Was rapid, post-WW2 decolonization in Africa, Arabia and Asia

Ever since racial theory was thrown out of the window it became hard to make a good point for people staying under the rule of some foreigner group.

It would just keep on hogging resources while the population would be as unwilling as ever.

>>8235
I read a book on the African decolonisation processes a few months ago. It really did seem that it was just the Africans' anger at the idea of a slow orderly withdrawal which fucked them in the end and left them in the hands of corrupt dictators in artificial countries.

>>8235
Why dont we ask rhodesia?

>>8235
Not like the Europeans had much of a choice. They were exhausted and lacked the wherewithal to combat native insurgencies.

>>8777
That's bullshit for Portugal though. Portugal was in complete control of its colonies, and was just pressured to make them independent in 1974.

>>8235
I believe so in the case of Portugal.

>>8235
>Was rapid, post-WW2 decolonization in Africa, Arabia and Asia a mistake?

It was a mistake, but both sides were complicit - you would never have been able to convince any liberation movement to wait more than a few years. They'd just assume the European nation in question was buying time until they had recovered sufficiently to put down any insurgency

Took a class on Post-Independence Africa from the Poli Sci department at my old university and the professor's conclusion at the end of the course was that Africa is messed up today not because of colonial powers thrusting Western structures on top of native ones, but colonial powers not eradicating the native structures efficiently enough.

Thought it was amusing to find that in a modern college

>>8235
south africa is way wealthier now than it was then

>>10793
i can see that being somewhat true though

>>9337
>That's bullshit for Portugal though. Portugal was in complete control of its colonies, and was just pressured to make them independent in 1974.

Exception to the rule. That's why it took so long, anyway.

>>10793
You literally just found a unicorn. Faith in humanity slightly restored, anon.

File: image.jpg (393KB, 576x627px) Image search: [Google]

393KB, 576x627px

>>10826
Define "then". SA under the whites was on its way to becoming a nuclear power, now it's becoming just another African shithole. Rhodesia was the breadbasket of Africa, while Zimbabwe is one of the largest importers. The only place that has in any way done OK after independence from white/European rule is somehow Botswana
>pic related

>>11177
how the fuck the madagascar fuck up so much

>>8235
It created power vacuums that were filled by largely irrational, violent thugs who were often backed by communists with their own motives.
Don't get me wrong, Africa NEEDS violence like a baby needs breast feeding. But that violence needs to be rational, ordered, repercussive and sometimes proactive. Its fairly obvious that the native blacks are not capable of using violence in such a constructive manner, it quickly becomes chaotic. Its also fairly clear that Western style democracies are not suitable for Africa either, just look at South Africa post white rule.

In short, Africa will always be a violent and chaotic place, if you want any sense of normality there its going to have to be under ordered white rule.

>>9469
This. The situation was already pretty messed up. There was never going to be a clean way to break away.

>>8725
Name of book?

>>11177
Spouting inconvenient facts is racist, please leave.

>>9337
>Portugal was in complete control of its colonies, and was just pressured to make them independent in 1974.

Where the fuck do you get your info? Portugal was bogged down with massive counterinsurgency fights in Angola and Mozambique, it was basically their version of Vietnam. The 1974 coup was a result of exhaustion with fighting colonial resistance movements.

>Before April 1974, the war in Africa was consuming as much as 40% of the Portuguese budget and there was no end in sight.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnation_Revolution#Decolonisation

>>11177

and one in three Botswanans you meet will have that sweet, sweet AIDS

>>8235
Clearly it was a huge mistake considering how fucked up Africa is now.

>>11598
>Portugal was bogged down with massive counterinsurgency fights in Angola and Mozambique, it was basically their version of Vietnam
The situation was under control before the Carnation Revolution.
>The 1974 coup was a result of exhaustion with fighting colonial resistance movements.
Uh no, it was the result of policies made by the regime which decredited military people with good training.
>Before April 1974, the war in Africa was consuming as much as 40% of the Portuguese budget and there was no end in sight.
That wasn't a bad thing, you know. The end wasn't in sight only because the rebels kept fleeing to the protectorades where the portuguese couldn't go (if they had gone to the english colonies it would've been a different story).

>>11598
>Where the fuck do you get your info?
Oh and I'm portuguese btw. This is all official information I'm giving you btw. The military themselves have sai so multiple times, including former officials stating that "it wasn't worth it".

>>11637
I'm sure it's because we're oppressing them more now than we did when we literally colonised them

Yes, that would be better.
But Hitler ruined it for everyone.

>Was rapid, post-WW2 decolonization in Africa, Arabia and Asia a mistake?

Depends what you mean by a mistake
Was it a calculated plan by the leftist progressives to harm the west?
Very much so

A country is made by its people. There've been poor as shit countries in East and Southeast Asia just 50 years ago who're now doing okay or well for itself.

>>11869
This.
Notice how the left at the same time didn't care about communist governments controlling the new nations/leaders from behind the scenes.

>>11637
Africa is really not THAT fucked up
The problems came not with de-colonialization
But with the fact that the west was run by leftists/communists who wanted to see western educated communists in power.
And any whites left in africa genocided/run out.

>>11177

>becoming nuclear power
>puppet colony

Yeah, sure.

>>11345

>who were often backed by communists with their own motives.

Or Western capitalists for their own motives.

See: CIA involvement in the construction of Zaire and their support of Mobutu.

Basically the flaws were:

1) Western systems of government and society had not been ingrained enough into native African populaces for them to be completely compatible with the post-colonial African cultures and social standards.

2) Of course this depends on the country, but in many cases decolonisation happened far too quickly and without enough moderation in the changeover. The power to rule, in many cases, would go immediately go from colonial governors and offices to radical, extremist revolutionary factions that were far from ideal for nurturing a new country. There were native Africans who would have made good leaders in the immediate post-colonial era, like Patrice Lumumba for Congo-Leopoldville, but they were deposed quickly or denied powers by the irrational, violent, power-hungry thugs you are talking about. When the power vacuum appeared, these thugs are the ones who, in most cases, entered the void. Many leader who started out good, like Jomo Kenyatta and Kwame Nkrumah, were corrupted by power fairly quickly.

3) The whole issue of tribalism and nationalist sentiments, coupled with the way in which the European powers had not established new countries based around any kind of national unity of the people in certain regions, but rather based on their own colonial administrative zones. This wasn't always that terrible, for example Namibia and Botswana are made up of several different ethnic groups but managed to avoid ethnic or tribal violence. It's just a case of the heating up of ethnic conflicts fuelled by the spreading of arms and ideology around Africa, which leads us to:

tbc.

>>11345
>>12353

4) The fact all this was occurring during the Cold War. The USSR constantly backed and supported Marxist revolutionary or political groups, but fairly violent and pro-Soviet ones, leading to aggressive, totalitarian Marxist-Leninist dictatorships. The United States and the West, while they were perhaps less forceful and direct about it, would also prop up states that were expressly pro-US and anti-USSR, in order to 'push back communism'. The same thing happened in Southeast Asia and Central and South America. Most crises or conflicts that happened in Africa between 1945 and 1991 would have one side backed, funded and supplied by the USSR, and the other by the United States.

5) In the modern era (ie 1991 - present), both the actions of global corporations as well as those of militant Islam have had negative effects on the continent. In fact, religious fundamentalism in general is something which fuels a lot of violence and terror, not just Islamic fundamentalism. For example, in Eritrea, which is a majority Christian country, female genital mutilation is prevalent in 99% of Sunni Muslim women, but also 89% of Christian women. And while Eritrea and neighbouring Ethiopia have an Orthodox tradition dating back to the 7th century, much of the rest of Christian sub-Saharan Africa has actually been converted from native Animist religions in the post-colonial era. Take, for example, fundamentalist Christianity in Uganda and Nigeria. Both of these developed thanks to African and non-African churches and missionaries, rather than colonial preachers converting the natives in the 1890s.

>>8725
Not exactly
These colonies were military dictatorships already just under a Governor General - whereas Canada etc were allowed parliaments and so on
Now add that on top of tribalism and never letting them develop more and you get why Nigeria with all its oil is so shit - capital is more expensive than London but shit infrastructure as rulers see themselves as tribal leaders who own the oil and anything they give to the people is a favour
And then add how they are corrupted by the west who secretly encourages them to spend all that money in the west - Switzerland and London and New York

>>12175
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

>>12989

>but shit infrastructure as rulers see themselves as tribal leaders who own the oil and anything they give to the people is a favour


This. Just look at Gabon

>>11177
In the case of Botswana, it is a combination of being relatively ethnically homogeneous and not having ever been ruled by a Marxist.
Having that they literally just pull wealth out of the Earth