The field of history is currently subject to a massive politically motivated drive to blame the underachievement of BIPOCs on slavery, jim crow, colonialism et cetera.. thereby justifying DEI and open border migration. But what is the actual history?The majority of wealth today is due to modern technology and industry, South Korea developed their economy in ~25 years for example, aren't the effects of colonialism 50 years after decolonization basically negligible at this point? And what were the effects exactly? Most African governments collapsed after gaining independence, falling to tyrants like Mugabe and Mobutu Sese Seko who oversaw massive corruption and economic stagnation far worse than under colonial rule, which some claim "deindustrialized" their country.Reading about what happened one can't help but arrive at a logical conclusion a place like reddit would find extremely offensive, namely that most of these countries should have remained under the wing of colonial powers until the end of the cold war when the security situation stabilized. In the postwar era Europe was democratic and every other country electing socialists, it seems unlikely the colonial regime would have been worse than the homegrown tyrants that replaced it. At the very least it is debatable if colonialism really made much difference.None of this matters to an ideologue of course, it's all words words words, but at least here on /his/ we can have an actual discussion about this important recurring topic and lay down the facts and good arguments, then, maybe, once the dust has settled, the truth will prevail.
post-colonial tyranny is itself more often than not a reflection of the colonial society Europeans built, often with Africans taking over the top positions. It's very rare for it to have any continuity with pre-colonial Africa.Mobutu was a military dictator with roots in the Force Publique, for instance.I doubt postwar governments would've carried out the reforms needed to fix that situation given more time, they weren't exactly on track to beforehand.
>>18705158I can’t find a source of him saying that quote
>>18705158>South Korea developed their economy in ~25 years for example, aren't the effects of colonialism 50 years after decolonization basically negligible at this point?They are, and if you have been paying attention, many African countries are currently going through a similar economic growths as Korea did in the '90s. Half of the fastest growing economies last year were in Subsaharan Africa.
This *might* be a good thread.
>>18705225Pfff lol
>>18705158>But what is the actual history?From what I understand the only thing that really dictates how "well" a society, people, country, etc.. Comes out the other end of colonialism is whether or not they were tribals or peasants. Tribal peoples lack the cultural legacy of institution and complex societal hierarchies to really truly function within a modern society. Tribal people are remarkably *autonomous, they consciously do everything themselves because they have to and thus **delegate very little to others or society beyond their fathers & grandfathers who dictate land disputes, and the shamans who handle the supernatural matters.*A Tribal person often comes off as impulsive and completely fucking stupid, but within the context of their own lives they're quite intelligent: they know how to maintain and make all their tools, they can cloth themselves, frequently possess an encyclopedic (baring on almost academic level) knowledge of plants and animals, and can speak multiple languages. **There is some delegation within tribal communities, but it's very minimalistic: women are typically expected to farm and do housework, someone might be a designated shaman, but otherwise most everyone possess the same tool kit of skills, knowledge, etc.. Leaving very little opportunity for specialization, reeducation opportunities, and a general confusion surrounding "experts".Peasants meanwhile are already primed on most of the trappings of modern society: they pay taxes and use currency, they have trades, they own private property, they're vaguely aware of some kind of "government", there's public & private institutions like churches, schools, inns, pubs, bath houses, and they understand the relevancy of infrastructure. For peasants colonialism was often just a change in governance (for better or for worse): not insignificant, but not the total existential shift it was with tribals.
>>18705225Ok, India has the third largest "economy" in the world. Wanna be born there or japan? Shut the fuck up with the ready made nig-cope metrics and indices please, people are hipped to that shit.
>>18705225>Half of the fastest growing economies last year were in Subsaharan Africa.Statistics like these are incredibly deceptive. If I go from 1 to 4, I've literally quadrupled the original number, but going from 12 to 15 is a more marginal increase despite the fact both numbers have increased by +3. Growth is always explosive at a lower end of development.
>>18705158>most of these countries should have remained under the wing of colonial powers until the end of the cold warIf the goal was to turn them into modern countries and then keep them that way then you'd need to maintain the colonialism and minority White rule effectively indefinitely. Just look at what happened to South Africa and Rhodesia/Zimbabwe.
>>18705286Is Botswana not a counter-example?
>>18705225This doesn't mean much when you consider Advantage of Backwardness. It's easier to make large improvements with your economy when you are starting from the rock bottom rather than when you are already at the top of advanced economies like Germany or Norway.
