What went wrong with the decolonization of Africa? Did they rush it or did it not come fast enough? I noticed that Francafrique still acts as the french empire lite
Black people were free to chimp out again, so Africa returned to how it was before colonization (with AKs instead of spears)
Colonization was the problem. It established economies that were dependent on exporting to the western world, and installed or supported governments that would keep it that way. Nothing much about this changed over the course of the twentieth century.
>>693273
Back to /lit/, PoC apologist
Should just withdrawn and let them kill each other for borders that make sense.
>>693289
Explain Argentina.
Colonizing countries as a whole either setup a system to educate the Blacks enough that they could form and manage a state of their own, or they were content to just let them murder each other until harmony was established.
The US and USSR put a stop to that in order to keep the continent unstable and to cut ties between Europe and the former colonies. A divided Europe was easier to polarize and conquer, and an unstable Africa was easier to plunder.
>>693294
Protectionism and shitty government
http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21596582-one-hundred-years-ago-argentina-was-future-what-went-wrong-century-decline
>>693397
>Protectionism and shitty government
Shitty government is enough to ruin a country?
Sounds like a good explanation to OP's question, the governments propped up in Africa were shitty.
Everytime the people elect a president dedicated to the people the west comes and kills them and then installs a dictator or a pro-west leader who sales his nations resources short for favor
>>693248
Neo-colonialism
Not even joking
Post colonial proxy war doctrines definitely didn't help.
>>693248
tribalism
>>693549
I've always thought America should have supported socialist movements abroad, they would have attracted a lot more of them than Russia ever did.
For flips sake, Tito, Ho, Castro, they wanted to be allies of America, but were told no because they also wanted to be socialist.
>>693248
decolonization was pushed by CIA in oder to weaken European colonial powers and ensure the US hegememony.
Just like during colonialization, it was all about geopolitics and nobody really cared about stabilizing the region
>>693565
Europe could no handle the colonies after the war due to the war and the colonies were already a drain on finances that the colonial governments ran on shoestring budgets since forever.
Tribalism, nationalism, lack of education, a huge gap on political representation between settlers and natives, racism (both between europeans and blacks and between natives) and corruption. Now we will see what will happen with the new influence of China and India in the region.
so when we are in on this, what was the deal with rhodesia anyway? did mugabe gain power trough *democracy* or did some western power fuck it all up to install a puppet that went to shite? because if it was trough the will of the rhodesian negros that mugabe gained power then i have no sympathy for the stupid seed eating tards
>>693652
german people, one of the most civilized and well educated in the world, elected Hitler.
So is it that much of a stretch of imagination that some dumb and unedacuted negroes would elect Mugabe?
>>693652
Their error was in kicking out the white farmers?
Would these white farmers have accepted a role as farm managers on native owned farms?
The people who lived there before the white settlers were farmers, but it's a perishable skill, so the people who lived there under white rule were not, not by the seventies.
>>693652
Mugabe forced his way in you faggot.
>>693680
>Germans dindu nuffin
>>693687
>implying i am implying that, their reasons were more valid than the rhodesians, who were enjoying the highest development in the entirety of africa thanks to *whitey*, why did they want ot fuck it up?
National borders were drawn that gave way to fucked up social conflicts. Different, unnameable ethnic groups were pitched together under the same political systems, where they should have been grouped as different countries.
>>693680
Nope. Video is wrong.
>stone age
Iron age.
>no farms
Farming.
>huts
Climate appropriate housing.
How do you justify the part where white people take over in the first place? Or the part where they continued to rule despite not having the consent of the people they rule?
You, personally, would accept a complete loss of personal autonomy in exchange for an unreliable and minute welfare system? You can report to prison to experience the conditions you claim black Rhodesians enjoyed so much. Not for you?
>>693680
except not all rhodesians profited from their florishing economy.
But instead of doing some sensible redistribution, they went full retarded
>>693663
>hitler: took a poor country and turned it into a superpower
>mugabe: took a rich country and turned it into ooga booga land
>>693704
They were resource extraction enterprises that were given to local despots, and then given a seat at the UN.
>>693729
Hitler got Germany wrecked in WW2 and his system was not sustainble in the long run at all.
>>693729
Hitler took Germany... /Germany/, full of expertise in every field, and turned it back into a battlefield. He's like evil-Bismark.
Mugabe took a colony and kicked out the settlers. Since such places are designed to maximize the quality of life for settlers, this resulted in massive drop in quality of life automatically. And since the Rhodesian government decided black Rhodesians shouldn't own farms, there was no expertise in their field ready to go when the settlers were expelled.
>>693704
Constructing national borders based on ethnicity would have simply been impossible and segregationist. There were too many bickering tribes and peoples, and they would have warred anyways.
Let's face it, Africans didn't know how to organize a civilization let alone an entire nation, and thus required a higher intellectual power to take care of it for them.
>>693729
t-thanks hitler
>>693625
>Now we will see what will happen with the new influence of China and India in the region.
It might be going to waste soon. The economies of most of the region are in a terrible state because of the sinking oil and commodity prices. Jihadists are running amok in the Sahara. Millions have fled Chad because of the water crisis. South Africa's racial tensions are in the worst state since the apartheid, and immigrants from the collapsing Zimbabwe will only make things worse.
>>693773
>Let's face it, Africans didn't know how to organize a civilization let alone an entire nation, and thus required a higher intellectual power to take care of it for them.
But that's wrong though.
>>693729
> 1932 Germany
> Poor
Nigga Germany was #4 or #5 world economy at that point of history (1, 2, 3 being US, UK and France and 4 might have been USSR) with some of the highest industrialization rate in all of the world. Your high school "but hitler won because great depression" is showing.
![350px-BSPDRWeltkriseEngl[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/kdiUpHB.png "350px-BSPDRWeltkriseEngl[1].png")
>>693756
>>693754
>>693777
Conveniently ignoring the fact that Hitler helped control the hyperinflation of Weimar, invested heavily in infrastructure, and created thousands of jobs, all during the height of the Great Depression.
>>693773
They had organized civilizations before colonization.
If you're saying they don't have anything like that NOW, then you have to examine what happened in between.
![BSPDRWeltkriseEngl[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/ILuVXlF.png "BSPDRWeltkriseEngl[1].png")
>>693806
>>693806
And Hitler would be a great politicians if not for the whole "starting a war of agression and killing millions" thing
>>693806
Weimar hyper-inflation was a tactic. They would have ended it at exactly the same time as Hitler did.
Make-work is not real economic growth. Hitler started with a top ten world economy, and ended up with a split and spent Germany.
>>693792
Asides from North Africa, reality has proven it right.
>>693827
You mean now or back then?
Should have a map from /before/ colonization too, right?
>>693848
>Thanks to military and political decisions, not his economic policy.
They can't be separated.
His economic policy included looting Czechia, and not paying the Russians for goods delivered.
>>693806
No one (with enough knowledge) would say that Hitler did everything wrong, it's just that while applying Keynesian economics in the Great Depression, which have been proven to work everywhere in order to reactivate a country, was a very smart idea for the situation he had ahead, his economy was completely based around the fact that Germany will be in perpetual war. Doing that is not sustainable in the long run, now we don't know what the National Socialist Party would have done if there were no war, and we can only speculate, so considering the empirical data, Germany during the Nazi regime didn't have the best sustainable economy, but they did what they had to do in order to get out of their ditch
Now, that doesn't mean we should simply ignore his warmongering and expansionism. They knew exactly what they were doing and why the war started. He could have signed the peace before or maybe capitulate. That doesn't excuse the Allies to their war crimes, but you could have expected Russians to fuck your shit up and the US to bomb your country to the ground.
>>693248
Is there a good book on French Colonial Policy? Everything I find is focused on the metropole.
>>693858
What do the colors mean?
>>693248
Cutting ethnicities/culture in two and put tribe who hate each other in the same country during the drawing of border
>>693924
Can you read French?
One decent book in English is:
Paths of Accommodation - Muslim Societies and French Colonial Authorities in Senegal and Mauritania, 1880-1920
Of course it's extremely specific.
>Whites get kicked out, their lands get confiscated
>Natives with no idea how to use the land mess everything up
>Famines in areas that used to produce enough food to be an export powerhouse
Decolonization has its merits. But if you expel the smart or skilled people? You deserve what happens to you.
>>697557
>blacks in southern africa
>native
Just because you genocided the khoikhoi first doesnt mean you are native to that land.
dropping this here for anyone that's interested.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-11764004
http://www.ids.ac.uk/go/news/zimbabwe-s-land-reform-ten-years-on-new-study-dispels-the-myths
>Myth 1 - Land reform has been a total failure
>Myth 2 - The beneficiaries have been largely political 'cronies'
>Myth 3 - There is no investment in the new resettlements
>Myth 4 - Agriculture is in complete ruins creating chronic food insecurity
>Myth 5 - The rural economy has collapsed
>>694608
Purples and blues are states, browns and reds seems to be farmers, herders, and gardeners of different sorts who aren't organized into states, and yellow are non-farmers. I'm not certain about green, Madagascar and New Guinea were farmers, but the khoikhoi weren't (though they could be called gardeners).
>>698064
Even khoikhoi aren't native. They're from Eurasia, somehow.
>implying Africa is worse now than it was during and before colonization
>>698219
Those are all true though.
>>698219
>examine one province
>well, that proves everything is hunk-doey in the whole country.
Idiot.
African colonies were never meant to be viable independent states.
Look at Angola, the place is basically a giant oil refinery. They had no infrastructure in place to do anything else and haven't been able to build it up because they need to dedicate the funds they do have to developing their oil industry.
Exceptions exist. Botswana was never properly colonized, it was just a protectorate and British interference there was minimal. They essentially had a clean slate when the British left.
>>693248
>What went wrong with the decolonization of Africa?
That it occurred. Africans were not prepared intellectually, culturally or socially to perpetuate western civilization; decolonization was not only ill-advised but cruel.
>>693248
OP answers his own question.
>>698660
And that the powers had no need to do so.
If someone big power did a either "Decolonisation now or bring your all your colonies up to or near your standards" they'd all ditch them.
>>693248
You run a zoo with a bunch of monkeys.
You leave the zoo unattended.
What happen?
>>693720
>Iron age.
literally more than 2000 years behind.
>Farming.
Slash and burn.
>Climate appropriate housing.
Lazy shelter.
>How do you justify the part where white people take over in the first place?
The strong do what they will, and the weak suffer what they must.
>>693248
The exact reasons depend on which state in particular you're talking about.
The general trend, however, seems to be that the decolonizing powers did a poor job transitioning to an independent government. The locals were never trained for any kind of independent governing, and, because the colonizing powers tended to leverage ethnic groups off of eachother to keep the colony (relatively) stable, you ended up with tremendously inept administrations with a very tribalist mindset.
What made this all so much worse was a combination of borders drawn without regard for ethnic groups and the onset of the Cold War. Somalia went to war with Ethiopia over Ogaden in 1977 because Ethiopia ended up in control of the Somali-dominated region during the decolonization process, and the Soviets and Americans both got involved because the nations happened to be in a strategic region. Angola was similar - the nation was a battleground for much of the Cold War because the Soviets wanted a base on the South Atlantic and the Americans and South Africans didn't want a communist regime in Angola.
Even so, it's far better to look at individual nations to find what went wrong rather than generalizing the entire continent. Nations that by all means should have been absolute clusterfucks like Namibia turned out relatively fine, while many that should have worked out fine (like Somalia or Ethiopia) ended up being failed states.
>>693704
Diversity is our strength. Unless you're saying that diversity isn't a strength :^)
Hmmmmm
>>693652
There was an "election" but it basically ratified the results of the guerrilla war that preceded it. His regime was purging dissidents and massacring people seen as suspicious (especially the Matabele) from the start; it's not like people could vote him out or expect it to count.
>>699190
>The strong do what they will, and the weak suffer what they must.
So it's cool that the whites are being driven out and murdered because they're too weak to defend their property and lives
>>693248
Niggers.
>>698625
Angola was the 2nd largest coffee producer in the world, you retard. We wanted that place for it's soil, nohing else, and didn't even find oil until the 1950's.
t. Alberto Barbosa
>>699507
funny, there are niggers in europe, america, south america, the middle east, africa, and now even china.
in every single country, despite welfare or no welfare, racism or no racism, religion or no religion, colonization or no, rich country or no, all the places with blacks have high crime rates and high violence and high rape.
despite the diversity of policies. they all have high murder and high rape. so maybe it's not about the policies.
>>699741
because they constitute the lower class you fucking nigger.
I hate black culture and what it stands for, but unlike what you retards would like to think blacks are not inherently violent.
The lower class always has the highest crime rates in a country, and youll find black people often overlap with this.
I hate all parts of the spectrum. There are niggers who complain and say "the white man be holding me back!"
Then there's cunts like you who pretend to have a clue on biology and socioeconomics and cry out "MURICA DOESNT HAVE A GUN PROBLEM IT HAS A NIGGER PROBLEM".
Fuck off.
>>698219
>BBC making excuses for white genocide
I'm shocked
>>700390
then why do poor white communities have less crime than poor black communities
>>700425
I'll answer that once you back it up with something slightly credible
>>700430
you can't seriously be that ignorant
http://thisisafrica.me/france-loots-former-colonies/
>>700430
www.google.com
They had no educated elites to rule the country. Everything ended up being held together with corruption and little else because no one knew how to govern. India by comparison had many educated elites.
>>700435
You're always welcome to enlighten me with some proofs
>>693248
the exportation of a lot of their goods meant that there was no real economy in the areas and it relied on the presence of the colonial power to make the region "relevant"
Because much of the administration was managed by white europeans, once they left there was nothing left for the Africans to make use of.
But the main issue is the stupid way Europeans drew up the borders in both Africa and the middle east without any consideration for the local tribes and cultures, it would be like if some foreign force had colonised Europe and told England and France that they're the same country, inevitably when this force left the two nations would be stuck fighting each other for their independence and whatever land they think should be theirs.
>>693720
>How do you justify the part where white people take over in the first place? Or the part where they continued to rule despite not having the consent of the people they rule?
>white people invented ruling regions were the people didn't want to be ruled
>>700580
They had a few educated elites but they mostly ruled the way their forebearer colonial governments did because that's all they knew and how the state was setup.
>>693248
>Europeans choose a minority tribe and make them the ruling class who collects their taxes/polices everyone else
>When Europeans decolonize the ruling tribe maintains control of the colonial state
>Ruling tribe keeps oppressing the other tribes just like during the colonial period
>Civil wars ensue
>>693248
Decolonization at all.
>>703026
>white people invented ruling regions were the people didn't want to be ruled
When did that anon ever say that? Reading comprehension.
