Did only former colonies that were not ruled by "whites" become developing countries?

We get it, non-whites are incompetent, only whites know how to run a country properly. Just be open and say that if that's what you believe.
Canada and Australia the whites killed all the native and settled there with their money. India and Africa, the whites controlled all the natives and settled there with their money. Obviously only India and Africa then had natives to rise up and kick them out leading to years of political turmoil. This is not rocket science. Look at Eastern Europe if you don't believe it isn't just a non-white thing, used to be a land of many powerful empires, got beaten around by Germans and Russians, eventually got absorbed by the Russians in the guise of the Soviets, ruled them for years, they got kicked out one day and Eastern Europe has been kinda crap ever since.

Thanks, i wasn't saying non whites are incompetent I think Chukka Ummuna for example is a good politician even though I am right wing and he is from the labour party, very well spoken can debate well. It just seems even though some african leaders have had western educations they still make bad decisions and corruption is still rife in their country and they still steal from the country and turn a blind eye to corruption. One commentator said in response to comment on the Daily Nation website that African leaders have looted as much if not more than the imperial powers did since independence of these countries. I am of Asian background myself (parents both East African Asian) an I know that India is very corrupt place unfortunately, you have to bribe officials just to get a building permit and they accept that for whatever reason.

Japan and South America did quite well.
When India was gaining independence, most south american countries had been free for 100+ years.
Argentina was richer than most of europe in the 50s and 60s.

Eastern Europe and South America would have the same level of wealth where it not for EU aid(50x more than what aid to african countries) to eastern Europe

Italy became a nation state 200+ years ago and still far more corrupt and poor than 60 year old Australia and Canada

Italy became a nation state 200+ years ago and still far more corrupt and poor than 60 year old Australia and Canada

Japan was never colonized.
Everywhere was richer than Europe in the 50s because it had been bombed to **** in the 40s.

Of course

Canada and Australia are Northern European master race

Italy is Catholic and Southern and thus incompetent (like the Irish)

/Sarcasm

(This is what people used to think)

Canada is actually mostly catholic, settled by Scottish catholics and Australian is mainly irish

I have actually learned something

ty

( probably does explain why Australians are so much better looking than the British)

Italy became a nation state 200+ years ago and still far more corrupt and poor than 60 year old Australia and Canada

er...because they were/are white, the British gave them a helping hand. This is why they got independence early in 1931.

Did only former colonies that were not ruled by "whites" become developing countries? For example were the reason Canada and Australia didn't become developing countries like many other ex colonies because so many white people moved their and the colonists still controlled government and the native americans and aborigines had much less say in government after independence (I know Australia is not a republic and the queen is still head of state but I think the Australian parliament make all the decisions etc) whereas in the African colonies and India Pakistan these counties become more corrupt and become "developing" since the native people took over? Sorry if this sounds bad but it may be a way of how some see the situation whether right or wrong I want to find out.