Latin America experienced a much longer period of imperialism and control than Africa. Why is the majority of Latin America better than most of Africa?
Latin America experienced a much longer period of imperialism and control than Africa. Why is the majority of Latin America better than most of Africa?
The Coriolanus effect and Andes reduce the temperature and favor tourism. All other answers are idiocy.
dumb frick. i bet you also think the only difference between races is melanin.
Fricking racist winds…
This worthless thread still bumbles toward the limit, with mods deleting everything.
South America can at least somewhat manage itself, Africa is lost cause
I hope you weren't expecting anyone on this board to have a decent grasp or understanding of politics in Africa or the structure of society.
Everything besides the first reply is stupidity. Every bump of this thread is a testament to the moronation of his.
This place discussess african politics more than twitter or reddit. I have seen lots of threads discussing rwandan, ethiopian, congolese, ghanian and zimbabwean politics and history.
African modern, 20th century politics are so crazy and interesting.
not talking about africans, but wouldnt it be really entertaining and fascinating to observe politics among people with the mental age of 12 year olds?
man I am really interested in african politics
>with the mental age of 12 year olds
Africans are more aware than 12yo kids.
Subsaharan Africa was only introduced to modern political institutions in the late 19th century, when most Latin American countries had already developed stable governments. Nearly all of SSA also missed out the post-war economic boom, and indeed empoverished, due to chronic instability.
>when most Latin American countries had already developed stable governments.
Depending in which ones.
Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Uruguay, Mexico, and soon after Colombia, Venezuela and Peru. It was the golden age of landed oligarchy.
those governments had pretty flawed ruling structures alongside immense elate capture.
Blacks couldn't invent the wheel, written languages, a system of numbers, agriculture, buildings out of stone, buildings higher than one floor or seafaring ships. Colonialism, or lack of, can't explain that.
Thanks for proving Americans know nothing about history or geography.
A lot of the folks who say that aren't American lmao.
The only stable sub-Saharan country was South Africa but they will probably cease to exist in a few decades
Wrong, Namibia has a higher gdp than a lot of white countries in Central Asia.
Namibia was managed by South Africa until the 90s
Well done jidf.
That's almost 30 years ago
>white countries in Central Asia.
GDP per capita is the only useful comparison and the only white country Namibia scores higher than is Ukraine which is currently being shelled by Russia.
You're literally using muh imperialism excuse for whites
You don't even know what the muh imperialism excuse is if you think I'm doing that.
Botswana as well. Was on track to become a very prospreous country until the aids pandemic fricked up their whole nation.
Is it better off than Africa? Mexico is controlled by violent drug cartels and Latin America has much higher rates of violent crime compared to Africa
That's true, but his is a moron board and creates these threads every day.
Yeah idk if it's accurate to say that it's that much better off than Africa. Corruption, extreme poverty, violence, etc etc. is rampant in Mexico + South/Central America. There might be areas (particularly popular vacation spots) that are specifically better off but overall not sure it makes that much of a difference.
Do you really believe african governments have enough control in their populations to have accurate criminal record stats? Their reach doesn't go much further than their main cities.
Africans probably just murder each other, dump the bodies in a jungle or river and forget about it. And the police will never know.
>dump the bodies in a jungle or river and forget about it. And the police will never know.
Same could easily be said for any region in the world you idiot.
Nah, even in my shithole latam country the police report missing people and eventually find their bodies in places like that.
I would assume it's the same in south africa, where the crime stats are way higher than in any african country but it's because they atleast have some kind of police organization that record most of it.
To add to that that (yes I know at least colombia is in civil war and almost all countries here have terrorisms issues) but we aren't in the same level as african civil wars.
>we aren't in the same level as african civil wars.
Lol Latam had very bad conflicts on APR with that. that's why they have diaspora in the the western hemisphere as well as the repressions from that. the idea that Latam's were not as bad is a big myth.
Oh no they were very bad. Just didn't get to the levels of warlord anarchy african civil wars reached.
>Just didn't get to the levels of warlord anarchy african civil wars reached
They were pretty much close on top of the fact that "warlord anarchy" was not that common in Africa either unless you think Sierra Leon was the norm lol. Most of the wars or conflcits was between or by a state in question.
fair enough.
>Africans probably just murder each other, dump the bodies in a jungle or river and forget about it. And the police will never know.
They would no. body disposal is much harder then you think and finding corpses of a crime victim is not something the police can't do as seen in the news reports of it. You don't really have a good grasp on the topic in general.
The thing is they most likely don't report all of the missing people, thus they don't give a shit about finding them.
and that is applicable allover the world.
Are you genuinely mentally ill?
>African countries probably don't accurately report crime because it supports my preconceived views
>this is a problem exclusive to the entirety of Africa and Africa alone because ???
>here's my headcanon of what i think really happens even tho I know nothing about Africa
It's only logical anon. African governments have almost zero control of their populations outside of their main cities, to a point that it's not comparable to the rest of the world.
But sure keep coping. If you are lucky your "country" doesn't start a civil war tomorrow and a million de facto governments emerge.
Anon, there are ton of countries like Ghana that have never had a civil war.
>It's only logical anon.
No its not
>African governments have almost zero control of their populations outside of their main cities
This literally isn't true, but there is much variance from country to country. Africa is a damn continent and has over 50 countries. But then again the fact that you post Somalia, one of the top 5 biggest shitholes in the world, as a stand-in for the average country is a testament to how little about the continent you actually know.
You would almost have a point if you commented on the Police's lack of effort towards actually doing their job but instead you decided to spew baseless drivel.
>No its not
Mmhmmm, mhmmm, sure
>This literally isn't true, but there is much variance from country to country. Africa is a damn continent and has over 50 countries.
Good thing we are comparing it to Latin Ameeica then, wich includes part of a whole continent and part of another.
>But then again the fact that you post Somalia, one of the top 5 biggest shitholes in the world, as a stand-in for the average country is a testament to how little about the continent you actually know.
What a coincidence than most of those shitholes are in africa right. Huge coincidence.
>You would almost have a point if you commented on the Police's lack of effort towards actually doing their job but instead you decided to spew baseless drivel.
Police forces are part of government control over their civilian population. The point is that it wouldn't make sense for a country wich has a very low reach on it's population to have accurate criminal records.
>Good thing we are comparing it to Latin Ameeica then, wich includes part of a whole continent and part of another.
Indeed we are, but unfortunately you aren't smart enough to consider that as another whole continent (plus subcontinent) this problem is possible in parts of Latin America as well.
>What a coincidence than most of those shitholes are in africa right. Huge coincidence.
No its not a coincidence but nice attempt at moving goalposts homosexual, this does nothing to discredit how moronic your initial claim is.
>The point is that it wouldn't make sense for a country wich has a very low reach on it's population to have accurate criminal records.
Yes that would be correct in situations where those conditions actually apply which you obviously you don't actually know. Just like most of IQfy you make shit up that you think sounds believable based on a conclusion you made up in your head.
But keep coping about how Tanzania didn't report 20 murders in the bush out of the hundreds that are reported each year. I'm sure your "developed" countries like Bolivia or El Salvador or some cartel shithole obviously never missed any.
>Indeed we are, but unfortunately you aren't smart enough to consider that as another whole continent (plus subcontinent) this problem is possible in parts of Latin America as well.
You were crying about focusing on individual countries instead of entire regions like latin america and susaharan africa. Africa as a region has way worse statistinc in general than latam, that is a fact, so what's your point then?
>No its not a coincidence but nice attempt at moving goalposts homosexual, this does nothing to discredit how moronic your initial claim is.
You admit it isn't a coincidence. So what exactly is your point you dumb homosexual? African nations tend to be mich shittier and with less control over their populations than anywhere else in the world.
>Yes that would be correct in situations where those conditions actually apply which you obviously you don't actually know. Just like most of IQfy you make shit up that you think sounds believable based on a conclusion you made up in your head.
And what the frick do you know about latin america?
>your head.
But keep coping about how Tanzania didn't report 20 murders in the bush out of the hundreds that are reported each year. I'm sure your "developed" countries like Bolivia or El Salvador or some cartel shithole obviously never missed any.
First you complain about not talking about africa in a general sense and then you cherry pick individual country stats.
Sure, Bolivia and some central american nations are shit and comparable to the best your shithole continent has, but the moment you compare the whole subsaharan region to latin america as a whole, your copium runs dry.
Comparing both regions as a whole was the premise in this thread, and even then, apart from criminal violence, Mexico and central america are more developed than 90% of africa.
>You [...] susaharan africa.
Your reading comprehension skills are nonexistant holy shit.
>Africa [...] what's your point then?
You've missed the point entirely. I don't give a shit if Africa on average is worse off than Latam. That IS a fact. You know what isn't? Claiming crime statistics across the entirety of Africa are all of a sudden dismissable because they don't completely confirm "Black folk = big violence." Are all African crime statistics 100% accurate then? No, not by a long shot, and some are off more than others which is where the fact that mentioning that it's an entire continent is relevant. The DRC is a very different place than Kenya
No shit we're comparing continents but the point you don't understand is you can't just claim statistics in Ghana are massively underreported because Somalia can't control its own land. Even a first grader can see how moronic that logic is.
Your logic is a literal cope to justify ignoring data you don't like to help push a point which is obvious because you arbitrarily decide this nonargument can't be applied to Latam because they're on average better off than Africa. This is the only point I'm making but you continue to bring up more inane bullshit that's besides this point like "muh electricity access" to further derail the point.
>And what the frick do you know about latin america?
Not much, which is why I'm not asserting random bullshit about latin america other than their countries are also susceptible to error. But if you have no actual proof of this significant error, it's absolutely pointless to attempt to prove a point with it like you did.
>First you complain...
Everything from this point on is completely irrelevant to my posts and again completely missing the point. Idek how you got to the point that anyone was saying Africa was more developed than Latin America
>t. Yogombo Zayar Mpende
Id rather live the rest of my life in Mexico than spend one day in Africa
Refute the post or keep coping troony. You will never belong to a productive race
I did. Your whining proves you are too dumb to read.
Peru is richer than white countries like ukraine and Uzbekistan. Remember Asians are white.
>Peru is richer than white countries like ukraine and Uzbekistan
And? Who said anything about Whites? We're talking about Black folk, who are objectively inferior to Latin Americans.
You seem to be very hung up on this. Are you a Black person? Do you listen to Black person music and worship Black person culture?
So you're too dumb to read.
I'm too sane to to bother with your unrelated charts with 0 correlation. Why don't you take some fricking meds so you can stop seeing patterns in TV static and licence plates you schizo homosexual.
It's a .96 correlation. But then again you are too dumb to read.
The top countries are entirely tourism.
>who are objectively inferior to Latin Americans.
Not really since LatAm has been stagnating for ages lol. At this point investors are trying Africa out because areas like LatAm just can't make the jumps needed to really boom.
>investors
Just say China. What need is there to pretend the first world will ever bother with that cash sink ever again?
China invests in Africa.
Every major world power does. How moronic are you to not know this? Europe does it more than them, too.
Man, you must be really out of the loop, huh?
Europe is gonna double down on carbon energy investments (and breaking every single green promise) in Africa because of Russia cucking them of gas during the Ukraine war. lmao there are a lot of gas/oil discovery sites in Africa after independence over the decades but many weren't pursued because there were cheaper sources, the infrastructure or FDI investment into infrastructure wasn't there or just politics. Now that western states don't give a frick about Climate Change since Cop26 was basically the west just ignoring the developing world and jacking themselves off FDI in these carbon resources will only grow most likely.
Couple that with the desperation to access these carbon sources will probably lead to Euros forgetting not realizing that this isn't the colonial/cold war era and these states will probably
>end up selling their shit to the Americas or Asia who are willing to fork over the money.
>just using it for themselves or local energy buyers.
>instability simply negating the investment
>Or the African state simply saying no to gas exploitation
couple that with border "aid" money and I wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing the greatest fleecing known to man.
>because of Russia cucking them of gas during the Ukraine war
but it's eu who made the decision to stop getting gas from russia, not the other way around
eu could've just ignored the ukraine war but didn't and russia lost a costumer
we'll see how it pans out but it's probably bad for russia, seeing as they're a petrostate, to lose potential buyers and if they rely too much on china buying they'll just become china's b***h
in africa europe are thinking of basically copying china with their "package deals" of infrastructure and also border security, stop the toppling of governments, etc
maybe this could help with making africa a more stable continent so that europe doesn't get refugees because of climate change
>>Or the African state simply saying no to gas exploitation
This is the least likely to happen.
>couple that with border "aid" money and I wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing the greatest fleecing known to man
Africa and the global south in general is already being fleeced and it's been happening for decades now if not hundreds of years.
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/5/6/rich-countries-drained-152tn-from-the-global-south-since-1960
>Europe’s industrial revolution relied in large part on cotton and sugar
what the frick did I just read
>people willingly selling their labour and resources for under rmv = "unequal exchange"
see above
>people willingly selling their labour and resources for under rmv = "unequal exchange"
It's unequal if one side doesn't have equal negotiating power on top of power dynamics. Companies have found ways to severely underpay workers through loopholes and labour abuse even inside developed countries.
>150 billion euros equals 170 billion american dollars
Not anymore.
I wonder how the war in Ukraine will affect european foreign investments
Places like Panama and The Dominican Republic are experiencing huge gdp growth though.
Africa has a higher potential consumer base as well.
Latin americans spend more per capita so it's not that simple.
That's literally latinx tho, most of them in america and lets face it their own countries are Black person tier in violence and rape.
Latin America isn't Mesoamerica, moronic Black person. OP asked about the historical context behind their development under colonial powers. Mesoamerica wasn't much more technologically advanced than Africa, but you can actually draw parallels between the Amerindians who lived in city states and the classical civilizations of the Old World. Everything that isn't a mudhut in Africa was built by Arabs.
>Latin America isn't Mesoamerica
I never said it was but you ignore the fact that there are literally more stone ages tribal people then there was empires/kingdoms and most of them was killed by you people.
>mudhut in Africa was Built by Arabs.
>still on it.
Pretty sure latin amerocan culture has alot of african influence.
>gets beaten by cops
don't break the law, simple as
Rambo did nothing wrong
Africans had pretty organized societies. Who the frick do you think Europeans were trading, negotiating and warring against?
IQ.
part of western civilzation
They really are objectively. But since the Spanish were such bad colonizers we prefer to close our eyes and pretend they don't exist.
>the Spanish were such bad colonizers
To be fair, because ex portuguese, anglo and french colonies in the caribbean and africa are not amazing.
Settler colonies tend to be much more succesful, simple as.
spicgay here
>latin america has a more stable and mobile class system than africa when they got independent, even with all of its flaws.
>the wars of latam happended on the 19th century mostly, while africa still has ongoing wars today
>latam descends from two similarly-minded colonial powers while africa descends from many conflicting empires
>africa has many religions while catholicism is dominant over latam
>africa is simply more diverse than latam, all put together into more messed-up borders that group rival ethnic groups into a single country
>american foreign policy orders a organized and reasonably-peaceful south-america while at the same time, they don't mind turning africa into a battlefield alongside the euros and the soviets
I was thinking this. Mexico was (is) in a constant state of war after ita independence.
Maybe because of trying to stick to republicanism autistically. dunno.
Only reasonable answer so far.
But it leaves out a lot to be desired and kinda skimps on key info.
Georgia isnt Central Asia you actual moron. It’s in the caucuses
>It's not in central asia it's in central asia
>Georgia is a European country on the border of European and West Asia
Because it was long ago. Africa will be Latin America tier in some decades (it already is on the most stable countries)
East Asians Indians and Whites are moving and mixing with Africans. Africa will end up the new LatinAm or India. Literally new ethnic groups and cultures will end up forming.
>East Asians Indians and Whites are moving and mixing with Africans
Rare as frick. You'd have a better time finding shit like that in Europe and the new world in general.
All Mongoloids have higher IQs than Africans.
Not really, about half of asia is poorer than Namibia.
That doesnt mean a thing regarding IQ which is caused by biology not economics dumbass.
Only mentally moronic people cite iq as a cause of anything.
IQ is the cause of everything reduce european IQ and whiteyland would be a stone age wilderness FOREVER
Nah you don't understand what IQ means or how the fricking economy works at all. You think every person in Germany is a nuclear engineer?
you dont need a country of nuclear engineers to make Germany, just like you dont need literal morons to tank the Congo.
lower average IQ will lead to less organized societies and less efficient systems.
IQ has the strongest correlation with GDP/c than any other factor. It explains half the variance at the minimum.
What does that have to do with IQ? And despite this those countries are still oddly better off. And this doesn't change that the poorest countries are almost entirely african. If you cant proof go look up GDP per capita for all countries on the globe.
I don't think you want to know the answer to that
You saying all Black folk in their diverse genetics and ethnic and skin tones are the same?
Everything below North Africa is a mudhole full of neolithic-tier groups. Except at least the neolithic-tier groups in Mesoamerica managed to build something more complex than a mudhut and organized their social lives around more than just showering in cow shit.
>Everything below North Africa is a mudhole
Have you seen the average town and village in Nafariland that isn't their capital?
>Neolithic tier
aside from bushman/khoi and san and certain congolese/west african and frick even Horner in certain cases
Name a group specifically? Is Hausa stone age tier? Even Zulus in the loin cloth were far from that stage.
>Have you seen the average town and village in Nafariland that isn't their capital?
Yeah it's pretty comfy like pic related
>Have you seen the average town and village in Nafariland that isn't their capital?
Like this Kabyle village?
Cope more.
>literal spanish built villages
>On par with third world shanty towns
Woah, pic rel is a Ghanaian city, >inb4 they made by Whites.
>kabyle villages
>spanish built
Black iq in full display
Cope, clear spanard influence same dingy shanty towns you see in majority of Brown Hispanic lands it's architecture is clear colonized influence.
Why do people ignore Spanish or Moorish influence/colonization in both Morocco and Spain?
>it was built by whites
No it wasn't are you saying local Ghanaian weren't christians and wouldn't build the churches.
>you claiming you invented Christianity
It wouldn't be a thing if not for Africans same with Islam.
>living in mud houses
Monkey you would have been in the caves if it wasn't for us.
Spain was never in Kabylie you dumb Black.
How dumb can you be? Did you think it was in Morocco?
Are you implying Kabylie only live in Algeria you fricking future extinct race of demons?
Are you implying that Kabylie wasn't also in spain as well served there or the latin influence clearly present in pic rel and those other two pic, no way those are indigenous made villages and no way was it built earlier than 1900s
>It wouldn't be a thing if not for Africans same with Islam.
You're saying Christianity and Islam wouldn't exist with SSAs?
Take your meds.
It's fact Ethiopia was first Christian state and without them Islam wouldn't survive.
it was built by whites mutumbe or are you claiming you invented christianity? I chose a random “shitty” village in the mountains to show you what the lowest kind of place in north africa look like. Eveything you Black folk “built” came from north africans or europeans. You would still be living in mud houses if it weren’t for us
It was built by fricking whites
>Portuguese colonists built a trading fort in the area. In 1650, the Swedes built a lodge that would later become the better known Cape Coast Castle, which is now a World Heritage Site. Most of the modern town expanded around it. The Dutch took it over in 1650 and expanded it in 1652. It was then captured by the British in 1664.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Coast#History
>Post a fort/castle.
Bruh it's not even the same as pic rel, we talking about the churches and buildings.
The whole city is European
They've been there since 1650, that's why there are churches instead of straw huts
The Ghanaians built all that why ya like to lie cracker.
Spanish colonial towns are peak comfy
African tribal politics/clan system make Latin American corruption look like a joke.
No not really. The idea that Africa is "special" is some shit made by incompetence assailants and media companies who don't want to do the work. The shit you see in either continent has a counterpart equivalent in the other.
>Everything that isn't a mudhut in Africa was built by Arabs.
lmao Arabs don't even try to claim that. The only ones who do so are the whites and some browns who can't accept that Africa doesn't 1:1 fit their lame image of it and thus cope like what you are doing.
>Mesoamerica wasn't much more technologically advanced than Africa
They didn't even have iron. Africa jumped from Bronze to it pretty quickly
ITT: whitey BTFO
latinos are mixed with whites
it's that simple bro
>Bermuda or Aruba are high gdp and nonwhite.
Bermuda's GDP is due to being a tax haven. And there's a lot of whites, Indians and mulattoes there.
>the ammount of iq pseudoscience cope ITT
Wew lad
Latin America became independent 150 years before most of Africa, so they had a faster head start at industrialization.
Latin America has fewer landlocked countries. Africa's countries across the Western and Central Sahel and Central Africa are landlocked.
Latin America doesn't have entire countries that are mostly desert like Africa has across the Sahel.
14 West and Central African countries have their currencies and reserves controlled by France, it's called the CFA Franc.
Why do you believe that these factors are the best explanation for Africa being poor?
>Latin America became independent 150 years before most of Africa, so they had a faster head start at industrialization.
90% of Africa remained under colonial rule for no more than 80 years
Latin America remained for centuries
>14 West and Central African countries have their currencies and reserves controlled by France, it's called the CFA Franc.
Gabon uses the CFA Franc and yet it's the third most developed black African country
Find a better scapegoat
>Latin America became independent 150 years before most of Africa, so they had a faster head start at industrialization.
Africa was independent until the 1880s.
They could have industrialized but they chose to live naked in huts instead...
Industrialization was an anomaly in all of human history.
It's because they built their economy on exporting slaves to Europeans. Agriculture, governance, innovation not related to war was useless to them. Africans were kind of like the Saudis, and they collapsed on their own when the west stopped importing slaves. Europeans just came and took everything from the collapsed empires. Some degree of that existed in LaTam, but much less.
Bring all the smelly hairy Italian women to Puerto Rico right now.
Let me assure to you that we arent that far from africa actually
I live in Buenos Aires, Argentina and I can tell you that there are lots of white people here—i am white myself. Point is, the country is still as shit and as corrupt as ever
>I live in Buenos Aires, Argentina and I can tell you that there are lots of white people here
That joke is gonna get old eventually, Fernando.
>Africa
Rightful French clay
The only thing France steals from Africa is Black folk
read about monetary policy and return to thread later
Not everyone is a brainlet like you who falls for shitty african conspiracy theories.
I remember one pic you posted on /misc/ claiming that France had assassinated 22 African presidents.
I looked up the list and it turned out only 2 of them were somehow related to France.
I'll never believe your dumb revisionist Wakanda bullshit, I'm not a 80 IQ african american.
I literally just have to look at photographs and testimonies about 19th century Africa to know that colonialism isn't the reason why Africa is poor and backward.
>all that projection
they live in your head rent free
See
>noooo tell me Africa is just like that famine relief ad from 1983 and screencaps of anonymous imageboards and blogs
>nooooo tell me Apefrica is like heckin Wakanda in my israeli movies!
Hahaha epikly meme'd sir have an upboat
Aren’t countries like Namibia and Botswana actually improving over the past decade?
India is better than these two losers
I'd rather be an African bushman or a drug mule in Sonora than bathe in the Ganges river of corpses. Go shit on a dying beggar.
Latin Americans don't even have their own language anymore, they speak spanish, they can't have the confidence to survive when their identity is Hispanic and span.
African is way too warlike.
India is superior. Strong identity, knows english. Produces CEOs top companies.
>Latin Americans don't even have their own language anymore, they speak spanish
You just contradicted yourself in one sentence you moronic pavement ape. God, why are Black folk so low IQ? Why can't you go one day without exhibiting your subhumanity?
He's not even African why you so defending hispanics who commit more violence than african orcs.
I'm not entirely sure the most violent african states are functional enough to collect much data of violence within their countries.
The DRC might have on the surface less of a crime rate than brazil but you ill honestlñy never actually know.
Notice how in south africa, which has actual data collection does have very high crime rates.
>you ill honestlñy never actually know
We have estimates for that which are honestly pretty decent at what they do.
>Notice how in south africa, which has actual data collection does have very high crime rates.
Anon it's because it's heavily urbanized and has a similar urban development history as Brazil. Of course it would have crime rates that high.
Most of these in the Americas the violence is committed by African descendants. USA and Brazil especially. Probably the Caribbean coast in South America. Mexico is the exception, but that's because of cartel violence.
I would rather a Bushman than a Nigerian tho, they next to Zoomalians are Black folk of Africa.
India is only "relevant" because they have a huge population. Indian per capita stats are shit.
India receives more aid than any African country.
Well, for one, I can eat 3 times a day and have functional electricity and clean water unlike most subsaharans, I also don't have to shit on the streets and be a shitskin beggar like this coping poo
This
>Eastern Burma
>Western Bolivia
>Western Afghanistan
>Southern Venezuela
>Laos
>Central Tanzania
WTF
>Eastern Burma
Civil War and ethnic cleansing
>Western Bolivia
Widespread poverty, and the Andes making development difficult
>Western Afghanistan
Famine, Taliban, and corruption
>Southern Venezuela
Goverment nonexistent, region is run by organized crime, Colombian guerrillas and Russian/chinese/turkish mercenaries
>Laos
A million unexploted vietnam bombs everyone
>Central Tanzania
Poverty, Corruption and isolation
How insane is crossing the border between Bolivia and Chile?
It's a desert. Cities are in the coast.
The world was better off without the demons called agriculture and civilization
this afro saxon guy is either a moronic Black person or a troll
Everyone is good at something. Africans are good at running and physical fighting. Their muscles are like springs. They are better at sex.
>everyone is good at something
Uh no it doesnt work like that at all.
>Africans are good at running
Yes
>and physical fighting
lol no
>They are better at sex.
Never fricked one so dunno
I'll trust your opinion on that, you sound like an expert
That's it homosexual I'm calling the north vegas police asking for your troony tard wrangler
Latins imperialized the land while the Africans were largely imperialized upon. Africa exploded with population outside cities while Latins exploded inside them
Left one belongs to Amerindians.
Right one belongs to Africans.
Time to get replaced, eurangutan.
What if hypothetically Africa had a biologically originated lower IQ, so what?
pretend that is hypothetically true
what then? what should africans do what should westerners do?
Monarchism or aristocracy.
Maybe democracy can only work well in some societies.
most tribals are democratic, electing a chief from the best among them which is often the most popular among them, the degree to which they understand eachother allows them to make acute and accurate estimations who human quality.
city states are republican, choosing a leader from a body of great families, known individuals who's household is an example of their ability to organize and lead.
nations, led properly, are lead by kings, a colossal task demanding a colossal figure.
The Dutch went from a democracy to a republic to a monarchy.
Democracy is ineffective above the Tribal Level.
Republicanism is ineffective above the regional level.
Monarchy is effective at a national level, and a nation of millions (which is what africa has) demands a monarch.
Americans and shitlibs can seethe all they want.
liberalism is garbage and trying to turn africa into Seattle will only make everyone worse off, especially the africans.
Most of the nicer parts of Africa are under republican rule.
>most tribals are democratic
Not the same. A tribe is a much lower scale than a whole country.
Maybe a confederation(like switzerland), with municipalities having very high autonomy would work. These municipalities or counties would pay a reasonable flat tax in exchange of basic public services and infrastructure maintained by a central government.
Some latinos have souls. Probably most.
Latin America is all semi-settler colonies, and the natives were largely integrated into Spanish/Portuguese culture. Latin Americans descend far more from Europeans than Indians/Africans
Africa was exploitation colonies. Settlers never even got close to being majority of the population. Closest was the cape colony.
Really the question is why is Latin America not as rich as Northern America and Australia. Especially the countries with few natives, like Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil.
Brazil is doing ok economically. I don't know people focus more on India than Brazil as an rising power.
no Black person tier IQ, instead it was raised by colonization
Mediterranean bvll colonizers vs anglo-g*rmanic barbarian colonizers
I would much rather visit Africa than basically any region of Latin America. The way things are going, it seems like Latin America is already visiting me!
I rather neither since I have both where I live and it's disgusting.
We are not moronic, just very very corrupt lol
>t. Colombian
When you see that Venezuela, the country with worst hunger problem than whole of latam isnt red, that puts in perspective how shit africa is
Man, not even Haiti is red or orange.