Most developed country in africa

Mauritius and Seychelles barely count as African countries. They should either be considered their own thing or part of South Asia.

>tiny countries with small homogenous populations and western allies, calm climate, no drought or disease burden
>large african countries with fucked borders, corrupt dictators backed by Russia/NATO, and tons of ethnic groups who shouldn't be forced to share a single nation, horrible climate, little fertile soil, abundant megafauna, high disease burden
Only a low IQ retard thinks these are comparable. In general HDI is misleading because small countries very easily do well with GDP per capita and education. An island nation only needs a competent government and no war to do well, trade and fishing is a given.
Example: Barbados (vast majority black africans brought over as slaves) has a higher HDI than Mauritius does (0.814). They have universal education and healthcare, with a higher life expectancy than the US. This is in spite of incessant hurricanes every single Fall and no natural resources.

>b-but muh tourism inflates GDP per capita
No shit, what else will a tiny island nation of former slaves do? The difference between Barbados and Haiti, despite the similar demographics is that everyone ignored Barbados and let them develop at their own pace, using what was at their disposal.

muh niggers

South Korea is an american project, and their country is shit, completely controlled by the rich, 1 bad week away from total meltdown.
Singapore I genuinely don't care about, but seeing your first example I won't hold my breath.
Israel is literally gibs: the nation.

Fuck, you're like the dumbest brick to ever fall in the mud in Sussex.
Not to mention how disgusting it is watching an anglo distance himself from the eternal damage he caused.
Any in depth documentary ends with your ass at the source of the problem.

i

>Balkans don't exist
>Middle east doesn't exist
>Russia doesn't exist
>SEA doesn't exist
Kys you dumb insect, this is basic politics and history. Most places on earth with multiple ethnic groups have conflict. Even China and India have armed separatist movements but both of them have suppressed such factions in recent years.

The reason the OAU/AU made that decision was because they figured if they started redrawing borders along all the ethnic special interest lines (and negotiating through all the urban intermixing and developed territorial disputes over the years), it's a recipe for endless balkanization and civil war. And by many metrics, even though Africa seems to have a war going on all the time, it's a fucking huge continent, and given its size and number of countries (and HDI) it's actually been relatively stable both in civil and interstate conflict.

zz more excuses, yawn

too many big words?

too many failed states

>it's a recipe for endless balkanization and civil war
Yeah at least the civil war would eventually fizz out when the countries Balkanize. Now you have shitholes like South Sudan which will take another 60+ years to get back on their feet. The countries which were able to draw their own borders according to their own interests did much better, Botswana being a great example.
Obviously balkanization isn't ideal but it's better than the situation that DRC or Niger is in, where people with nothing to live for will continue being violent until they get their way. Africa should be split into a lot more countries than it is now but that would mean western countries would have less bargaining power over their former colonies

>no argument

>as long as a country is an island it will be rich
Example: Madagascar

If Africa existed in a vacuum and was not colonised they would still be killing eachother with spears over " imaginary lines on a map" i.e. from the boundary of one village to the next

Attached: 1651434069852.png (497x624, 540.04K)

HDI is kinda bs
how is HK above us

Attached: 1643746216050.png (737x1001, 63.91K)

>as long as a country is an island it will be rich
Didn't say that. Islands have far more advantages than non islands. Also madagascar is objectively better of a country than most landlocked african nations covered by jungle

>If Africa existed in a vacuum and was not colonised they would still be killing eachother with spears over " imaginary lines on a map" i.e. from the boundary of one village to the next
Hindsight fallacy

Easier to manage an artificial small island nation than an artificial nation of 20+ ethno-linguistic groups, and no institutions left by their former masters.
Botswana is up there because their founder build institutions, and North African nations are up there because they didn't really deal with the same shit as sub-sahara, and are more aptly considered med than African.

>If Africa existed in a vacuum and was not colonised they would still be killing eachother with spears over " imaginary lines on a map" i.e. from the boundary of one village to the next

And?
Your bullshit examples didn't make a case at all for "rebuilding" or "building" a country in 50 years.
You're so full of shit...
Not to mention this is coming from the guy whose nation helped NATO destroy multiple powerful countries in Africa, lest there be any hint of stability or independence.
Eternal anglo, jew, whatever you call yourself, it can't be human.

To be fair Madagascar was under the French, and nobody really survives that.