What kind of historic variables could explain Australia's

>>3380722
The first and most integral element to understanding in these kinds of discussions is for you to not be completely retarded.

Capitalism and common law.

>fewer, less aggressive natives
>more focus on colonisation compared to the african snatch and grab
>little to no competition on the continent from other colonial powers

just a few ideas of maybe why

File: Ethiopia_Italia_war-2.jpg (1MB, 1379x2237px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1379x2237px

>>3380722
Right, you guessed it, it's because the Aboriginal population in Australia was extremely sparse and primitive allowing the Europeans to painlessly subdue and replace them while uppity Africans thwarted colonization efforts in their continent at every turn.

>>3380732
Just say the truth and we will be done here.

File: 1500800419292.jpg (25KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 400x400px

>>3380765

Settler colonies are better than exploration colonies. Everyone with an IQ above room temperature knows this.

How does a 15 point average IQ difference between white and black people result in the ridiculously huge gulf when it comes to achievement between Africa and Europe? It doesn't seem like enough to me.

>>3380722
>australia's success as an empire
>both land masses are similar

Been knocking a few ones back tonight?

>>3380722
also, note that Australian natural flora sucks at being agricultural viable, relative to wheat, rice and other grains. Hunting and gathering was sufficient enough to live off for a very long time.

Therefore the aboriginal population wasn't as connected in the western since, making it easier to take over when Europeans finally came.

nothing to do with aboriginals being less developed, rather they didn't need to. Life seemed cozy

>>3380752
ur right habibi

>>3380804
It's more like 10 points after corrections, but even conceding the 15 points gap there are plenty of non-African countries around that level that achieved more either now or in the past.

>>3380804
Those are african americans

But really just chalk it up to the sahara and all the native deadly diseases and critters. Colonialism explanation is "we wuz" tier

File: 1504620340118.png (202KB, 2714x1254px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 2714x1254px

>>3380779
This desu

>>>/pol/

>>3380752
nah, they were pretty agressive mate they tried to kill the brit invaders with spears and shit

>>3381368
Is that HDI?

>>3381377
its the spanish portugese french and british empire and their colonies

>>3381368
>>3380779
And how is it that african "exploration" countries are way, way worst than the american ones? I would ask if iberians are superior in that regard, but it seems that portuguese africa is awful as well (the small spanish colonial empire in Africa is all kinda okay tho).

>>3381409
Meant the colours of the respective colonies, dummy

File: Gdp_per_capita_ppp_world_map.png (40KB, 1788x881px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 1788x881px

>>3380779
How do you explain the settler colonies of South and Central American being so dismal, while the exploitation colonies of Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Taiwan are doing quite well in comparison?

There's basically three things that've made Australia rich.

>1. English speaking
This one's pretty simple. Speaking the language of global business means that Australia is a top destination for university students.

>2. Too dry to support a large population...
With a small population on a large land mass, you have lots more minerals per capita to exploit. Australia isn't actually all that resource rich, but compared to Europe, the resources are shared between a single country, a lot less people, and haven't been touched since civilisation began.

>3. ...But wet enough to be sparsely vegetated
There are huge tracts of land that can't support towns or cities, but they can support grazing animals and cropping grain over large areas. These areas can't produce nearly as much as Europe or America, but because the area is sparsely inhabited anyway, much of that produce can be directly exported.

Those are the three main exports of Australia. If you consider the English language as a sort of "agriculture of society" then all three are primary industries. Our exports have no added value component, require no manufacturing, basically nothing that really requires a skilled, intelligent, or competitive workforce by global standards.

But that won't stop politicians from patting themselves on their backs, as if this practically inevitable success was in any way the result of their work. Hopefully they'll all be swinging when this house of cards comes crashing down.

>>3380732
fpbp

>>3381729
Incas were superior to europeans though.

>>3381653
>Exploitation colonies of Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan

File: DQvsgLVVwM7-GlXKs1ixA4OFXIJ5kB7lLCiR8b6Lq4I.jpg (93KB, 1024x559px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 1024x559px

>>3381377
Yes, it's HDI by former colonial master.
UN categories are as follows...

Blue = Very High Development
Green = High Development
Yellow = Medium Development
Red = Low Development

>>3381653
>How do you explain the settler colonies of South and Central American being so dismal
There were no settler colonies in Central America, those were explotation/plantation colonies.

The only Spanish "settler colonies" (Argentina, Uruguay, to a lesser extent Chile) became so after independence, and they are the three most developed Spanish-speaking former colonies.

Also, Hong Kong and Singapore were commercial city-states, not plantation colonies. Taiwan is a different case altogether, it wasn't a Western colony but considered part of Mainland China.

ANGLO

>>3381375
A lot were cooperative or neutral

>>3381420
He means exploitation colonies.

>>3381653
Singapore and Hong Kong are city-states based on trade.

Taiwan was part of Mainland China

Malaysia was more "developed" because it necessitated that but had common traits with other exploit ion colonies as well as migrants being brought in as middle men.

>>3382104
Taiwan was a Japanese colony.

File: TWQaB.jpg (31KB, 516x452px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 516x452px

>>3382529
>correlation

>>3380722
>Australia
>Empire
PNG (former), Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Christmas Island
Pretty fucken sick empire ay ya fucken dumbcunt coalburning autist

>>3380722

>Australia's success as an empire

Australia is not an empire, nor has it ever been.

>>3381375
Their totally disorganized structure sort of meant that was just a bit of a nuisance, and you could easily ply them with piss and ciggies to fuck off

>>3383839
this. things would've been different if the aboriginals could've raised Zulu tier armies.