Why is it Japan can get literally nuked yet rise to the 2nd largest economy in the world but African countries can't...

Human capital

Actually, probably correct. Looks to me like the Japs cut a deal at some point in the war (or maybe from the start) and that the nukes may have been a ruse kept quiet by all parties.

>A little colonialism

The entire continent was drawn and quartered. There was LITERALLY no way to recover for at least a few decades. Two cities and some relatively weak radioactive bombs are nothing compared to simple imperialism

How I'm supposed to differentiate spanish from uk?

Japan's a tiny island and Africa has never been a coherent entity, you can't use colonial fragmentation as an excuse for anything. If anything, the slapdash combinations of groups that don't like each other would be the plausible imperialist scapegoat, but there's plenty of other places that have dealt with that with way more grace and way fewer outside bogeymen to unite against.

1. Culturally they are traditional and stationary. I mean if the whole we all came from africa idea is true, these are the people who sat their instead of leaving.
2. The Sahara desert split NA from CA, essentially keeping them in their own shit bubble while everyone else traded ideas, money, and culture.
3. Colonialism was pretty shitty, but the pre-colionialist mentality that sweeps the nation is not helping in the slightest.

China investing in them should save their asses, and their IS potential in the continent. One can only hope a tyrant doesn't take control for the millionth time.

Cannibal Warlords of Liberia
youtu.be/ZRuSS0iiFyo

>cracker ass cracker puts infrastructure in wilderness
>leaves
>somehow the subhuman savages cant maintain this infrastructure THEY NEVER BUILT

>plenty of other places that have dealt with that with way more grace

such as?

>infrastructure

don't be dramatic . they built a few buildings and railroads, took what they needed within the borders provided to their protectorate and left.

No place has ever been done in like Africa. None.

Again IT WAS FUCKING WILDERNESS BEFORE WHITEY. There werent even concrete buildings in Niggerlandia before whitey.

And yet, no white people ever tried to make a permanent establishment in the interior. Even with all the technology and money in the world, it's just not possible, even today, to make a stable and sustainable civilization in the African interior. It's less about Black people being shit at making civilization and more Africa being a shit place to make a civilization.

Crops. Japan has calorie heavy rice crops that work for their climate well. Conventional African crops are either unsuited for African climate or low calorie.

What about South America?

Why isn't latin america dug out?

See also

Ultimately you must compare the states of each place before such apparent disasters:

Japan - Industrialised and westernised country, ordered and existing in a united state in a unique civilisation in the far east
Africa - Pre-industrial, mostly iron age continent, few states and few areas of civilisation as we know it in the west

It's common knowledge that its far easier to improve from a more developed place than from absolute scratch, Japan recovered quickly because in part even in the utter destruction and mass urban destruction of the strategic firebombing campaign which was even more destructive than the nukes, they had a coherent society. The population was reasonably well educated, there was still industry. Japan also benefited tremendously from financial and military support from their occupiers, the USA. The imposition of a free market economy and low barriers to trade no doubt also played a part in their recovery.

Now Africa is a different beast altogether. Before colonialism you had a few scattered states and then those states were relatively basic. Literacy, education and intellectual achievement were basically absent. Technology was as said, iron age at best when you don't account for the weapons and tools traded in for slaves to the west. Cities and urban terrain was again mostly absent. The challenge of Africa when encountered by the west was to somehow lift a whole continent from an iron age level of development and in some cases stone age societies up towards a western standard. Understandably the west failed and bailed out when it became impossible to have the moral right to rule over such areas, but also it became unprofitable. The uprisings didn't help either. When counties gained independence, often anything western was attacked and destroyed. When the west represented a superior level of development in almost all ways, Africa post colonialism got off to a bad start.

1/2

While there is still a considerable way to go, Africa has developed massively in the recent decades. It's catching up very slowly and will take time to get towards western standards. While I do think there's a few deep reasons as to why we even had say Japan in a better default state before even its own westernisation than all of sub-saharan africa, I am a strong proponent of the idea that Africa needs substantial time to catch up the west. After all if you have a society set in such old stone age or iron age ways, it's going to take a long time just to get the embedded culture up to a much higher level. Nevermind the fact that meanwhile the west is also advancing at a fast rate while they play catch up. Modern Africa today is pretty good if you compared it to the Europe of say 200 years ago.

2/2

The US extensively helped rebuild Japan.

They de-industrialised after the Europeans left, though.

US economic aid, free security, technological support, and preferential trade status helped.

[Citations needed]

Also, aid given to a corrupt dictator isn’t beneficial aid.

Lmao, South America got off easy even compared to a lot of North Americans.

Japan is as large as France.

Are you kidding me? Soouth and Central america got as fucked hard by colionalism, except they actually had a large amount of advanced civilizations there that got raped in the process

>writing an essay to the "why africa a shit" poster instead of just posting the rebuttal

>Posting other people's posts instead of your own thoughts

Well they were colonies for the first half of said century. Then they were thrown into the cold war and also had basically all the odds stacked against them, size, terrain, totally uneducated popuoace (thanks colonizers), incompetent leadership. Then the cold war ended which turned out to be worse cuz aid dried up and everyone got IMF'ed.

>totally uneducated popuoace (thanks colonizers)
Is this because the colonisers didn't educate them or because there was no education before the colonisers?

Both, but my point was more that coloniakism was meant to bring civilization to places amd develop them, and it clearly didnt given the uneducated state of the populace post indepemdence

>implying africa wouldn't still be in the stone age if it weren't for colonialism
What do you think it would be like?

lol, imagine being this stupid but thinking you should post your retarded opinion outside of /pol/ at all, much less on a fucking history board.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_kingdoms_in_pre-colonial_Africa

here, brainlet.

It's a fairly reasonable comment though, while there were states in Africa, the vast majority of the land was not organised into recognised territories much like that of the native americans.

When we all generalise about the vastness of Africa which is absolutely fucking huge, you're going to get these kind of issues.

>tribal kingdoms and feudal kingdoms are the same thing
I seriously doubt you know anything about pre-colonial africa besides mali and songhai

There are many accounts of European educators impressed with their native students or patents if their children doing anything to get a kid(s)in school if they could afford it or the opportunity allowed it. In African colonies, education was of a lower priority in the scheme if things and it was qll burdenend on religious organisations, private entities or by Africans themselves with jackshit funding/assistance from the colonial authorities in the majority of cases.

The extreme of neglect of educationall structure improves in the colony formative years shows its ugly in a big way.

>implying africa wasnt in the stone age for the whole of colonialism and then decades after

europe and north america steal africa's wealth to the tune of at least over $40 billion a year net profit after accounting for aid, realistically much more.

"But there's also $203bn leaving the continent. Some of this is direct, such as $68bn in mainly dodged taxes. Essentially multinational corporations "steal" much of this - legally - by pretending they are really generating their wealth in tax havens. These so-called "illicit financial flows" amount to around 6.1 percent of the continent's entire gross domestic product (GDP) - or three times what Africa receives in aid.

Then there's the $30bn that these corporations "repatriate" - profits they make in Africa but send back to their home country, or elsewhere, to enjoy their wealth. The City of London is awash with profits extracted from the land and labour of Africa."

>tribal and feudal kingdoms
>aksum, sultanate of mogadishu, benin, wolof, etc.

literally just a few minutes of googling is all it would take to dispel your retarded, entirely academically unsupported uninformed opinion.

africa had a ton of legitimate, huge empires. you're parroting retarded david duke nonsense, except desu even duke i think knows about african empires and wouldn't be dumb enough to say this. fucking "stone age" - LOL

>the vast majority of the land was not organised into recognised territories much like that of the native americans.

Ehh they had land distinctions. How the fuck could europeans do treaties if they didn't recognize indigenous territories?

DESU

Not a single concrete structure in niggerlandia was made by blacks.

What the fuck are you even talking about? Sure you can't build a civilisation in bogs in the Congo, but given the right amount of effort there is no reason a great civilisation couldn't be established in South/East/Central Africa. Justify yourself.

You forgot prior modernization pre-ww2.

All you are doing is showing how retardes blacks are if they gad societies yet cant get their shit together right now. Lets not begin posting comparison between Rhodesia and Zimbabwe now.

>but given the right amount of effort there is no reason a great civilisation couldn't be established in South/East/Central Africa

There were ones in those parts. Kingdom on Kong was always about it's rivers and coastal contacts.

>africa had a ton of legitimate, huge empires
This is unironically kangz level shit. Not it didn't. It had a few empires (accounting for a very small percentage of the continent) which had some modest achievements, technological advancement not being one of them.

Japan is a unique case because it was the only non-western nation that fully industrialized and modernized itself on its own terms. So in the 20th century it didn't have to deal with issues such as educating ignorant peasants, dismantling feudalism, and suppressing reactionaries as all that had already been done in the 19th. Unlike, for instance, China. It also did not have to deal with the legacy of economic development that was geared entirely towards resource extraction, as was the case in much of Africa, which tends to create major problems with wealth inequality, and corruption. It also was not an arbitrary nation state made up of numerous competing ethnic groups, but rather almost completely homogeneous.

Most importantly though, after the reverse course in 1947 the us decided to bankroll it's development.

You are shifting the goalpots now. You said there's no empires he showed you empires then you say it was small % of land even though that is the same for many European/Asians empires like the Austro-Hungarians.

>which had some modest achievements, technological advancement not being one of them.

You were implying that they were stone age despite you being proven wrong pretty blatantly.

Now you're just talking shit. I didn't say there were no empires, I said they were stone age (maybe a bit of an exaggeration, but the point is they were backwards as fuck). My point stands and you/he did nothing to refute it.

Stone age is COMPLETELY different from Iron age (not even because they did use metals asides from iron). To even imply that they were stone age is a complete brain fart on your part considering you don't know the extreme differences between the two.

>Tribalism
>can't unite the people under one nation because black tribes are being racists towards other black tribes
>this eventually lead to civil war where Tribe A battle Tribe B in order to secure power

They had steel too.

>he says, being a pedantic wanker while ignoring the entire point that africa would be even less advanced than it is now without colonialism
Nice.

What would happen to Africa sans colonialism is completely unknown because that's a compelte "what if" and that is genrally discouraged.

However Africa had many entities both big and small would could easily advance with trade ties and relatiosn with other powers (many did so before Imperial powers fucked them over).

>empires
Of what? Jungles? Most memepires were city states that took anywhere bear them as territory.

The majority of conversion to Christianity in Africa was by Africans preaching and teaching towards other Africans for example.

Yes North Africa, niggerlandia was a bronze age hellhole.

They had and used/developed iron my child. Ya got issues my son.

figure it out user

So what? The savages have guns now yet still behave like paleolithic hominids.

>Blacks scare yet also arouse me. they must be stopped!.

>people try to say Africa was the birthplace for mankind
>africa has always been the furthest behind the rest of the world in literally everything
Really makes you think

the colonizers pretty much wiped out the cultural institutions that had developed in the areas and replaced them with third rate western ones

read "Things fall apart" by Chinua Achebe
to get a idea of what im talking about

>aid given to a corrupt dictator isn’t beneficial aid
nigs gonna nog

It's a great book, but it doesn't portray the pre-existing society as anything other than primitive and incompatible with modernity in all honesty.

>Japan's a tiny island
japan is a quarter larger then the uk retard

No thats Papua New Guinea truely the most subhuman creatures on this planet.

I disagree with you on my experience with them, at least they are very family orientated and can being very kind and caring. But thats just my experience with them.

Truely a cuck that has never been around papuans.

I'm not a cuck i'm actualyl quite the opposite with my views, but like i said thats from my experience with them i could be wrong, and i don't want them to live in my country or anything like that just saying what i've experienced with them.

>...The City of London is awash with profits extracted from the land and labour of Africa."
One more reason to burn down London.

Lol no numbers on the y axis what kind of iq do you have to have to post/ make a graph like this? 50?

>primitive and incompatible with modernity in all honesty.

Primitive and incomaptible how? You have to be specific you just can't be vague.

Considering that many places had political structures that kept a check on people in power that doesn't really make sense. Considering that Britain often dismantled these structures to put in a "chief" that was under their control and accountable to no one.

well id argue the end shows their religon rapidly dieing off and thus much of their culture and tradition with it. assumingly being replaced with christianity and "british values"

If Africa becomes civilized it wouldn't be a fun place anymore. It's literally the last place to have some fun aside from the Middle East, and the whole continent too.

They will never catch up. The gap continues to widen up.

>hurr the strongest man is the most influential and gets to steal others' wives
That sums it up.

Mostly because African economies have stayed at the same level while western economies have further increased their lead. Never say never in any case, there's always an exception here or there though I agree with the general sentiment that Africa does look quite bleak.

Even with said pre-existing institutions, the fact of the matter remains that Africa by and large was barely an iron age collection of disparate tribes. What brief empires there were didn't do a whole lot. I get that colonialism had an effect on the people there but for the most part colonialism was largely something that ignored natives so long as they kept to themselves. The only major exception would be the Congo Free State, which is also imo the only place you get to use colonialism as an excuse for the pure savagery in the area.

>What brief empires there were didn't do a whole lot

What? That is complete nonsense since many empires often split or morph into different ones over time. They had huge impact in those areas.

> the fact of the matter remains that Africa by and large was barely an iron age collection of disparate tribes.

But that doesn't really make sense considering that many tribes were not isolated or existed in the same state since forever they changed so much conducting trade combining and splitting. You can't call them dispute tribes because they always had immense interactions with each other.

>I get that colonialism had an effect on the people there but for the most part colonialism was largely something that ignored natives so long as they kept to themselves.

Kidna hard to keep to yourself considering the colony government stuck it's dick deep in people's lives. Fucks sake they had laws TAXING SINGLE SWAHILI WOMEN, hut taxes were a thing, they kicked people off land and used forced labourers. The colonial state was in people's asses.

>The only major exception would be the Congo Free State, which is also imo the only place you get to use colonialism as an excuse for the pure savagery in the area.

That's the meme about the Congo Free State. It was NEVER the exception in Africa.

Are you colourblind?

>They had huge impact in those areas.
I don't dispute this at all and you don't even seem to disagree with what I said. The empires that were there were basically confined to western africa and the sahel zone further east. Show me the empires in central africa away from the coast or in the south. You'll only be able to pick out small states.
>You can't call them dispute tribes because they always had immense interactions with each other.
"You can't call disparate tribes disparate because they talked to each other". Yeah I can. Compare and contrast with actually not so disparate tribes such as the germanic tribes in europe during the times of the Roman empire. They were unified to the point of making great migrations as a people, conquering whole areas if they needed to and settling. Part of this is because of the generalisation of Africa but as I've said, by and large there were mostly disparate tribes before colonialism.
>The colonial state was in people's asses.
You're confusing local select cases with the broader attitude of colonialism in africa. It was not practical to hassle every man, woman and child. At the most basic level there was not enough European manpower to do such a thing. Operations that caused abuse were localised to areas of resource extraction, it's not like colonialism was about oppressing the natives for the evilz. If you're going to give me a spiel about how the Europeans got Africans to do abuse for them, it doesn't take much reading to realise that Europeans simply backed pre-existing hierarchies that acquiesced to them. A great example is the buying of slaves directly from Africans.
>It was NEVER the exception in Africa.
Do show how every single other colony was importing manacles and bullets as practically the only import or chopping off of hands for a lack of basic labour. The Congo was an exceptionally bad case, exemplified by Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness. The European world was disgusted by the example of the Congo.

Because as weird as it sounds, having a couple of cities destroyed by a nuke isn't nearly as bad as decades of rampant corruption, ethnic civil war, deterioration of infrastructure, famine, lack of educational institutions, foreign imperialist intervention, ideological civil war, regional war, feudal civil war, war, some more war and a bit of war. Oh and terrorism.

congo free state was basically every euro power shaming Leopold while everyone knowing that they dud similar shit in their colonies to a similar extent.

>You're confusing local select cases with the broader attitude of colonialism in africa. It was not practical to hassle every man, woman and child.

But they did. Nigger we have proof they did that shit on paper and by historical research and records. Do you not know what a fucking hut tax is?

>At the most basic level there was not enough European manpower to do such a thing.

Lol considering punitive expeditions and conquests have been done before. When euros got the medicine to go into the interior and the weaponry to decisively win fights like the British did they went and did that. Euros had tech in their side

>Operations that caused abuse were localised to areas of resource extraction,
it's not like colonialism was about oppressing the natives for the evilz.

So we just going to ignore laws that stripped rights or massacres or the many abuses outside if resource extraction (which is far from the only source of them)? Many laws went beyond being sane and straight into the frivolous shit. Considering the sheer disdain for the natives oppression could iften be adhoc justified in a chain of logic that justifies itself.

> If you're going to give me a spiel about how the Europeans got Africans to do abuse for them.

That doesn't negate colonial era deeds user or the fact that many administrations did get down and dirty to do the abuse themselves.

It doesn't take much reading to realise that Europeans simply backed pre-existing hierarchies that acquiesced to them. A great example is the buying of slaves directly from Africans.

Most places either gutted local structures or subsumed their own onto the people for their use. See heads of villages having no power but essentially having to kowtow to colony state demands of procuring labour if a civil servant visits.

I'm pretty sure like half the countries in Sub-Sahara Africa can't even subsistence farm correctly.

And even when they try, neo-colonialism is there to say hi...

youtube.com/watch?v=7KPWLSVn0ko

(african part starts at 14min)

The Hut tax was a tax used in South Africa, Zimbabwe, Uganda, Zambia and Sierra Leone.
K you keep implying its Africa wide oppression but as I said, it's local cases and not across the broad continent. You seem to be pointing at select abuses and trying to extrapolate them to all areas.
The hut tax was used in part to integrate a cash economy and fund development. Even this apparently terrible abuse had good sides and purposes to it.

And the rest is just "muh oppression" where you continue to portray the Africans as apparently simultaneously taxed to the hilt, forced to labour to pay tax (while also being slaves) and shot in random pogroms. After all it's just poor, poor Africans being oppressed and they have ZERO agency in the entire time period of colonialism. Never mind the wars Britain did against slave owning nations to end the institution, never mind all the barbarism, the tribal conflicts ended by colonial order or the increase of trade and access to resources. Never mind the actual imposition of some kind of formal education, industrial technology and rule of law. I am always amazed at the length people will go to defend Africans having such little development, it's an endless train of either "muh excuses" or "muh oppression". I would never deny the hardships the peoples of Africa experienced, but I will also never take away their agency and ability to shape their own destiny. You will though.

>The hut tax was used in part to integrate a cash economy and fund development.

Because it forced villages to give up men to pay the tax leaving said villages lacking in fit physical labourers fir farming

>apparently terrible abuse had good sides and purposes to it.

It was forced by the state user. The state shouldn't have to implement a tax to force people to pursue wage labour instead if using the classic methods used in other parts of the world (aka the existence of services or possessions only obtainable through money). Indian merchants actually did a much better job at doing that because they only accepted money so in east African deeper parts the natives pursued wage labour and for many schools that only functioned with money like mission schools that too provided an incentive for wage labour.

The hut tax was one if many(I never said the only) ways to extract labour forcefully. Other places Said you had to work for us for a certain period of time every year, some barred natives from farming or gimped them so that they had to find work at a plantation or European farm. Each colony had a different strategy to wringe out labour in the colony.

Because america actually stayed in japan and implemented a working economy before leaving them to their own devices.

>before leaving them