So why are former colonial states in asia so much more successful than former colonial states in Africa?
>>593955
are they really though?
china/japan/korea werent colonized m8
>>593983
The major economic hubs of china were colonies, don't give me that.
Korea was colonized by Japan.
Singapore was colonized by Britain.
And they're all doing great.
>>593955
Definitely less tribal conflicts and more sensible borders
The British were more chill in Malaysia, Singapore, and Hong Kong than in India, a lot owing to Singapore and Hong Kong being more business and economic based, and Malaysia mostly serving as a source for rubber, whilst preserving a high level of autonomy for much of its time, whilst India and the African colonies were exploited for cheap Labour to harvest anything worth anything as quickly as possible due to the large populations
If you look at Singapore and Hong Kong today they're pretty much first world city states, having GDPs in the top 50 worldwide
Different sorts of Imperialism, African style was basically for prestige and shit with the colonie being considered an item of the state, but not part of it, so to speak. The Asian colonies were done a bit earlier (DEE especially) and were a bit like the Spanish dominions in S.America, mainly focussed on business and money and shit. Africa was basically "I'm a great power, look at all these black people I own"
>>593983
>m8
We get it, you go on 4chan.
>>594011
>The major economic hubs of china were colonies, don't give me that.
You mean the concessions? Which no single colonial entity owned completely?
Hong Kong for example was just a village of Guangdong Province.
If anyone owned a huge piece of China, its Russia (specifically: Mongolia. Used to be held by the Qing.)
Genes. It really is that simple.
