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

hsv
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
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.
1
reply
Huskaris
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#2
Report 5 years ago
#2
There's a lot more truth in what you said than people will grant you in the tirade of abuse you will receive for saying that.
5
reply
WGR
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#3
Report 5 years ago
#3
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.
3
reply
hsv
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#4
(Original post by WGR)
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.
0
reply
carlisomes
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#5
Report 5 years ago
#5
er...because they were/are white, the British gave them a helping hand. This is why they got independence early in 1931.
0
reply
James222
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#6
Report 5 years ago
#6
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
0
reply
WGR
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#7
Report 5 years ago
#7
(Original post by hsv)
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.
No loyalty to their country because their country is an artificial construct by white colonial leaders. If the president is from one tribe he isn't going to give a crap about the other tribe in his country and robs them as a result. Also, a lot of them were Western puppets, crappy dictators propped up simply because they were anti-Soviet. You're right they aren't idiots because a lot of them have Western educations I believe the issue is that they just don't care about their countries.
0
reply
James222
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#8
Report 5 years ago
#8
Italy became a nation state 200+ years ago and still far more corrupt and poor than 60 year old Australia and Canada
0
reply
WGR
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#9
Report 5 years ago
#9
(Original post by James222)
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
Japan was never colonized.
Everywhere was richer than Europe in the 50s because it had been bombed to **** in the 40s.
0
reply
WGR
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#10
Report 5 years ago
#10
(Original post by James222)
Italy became a nation state 200+ years ago and still far more corrupt and poor than 60 year old Australia and Canada
Probably because of wacky Mediterranean politics since their monarchies lost power. Spain and Greece has the same problem.
0
reply
yo radical one
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#11
Report 5 years ago
#11
(Original post by James222)
Italy became a nation state 200+ years ago and still far more corrupt and poor than 60 year old Australia and Canada
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)
0
reply
James222
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#12
Report 5 years ago
#12
(Original post by WGR)
Japan was never colonized.
Everywhere was richer than Europe in the 50s because it had been bombed to **** in the 40s.
Whos fault is that ? Just like africa has civil wars so does europe
I thought the question was rich non white countries
0
reply
James222
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#13
Report 5 years ago
#13
(Original post by yo radical one)
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
1
reply
yo radical one
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#14
Report 5 years ago
#14
(Original post by James222)
Canada is actually mostly catholic, settled by Scottish catholics and Australian is mainly irish
I have actually learned something

ty

(:curious: probably does explain why Australians are so much better looking than the British)
0
reply
Dr Alcoholic
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#15
Report 5 years ago
#15
Would that be because the white people in these countries are the colonists?
0
reply
James222
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#16
Report 5 years ago
#16
(Original post by yo radical one)
I have actually learned something

ty

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

its why the monarchy is such a divisive issue in Australia. One of the biggest reasons the US revolution was a success was the British had such a hard time getting the support of the Irish American community , whilst they could get 40-45% public behind them in other communities . Fact they loss such the large irish community meant total military victory would have been the only way to win.
0
reply
imtelling
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#17
Report 5 years ago
#17
Development is a consequence of technology. The reason why countries with majority ethnic European populations (white people) are more developed is because white people invented virtually everything that makes up the modern world.

The technology was transferred to the colonies and the primitives were literally handed the modern world on a plate. When Europeans withdrew people who had been wearing loin cloths just years before were now in charge of a modern infrastructure.

Of course it was going to be a failure. And it will continue to be a failure.
1
reply
carlisomes
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#18
Report 5 years ago
#18
(Original post by James222)
Italy became a nation state 200+ years ago and still far more corrupt and poor than 60 year old Australia and Canada
er...because of culture?
0
reply
Chi019
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#19
Report 5 years ago
#19
(Original post by carlisomes)
er...because they were/are white, the British gave them a helping hand. This is why they got independence early in 1931.
The British and various countries have continued to provide a helping hand to many former colonies - not just european settled ones.

A lot of it also comes back to human bio-diversity and culture. For example, Hong Kong continues to do well after transferring from British rule. In both cases you have populations that have probably undergone selection pressures that have made them more pre-adapted to adjust to modern economies.
0
reply
Chi019
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#20
Report 5 years ago
#20
(Original post by hsv)
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.
Does Hong Kong count? I think that some cultures have higher levels of interpersonal trust. Also, some populations have had more time under state rule with rule of law, agriculture, the need to plan ahead for cold winters etc - in other words selection pressures that have lead to those populations being able to maintain/develop industrial economies more easily.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you get study leave?

Yes- I like it (491)
59.59%
Yes- I don't like it (43)
5.22%
No- I want it (234)
28.4%
No- I don't want it (56)
6.8%

Watched Threads

View All