All memes aside, what would Africa look like had it maintained

>>2948829
Better question would be what would it look like if the Arabs hadn't introduced slavery to the Europeans or what would it look like if the Arabs never enslaved them at all.

File: wrong.jpg (37KB, 716x461px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 716x461px

>>2948829
>Let's not pretend that colonization didn't stunt growth, because it absolutely did.

This has been debunked so many times you should be shot for typing that.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w18162

"In this paper, we construct a new database on the European share of the population during colonization and examine its association with the level of economic development today. We find: (1) a strong and uniformly positive relationship between colonial European settlement and development, (2) a stronger relationship between colonial European settlement and economic development today than between development today and the proportion of the population of European descent today; and (3) no evidence that the positive relationship between colonial European settlement and economic development diminishes or becomes negative at very low levels of colonial European settlement, contradicting a large literature that focuses on the enduring adverse effects of small European settlements creating extractive institutions. The most plausible explanation of our findings is that any adverse effect of extractive institutions associated with minority European settlement was more than offset by other things the European settlers brought with them, such as human capital and technology."

Pretty much like Indonesia/Papua New Guinea. Lots of natural tribal relations, but little development because of climate and geography. The best the continent could hope for would be for large states like Nigeria, Ethiopia, and South Africa to reach the level of middle income countries like Mexico. They would never have the income to become "Western" welfare states, though.

File: 1496710056465.jpg (143KB, 1050x590px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1050x590px

>>2948850
>pseudoscience
>economists

No thanks folks!

>>2948829
>Let's not pretend that colonization didn't stunt growth, because it absolutely did.

Actually no evidence for this.

t. econometrist

>>2948857
Indonesia and Papua new Guinea are both colonised and have different outcomes so thats clearly not the case

>>2948834
So basically Arabs are responsible for ruining Africa.

>>2950507
Everyone but Africans are ruining Africa

>>2948829
They would still be engaging in their vibrant culture, like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tRzM2tZFng

>>2948861
Economists always ignore a fuck ton of things when they do their studies like society, culture, history, politician intuitions like in >>2948850 because they can't look at the other factors.

>>2950604
What other factors?

>>2950604
>this field is capable of doing only a partial analysis
>therefore its analysis is worthless
I'm not sure the humanities are for you, dude.

>>2950604
>Humanities always ignore a fuck ton of things when they do their studies like society, culture, history, politician intuitions because they can't look at the other factors
Fixed that shit for you. Humanities were a fucking mistake.

>>2950747
Because it's a flawed analysis that complete ignores KEY parts of those colonies history like polices.

>>2950604
bullshit, you came up with a victim narrative with low standards of evidence and were BTFO and now you demand meticulous standards of evidence.

The funny thing is you are basically right. The colonialists were tyrants who saw nothing wrong with exploiting people, the "civilizing mission" was propaganda, it is true. However when faced with the fact they brought new technology, they ousted or pacified previous tyrannical rulers who were no less if not more oppressive, some missionaries actually did risk their lives to bring smallpox vaccines to help the natives and such and were good people even by your excessive standards and after the disruption of their first arrival they often achieved lasting stability, you flip your shit. You hate it. You literally see facts and logic you don't like and throw a bitch hissy fit and start shitting yourself in rage, flipping the table. You don't give a shit about what actually happened. No, everything must be 100% bad about it. It was all devilry waah waah.

kys

>>2950862
>you flip your shit. You hate it. You literally see facts and logic you don't like and throw a bitch hissy fit and start shitting yourself in rage, flipping the table. You don't give a shit about what actually happened. No, everything must be 100% bad about it. It was all devilry waah waah.
You just described 90% of all humanities fields, professors and students.

>>2948829
Weren't the Bantu's going down the line genociding everyone in their wake right before Euros showed up?

>>2950951
Can you point a moment in time in Sub-Saharan Africa when tgere wasn't a couple of genocides going on?

>>2950590
How closely are the Dinka related to West Africans

>>2950590
>implying those fucking dinkas represent us

t. african who doesn't suck cow snatch

>>2948829
This thread is one massive subtle dindu and the blame game. The answer OP is Africa would be much better off. Africa (with the exception of North and East Africa) has always lagged behind the rest of the world but before colonisation Africa (Central, West and South) had entered it's own iron age and had kingdoms similar to medieval Europe. Africa would've been better off if they had been left to develop on their own. Many will argue that the Europeans bought medicine and technology with colonisation but none of that was done out of benefit for Africans but for themselves, the native population was denied an education and were slaves even after slavery ended and the Europeans then left as quickly as they came and expected a bunch poorly educated idiots to survive the power vacuum left by their departure as well as run the bloody place. Theres a reason modern anthropologists leave un-contacted tribes in the Amazon alone.

File: 1477192563581.jpg (124KB, 882x731px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 882x731px

The true question is, why are there extremely red-assed white socialists and liberals who hate their own race and constantly bitch and whine about whites winning for a few centuries?

Do they not understand their little PoC pets don't like them and don't have the same conception of universal 'Humanity' as them?

File: 1486955947522.jpg (24KB, 208x199px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 208x199px

>>2948850

>A recent paper by Easterly and Levine (2013) presents OLS regressions where the proportion of the population of European descent in former colonies in the colonial period is positively correlated with income per capita in 2005.
When they include measures of human capital or institutions along with European settlement, the former two are significant while the latter is not, suggesting that both may be channels via which European settlement is working.
But the measures of the proportion of the population of European descent are averages taken centuries after colonization (for example 1700-1750 for Jamaica or 1551-1807 for El Salvador) and are outcomes of the incentives
and opportunities to colonize which depended on institutions amongst other things potentially influencing GDP today. In addition, their OLS regressions suffer from the same endogeneity and differential measurement error
concerns discussed above.

>>2951956
(INSTITUTIONS, HUMAN CAPITAL AND DEVELOPMENT, Acemoglu, Gallego, & Robinson, Working Paper 19933)