it declined so much?
All I know is, that boco haram group is beeing pain in the ass.

Nigeria is Russia without snow, their entire economy is just oil. Take that away and they're Zimbabwe tier.

>and what the fuck happend in 2014 that it declined so much
Are you really so stupid you don't know?

Yes
What, civil war? Oil price crisis? Some national bank crash?

Because France didn’t combine her African Territories into one state ruled as her dominion

India has had political stability while Africa has had incessant coups, civil wars, and dictatorships across the continent since decolonization.

Were you asleep during 2014 if you didn't notice the gigantic oil price crash?

It hasn't been for 2-3 years, they've had to deal with terrorists fighting over the ownership and british petroleum polluting fertile farmland. They decided to stop relying on it so heavily to focus on agriculture and the service sector, unlike Zimbabwe they have no problem feeding themselves.

80% of Nigerian export is oil.

>Although oil revenues contribute 2/3 of state revenues[18], oil only contributes about 9% to the GDP. Nigeria produces only about 2.7% of the world's oil supply (in comparison, Saudi Arabia produces 12.9%, Russia produces 12.7% and the United States produces 8.6%).[19] Although the petroleum sector is important, as government revenues still heavily rely on this sector, it remains a small part of the country's overall economy.

>oil only contributes about 9% to the GDP
>only
Wikipedophiles confirmed for retards.