In every map about everything they end up being the worst. Why do they suck so much?

>Dick size
Think again, chink.

Colonialism

They decolonized in all the wrong ways. As a rule, the more a decolonized territory is divided the more they are manipulated by larger powers and the more likely it is for (usually ethnic) factionalism to take hold and tear a country apart.
Madison actually wrote about the ladder in federalist 10, arguing that a larger nation containing many groups with competing interests would prevent one group from securing an Iron grip on power and tyrannizing the rest.

For an example of these factors in action you can compare india to what has happened in sub-saharan africa.
India came out of decolonization (mostly) united and as a result was able to avoid being used as a pawn in the cold war, and although it does have a lot of problems, particularly with pakistan and the tamil tigers, it has at least remained intact.
Sub-saharan africa contained countless dictatorships propped up by the USSR and USA because they were often simply unable to resist being the pawns of larger powers, and all across africa ethnic violence is present.

Sub-saharan africa would be a lot better today if It contained between 10 and 15 countries total. The africans are starting to realize this as well, just look at the EAF.

forgot image

Attached: federalist 10.png (1697x576, 141.41K)

I’m african ask me about it, and because africa is a big place I may not be knowledgeable in some topics

Europeans didn't bleach the natives

Attached: 635514757135370512-baartman.jpg (668x890, 80.49K)

>Sub-saharan africa would be a lot better today if It contained between 10 and 15 countries total. The africans are starting to realize this as well, just look at the EAF.
kek you have no idea what you're talking about, also "sub-saharan africa" is a retarded term that doesn't have any base of categorization. Each region and each country has their own specific problems unique to their own

>kek you have no idea what you're talking about, also "sub-saharan africa" is a retarded term that doesn't have any base of categorization.
This catagory contains african countries south of the sahara.
>Each region and each country has their own specific problems unique to their own
Yeah, obviously, but there are obviously overarching problems if almost an entire region is going to be left behind other third world countries like india.

explain the difference between rwanda and the dr congo then, if bigger = better

In every map about eveything this one spot always manages to stand out but no one ever mentions it.

Why does Any Forums ignore it so hard?

Attached: gabon.png (52x68, 1.09K)

Colonialism is a pathetic cope

they are both small, you can see the difference if you see brazil vs portugal, or (old)mexico/(old)peru/argentina vs spain, and then compare both with their respective colonizers, you can see there is not as much of a difference

It's a totalitarian oil dictatorship

N

it's full of niggers

>Dictatorships, le bad!

Attached: 164.gif (600x600, 2.2M)

>single example
I'll humor you though.
The DRC was big, but wasn't ever really in a position to exploit its vast natural recourses because of how incredibly rural it was and also because it had no real access to the ocean which is pretty essential for international trade This probably could have been mitigated were they to unite with a country with a decent port.
And its not like Rwanda is an especially great example of stuff "working out". The Rwandan genocide is a textbook example of how factionalism can destroy a small state.

Ikr? So no problem with latinos mass emigrating to Spain - phew that was quick.