Why do former African colonies like DRC. Congo. Chad etc are all suffering.
But Asian Former colonies like. The Philippines. Indonesia. And India are thriving
All of them were conquered by white people but African colonies have 10x more resources yet they are doing far worst then Asian ones.
>What is the missing piece we are not seeing?
nigeria has a higher gdp than philippines
it also doesnt have a drug war...
question solved?
Nigeria has much worse security concerns than Philippines…
https://thediplomat.com/2021/06/police-killing-leads-to-calls-for-reform-in-the-philippines/
Literally state sponsored violence
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/02/philippines-president-duterte-drugs-war-death-squads
Killing drug dealers isn't a problem, it's a solution.
pretty sure i adressed your broad assumption that chinks>Black folk
Nigeria have Boko Haram one of the most actively domestic terrorist organization in the 21st century.
has*
Wasn't ISIS active in the Philippines? Lmao
Yeah, they capture some city and were steamrolled
philipinnes president has cured himself from homosexuality
you should ask him for tips
>Has more than double the population
>Has 10% higher GDP
>Had 100 years of colonial rule in comparison to 400 for the Flips...
What are you trying to prove?
approx. 1/3 higher gdp actually.
that OP is insinuating a /misc/ meme of riceBlack folk>Black folk, by the simple fact that he compared southeastasia with the biggest continent on earth.
SSA has about a billion people and SEA has like 700 million. Both have major geographic and environmental limitations. I’d say SEA has it worst cause it’s got thick jungle plus broken up islands, and some of the shiittiest borders ever.
I’d say it’s fair comparing the two regions. The biggest difference between them is obvious the populations of you want to be a eugenicist. But also don’t forget political stability. Having a strongwoman dictator sucks but in the long run, stability allows for economic development. Africa countries were hugely unstable and foreign interference helped fuel that.
>I’d say SEA has it worst cause it’s got thick jungle plus broken up islands, and some of the shiittiest borders ever.
Africa has worse terrain and worse borders overall. At least SEA has sea travel and stuff, most of Africa is landlocked and its impossible to build and maintain good roads in the African climate. The rivers are all rapids, not navigable.
Hence why most of the successful african c**ts are coastal, islands, or have consistent terrain.
Africa has one of the largest jungles in the world as its crossroad.
Ah-aa keep going...
>Why do former African colonies like DRC. Congo. Chad etc are all suffering.
But Asian Former colonies like. The Philippines. Indonesia. And India are thriving.
Only some Asian countries are thriving like Singapore, the rest are developing countries
>including India
Would unironically prefer to live in Tanzania than India.
>The Philippines. Indonesia. And India are thriving
They are? If they are thriving so much why do filipinos and Indians immigrate by the millions?
Immigration is not a criteria, maybe it's easier for them by the fact that they're close geographically to the European continent than a country in the Middle of africa.
They’re not though, if anything they’re much farther away.
Asians lived through watered down baby colonialism
>oh no dutch east india company selling my rice this is like getting my hands cut off for rubber quotas
>suffering olympics
Colonialism is colonialism, they still suffered under their colonial masters.
They were suffering before colonialism
The biggest reason why Europeans focused on Kongo and the western african coast was precisely because of the opposite. Those places were actually considerably wealthy for the time, and Euros knew they could have it for themselves. Same reason they went after India for 300 years but left Japan alone
Wealthy as in the black nobility but the peasants have always been dirt poor
So like everyone else in the world at the time? You fricking moron, stop acting like you're intelligent or historically well versed.
African kingdoms and city states were wealthy for the time. There's no debate on that. It doesn't matter who held the wealth or how it was concentrated, since the middle class didn't exist anywhere in the 17th century and the globe was still ruled by kings, nobility, and feudalistic politics with large serf populations. Are you gonna tell me that European peons actually had it quite good?
GDP of India is lower than GDP of Cango
Per capita
Congo is like the Afghanistan of Africa. It's a dumpster fire.
white dudes are never going to let black countries progress because the white men are sexually intimidated by black men
imagine how much pussy a rich black african guy would be getting
>Oh boy another "subtle" race bait thread
Classic IQfy
>Why do former African colonies like DRC. Congo. Chad etc are all suffering.
Political/Social instability, mismanagement of resources, foreign meddling, general corruption, lack of intracontinential investment or even infrastructure to support it. Next you'll ask
>are you implying this didn't exist in Asian colonies
Or make some moronic tie in to genetics, but not my problem, nor related to the point. Whether these occurred in other former colonies is irrelevant to the fact that these are some of the main reasons some African countries are still behind.
>But Asian Former colonies like. The Philippines. Indonesia. And India are thriving
Define thriving. Many of the countries in the region are your average 3rd world country. I could find plenty of those in Africa.
>African colonies have 10x more resources yet they are doing far worst then Asian ones.
Irrelevant. Resources are not very helpful until your country has the necessary infrastructure to properly integrate it into its industry. Otherwise it just gets sold off to the highest bidders in foreign countries, leaving little to be used for the people of the country. Once in a blue moon it works out quite nicely and you get glorified banana republics like Botswana
Anyways shit thread as usual, awaiting 404