Why was decolonization such a disaster?
Wouldn't it have been better to keep those territories, especially in Africa, under the control of their historic empires?
Decolonization's problem was rushed, and left either incompetent governments or de facto power vacuums in its wake.
Colonialism had to end for many reasons, but it ended the wrong way.
no because empire was costing Africa immeasurably in both human life and resources and costing the Europeans somewhat in human life and immeasurably in capital. Next Question.
Were the African colonies even profitable? I mean, christ, I'd imagine working with coked-up warlords has got to turn up a measure more in cash and capital than you could have under a colonial government. Great for private business, probably not as great for everyone else.
Because eventually everyone gets guns and then numbers kill you or you end up being brutal paranoid cunts like the Israelis
Look at South Africa - the amount of gun crime is massive as the whites built up massive arsenals in case
So you get trigger happy civvies walking around with rifles and often using them on each other cf Israel settlers shooting each other
>>12680
Belgian Congo sure was, but that was only through sheer cruelty.
>>12680
For Portugal, yes, that's all I can tell you with certainty.
>>12299
is this b8?
The indian subcontinent ended up better post colonization than it was prior.
>>12731
Only the Congo Free State was cruel, and it lasted merely a few years. The Belgian Congo was just a regular colony.
>>12816
>The indian subcontinent ended up better post colonization than it was prior.
Sure, but they also took their own independence in their own hand, and thanks to Ghandi it was done about as amicably as possible.
Its different from leaving behind propped up friendly puppets.
>>12816
Except for those millions who died during the Partition.
>>12816
Asia did (see: most of SEA, Indonesia, India, HK)
Africa did not
Almost all countries in Asia that didn't get screwed over by proxy wars during WWII and the cold war era are actually doing fine
>>12903
Oh, right. What were the circumstances behind Leopold giving up control of the CFS anyways? Did the Belgian government just have to buy it from him to avert a diplomatic fiasco or what?
>>12816
Idk about that anon, they cant even take their poo to the loo.
>>12680
for the most part, no specially towards the end of the colonial era were they became a huge economic liability.
>>12920
not really.
Gandhi had much more impact on the lower castes of society being quickly integrated into society as a whole, rather than independence.
Also
>partition of India
>amicable
it was a botch operation. the bongs couldn't be arsed to go and see where the border would be divided and just drew lines on a map.
it resulted in>>12926
>>13003
>/int/ memes
>>12926
I read ages ago that many of the casualties of the Partition could have been avoided if Mountbatten hadn't tried to withdraw from India as soon as possible.
>>13038
I'm pretty sure it's evolved past /int/ now
Some nerdy-ass indian kid who I teach is getting bullied all the time, about shitting on the street, and his inability to "poo in a loo"
>>13129
its because it gained a lot of traction in reddit.
>>12299
It's a very complicated question, and I wish I knew more. As far as I can tell it has to do with the following...
1. In colonized regions, local institutions were destroyed and new ones were created or still in the process of creation at the end of colonialism. At the time of the end of colonialism, India had been ruled by colonialist powers for ~100 years, but most of Africa for only ~50 years. In that time India's institutions and trade networks had been built up, while those of Africa had only been destroyed and were still in the process of being rebuilt, which is why India isn't a war torn shit-hole, only a shithole.
2. Africa and the Middle East were split into nations arbitrarily. People who before had considered themselves part of a tribe were now members of the British or French or whatever Empire, then suddenly they were Nigerians or Syrians or whatever. It would be as weird as if the US suddenly split up according to county, and you were expected to be loyal to Sandoval County. And say you were suddenly the President of Sandoval county. If your loyalties were all to your tribe, then why would you care about the state of your nation? This is why African presidents usually treat and have treated their countries like piggy banks. If you were suddenly the president of Narumbibria, and you grew up as an uneducated starving kid, why not live like an emperor?
3. Macroeconomics (I guess). I don't understand economics, but apparently the price of raw goods, which is what African economies were build on (by colonialist powers) tanked in like the 70's, I don't know why. So before the 70's life in Africa wasn't that bad, about as shitty as life in India. All their economies tanked though, and their institutions were too shitty to do anything about it, and their leaders were too greedy and uncaring to do anything either, and it's pretty much all been shit since then.
>>14497
Regarding #3, the economy and infrastructure of almost the entire continent was based around extracting raw goods and shipping it to various colonial masters. This does not make for a strong base to build a developed nation.
>>12299
Because you're giving niggers access to power and technology that they never had, nor do they understand.
It would have been better to gradually give back power, over decades.
Like some people have said
1. All proper infrastructure for a nation was destroyed when those nations were conquered. The system that replaced it was more based on resource extraction than good governance. Even more importantly, very few of the locals were integrated into even this basic system, so when the Europeans mostly left even this broke down. There were barely universities to train professionals like doctors.
2. Borders were drawn arbitrarily grouping together people that didn't like each other. All of Africa was basically Iraq, except instead of Kurds, Sunni and Shia sometimes you would have 20 different tribes that hated each other.
3. Most of Africa was never highly developed. People whose lives were more 18th century found themselves dropped into the 21st century and nothing the colonialist did helped this transition.
>>15837
Yes, I read that in one country, I can't remember which or where I read it, it took less time to get from the capital to the coast than it did to get from the capital to any nearby city, because of the way the railway networks and roads were designed: for ease of extraction.
>>12299
Everything that went wrong with decolonization can be attributed with ethnic heterogeneity or Marxism
>>15912
TRIGGERED
>>12299
the french and Portuguese tried to hold onto them if you recall, the endless wars that caused nearly caused a revolution in France and DID cause a revolution in Portugal.
>>12299
Wait... why is Mexico poorer than most latin american countries if less than 2% of them live with less than 1 dollar a day, unlike most of the other latin countries?
>>12299
Because the western powers drew lines on a map that had nothing to do with the people living there. This created ethnic frictions within nations that were subverted by the colonial powers during their rule. West powers left because the resources they went there for were no longer desired for a number of reasons. The resulting power vacuum saw the dominant ethnic group assume power and years of suppressed frictions often resulted in fighting or genocides. Africa, the Baltic, and the Middle East all have examples where as Western or Eastern power structures are removed, atrocities and war occur. The irony is strong arm leaders like Hussien are actually the most positive solution to rule a nation where artificial nations have been created. As soon as this rule is removed, and an attempt at democracy is implemented, all hell breaks loose.
>>19227
>Because the western powers drew lines on a map that had nothing to do with the people living there
Pretty much this
>>12680
I believe the British ran most of their empire at a loss
what about capital flight, the lack of startup capital for industrialization and subsequent brain drains?
Excluding the fact that niggas gonna nig, you have to consider that we showed up, gave these guys machine guns when their cultures had not even considered the ideas of morality beyond survival and tribal religion, and then felt so guilty that we just left.
We never should have decolonized. Ideally, we would be ending official colonialism today. If we kept the places we could have built schools, infrastructure, taught democracy, secular ideas, and instilled proper morality and cultural norms like we where supposed to. We could have kept a lot of armed bases to make sure things transitioned smoothly, and ideally nations would be smaller. Things could have been great. What exactly went wrong and 'made' us leave is a totally different can o' worms, but this is what could have gone right.
>>13550
The UN spent it's funds trying to make a catchy song, and they succeeded.
I think it's somewhat useful to examine more than just countries colonized by europe.
When Japan was in "Copy brittish empire" mode, and colonized China, South Korea and Taiwan, the long results of the latter two were actually pretty successful.
US lending stability being a very important part I think to a successful exit.
>>12299
Anglo colonies ended up doing well or even better than before, but the natives fucked it up
>see Rhodesia and SA
French are worse becuase they destroyed the native culture, whihc left a void when they left
Spanish and Portugal didn't really give a shit about them after they had their money and women, so of course they aren't great
Makes me laugh that a lot of colonies now want us back becuase they can't handle it and are ven scared of the chink menace
