4 ms·

There is a massive difference between the New World colonialism that largely ended in the 1800s and countries colonized during the Scramble for Africa. If you

There is a massive difference between the New World colonialism that largely ended in the 1800s and countries colonized during the Scramble for Africa. If you HAD to compare New World colonies with Scramble for Africa countries, you would probably compare the fate and status of the indigenous groups.

mc32 5y ago
We can look at ex-Soviet republics. Some are utterly corrupt and barely functional and some are up and coming economies. The difference is governance and leadership. It’s fundamental and extremely important to not have self serving leadership. The condition you rise from isn’t key. It’s what you do afterwards. It’s not too different from two high school students. One decides they’re happy being a dropout because they had a broken home, the other decides because she came from a broken home is going to do her darnedest to do something with her life. One becomes a professional the other still handles the till at the 7-11.
- x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago
  ex-Soviet states were also protected from Cold-War meddling by the West, unlike many other countries. Meanwhile, people like Lumumba and Allende are assassinated.
  - jhgb 5y ago
    In EX-Soviet states, there clearly was no Cold War meddling after the Cold War from anyone.
    - x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago
      Not sure why you're downvoted, I didn't clarify that ex-Soviet states ONLY existed during the Cold War, when the Soviet Union existed. I messed up on that point.
      - jhgb 5y ago
        That makes no sense. As long as the Soviet Union existed, the "ex-soviet states" you're talking about existed as republics of the Soviet Union (which is just a colloquial abbreviation for Union of Soviet Socialist Republics). They weren't states at that point. They became ("ex-Soviet") states when the Soviet Union broke up, and that coincided with the end of the Cold War. Since their existence as states and the Cold War don't overlap in time, those states couldn't have been subject to "Cold War meddling".
  - mc32 5y ago
    I don’t know your point. The west didn’t interfere. Great. Despite that some ex-republics did well after de sovietization/colonization and some did poorly. Some are utterly corrupt and inept others are doing relatively well for themselves. Leadership after liberation has enormous impact on how well they do.
- scns 5y ago
  > The difference is governance and leadership. It’s fundamental and extremely important to not have self serving leadership. This. There was a whole book written about it. It is called Why Nations Fail IIRC. edit: add link https://www.amazon.com/-/en/dp/B007MIXOEC https://www.amazon.com/-/en/dp/B007MIXOEC

mc32 5y ago

We can look at ex-Soviet republics. Some are utterly corrupt and barely functional and some are up and coming economies. The difference is governance and leadership. It’s fundamental and extremely important to not have self serving leadership. The condition you rise from isn’t key. It’s what you do afterwards. It’s not too different from two high school students. One decides they’re happy being a dropout because they had a broken home, the other decides because she came from a broken home is going to do her darnedest to do something with her life. One becomes a professional the other still handles the till at the 7-11.

x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago
ex-Soviet states were also protected from Cold-War meddling by the West, unlike many other countries. Meanwhile, people like Lumumba and Allende are assassinated.
- jhgb 5y ago
  In EX-Soviet states, there clearly was no Cold War meddling after the Cold War from anyone.
  - x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago
    Not sure why you're downvoted, I didn't clarify that ex-Soviet states ONLY existed during the Cold War, when the Soviet Union existed. I messed up on that point.
    - jhgb 5y ago
      That makes no sense. As long as the Soviet Union existed, the "ex-soviet states" you're talking about existed as republics of the Soviet Union (which is just a colloquial abbreviation for Union of Soviet Socialist Republics). They weren't states at that point. They became ("ex-Soviet") states when the Soviet Union broke up, and that coincided with the end of the Cold War. Since their existence as states and the Cold War don't overlap in time, those states couldn't have been subject to "Cold War meddling".
- mc32 5y ago
  I don’t know your point. The west didn’t interfere. Great. Despite that some ex-republics did well after de sovietization/colonization and some did poorly. Some are utterly corrupt and inept others are doing relatively well for themselves. Leadership after liberation has enormous impact on how well they do.
scns 5y ago
> The difference is governance and leadership. It’s fundamental and extremely important to not have self serving leadership. This. There was a whole book written about it. It is called Why Nations Fail IIRC. edit: add link https://www.amazon.com/-/en/dp/B007MIXOEC https://www.amazon.com/-/en/dp/B007MIXOEC