There's a lot I could focus on here — such as the fact that
latinos and the
Chinese were organized and selling drugs in their own land long before whites arrived — but I'm going to lecture you on Africa because it's probably the single most concrete piece of evidence you could find concerning the argument that, even if you helped these people, they would be perpetual failures for entirely inherent reasons.
The history of white and African interaction begins with
missionaries, who explored faraway jungles (often without proper training or equipment) on a quest to spread the word of their God, even if it meant they died in the process. At best they would contract translators (who were native) and porters (who were native), finding isolated tribes and essentially offering gifts to anyone who was willing to accept them, hear their gospel (generally some branch of Christianity) and not kill them.
This had a success rate of maybe 25% at best, but that was good enough in the eyes of Jesus.
In places where the missionaries
weren't killed or turned away,
soldiers arrived. The simple fact that an unarmed pacifist ventured into some foreign region and came back alive was all the evidence European governments needed to decide they'll erect a presence there. Why? Because
Africa is a treasure trove of natural resources, and always has been because native Africans are too dumb to make use of any of it. It also pays to control, for example, a vital river entry into some region (since you can't trade those resources if you can't securely move them.)
This is largely where stories of "European aggression" stem from. While it's pretty easily-verified
most Europeans wanted to civilize Africa rather than abuse them, often through religious conversion, and the
Europeans were prone to requesting presence in Africa rather than overtly seizing it (because who wants hostile natives potentially disrupting your supply chain?), some bad apples ruined the bunch.
Belgium's actions in the Congo were among the most senselessly brutal and, despite being an outlier in that
otherwise amiable and prosperous period of history, it remains the most frequently-cited instance of European mistreating the poor natives. It's the most frequently-cited anything concerning European presence in that time period, really.
After that period of time, when the whites all returned home to pick on the (now twice-defeated) Germany, Africa devolved back into the same shit hole it was prior.
Despite making a fair deal of money and erecting (what was now essentially free) infrastructure, they did nothing substantial with it. Brief power struggles in the absence of scary white men led to new regimes, virtually all of whom were violent warlords, and thus the leftover guns, forts, supplies and resources were seized by selfish, short-sighted people.
This remains true even to this day because — and I can't stress this enough, — native Africans are stupid and worthless.
They have always been stupid and worthless.
Saying "white people ruined Africa" when they introduced totally foreign concepts such as schools, churches, markets, cities and so on is incredibly retarded. You can't even argue whites are responsible for the thing Africa's seemingly most-closely associated with, slave trade, because
it was widespread prior to their arrival and
remains widespread long after they've left.
