 |
| |
|
|
Sonic
|
|
Vilnius, Lithuania
Dec 2001
time: 07:23
|
|
Why do you think countries in Africa are not developing? It seems it was like that in most of history, except Northern (Carthage, Egypt, Ethiopia, current states there aren't also so bad) and Southern (RSA, Zululand) parts of the continent. However, even these parts always lacked of powerful states if compared them to Europe, Mid East or Asia of a time (and ancient Egypt we could also consider part of mid east, not Africa). So, what is your opinion about the troubles in Africa: why they have risen and how they could be solved. These are the most popular theories about reasons of undevelopment:
1.Climate
Supporters of this theory says that "great" countries only evolved under certain climate, like European or mediteranean and they didn't evolved in very hot (like Africa) or cold climates. This is because of bad conditions for people to live, etc.
Detractors of this theory says that many countries evolved in about the same proximity from equator, like SE Asia countries, also that countries in current South America aren't that bad.
2.Terrain
Supporters of this theory says that Africa is undeveloped because it's mainly desert terrain isn't prepared for good living - agriculture is almost impossible on such a terrain. They also uses this to explain why Southern and Northern Africa's are better developed - this is because conditions there are better in their opinion.
Detractors of this theory says that in many more places of Africa there is no deserts and countries are still undeveloped there. Also that there are many rich countries based in plains/deserts, like Saudi Arabia, and they are now able to irrigate deserts to maintain agricultre.
3.Colonialism
Supporters of this theory says that Africa is poor because European colonial powers over-exploited it and now it is very hard to rebuild it.
Detractors says that there is still enough resources left, also that former colonies elsewhere (SE Asia, Australia, America) currently are in much better shape. They also claim that Africa was not so bad under therule of colonial powers and that colonial powers invested much to infrastructure - roads and railways.
4.Size
Supporters of this theory says that Africa is so poor because the continent is big, much bigger than Europe, and that means there are many places (and countries) very far from water. They also says places far from water never developed and gives USA as an example, where the coasts as the most developed cities, etc. In their opinion in bigger continents, like America or Asia, countries are bigger and that means most of countries has a coastline - that means they could use money received from coastal regions to improve infrastructure and social life in other regions.
Detractors of this theory says that coastal countries in Africa are as well undeveloped as landlocked countries. They also gives examples of successful landlocked countries and empires - like Mongol Empire in middle ages or the current days Switzerland.
5.Race
Supporters of this theory claims that Africa is so undeveloped because of it's race (blacks). As an example they says that no black-ruled country ever was "great" and also says that South Africa once had good economy (when ruled by whites) and now is detariorating. In their opinion this also explains why North Africa is evolving - because people are whiter there (however it doesn't evolves as greatly as Europe, Australia and North America because people (the leading race) are not so white; same goes for South America in their opinion; these people considers Asians and whites to be "clever races"). Other example by supporters of these theory are blacks in America - they mostly lives in run-down neighborhoods.
Detractors claims this theory is a racistic one and that everybody is equal (and that it is biologically proven that all races are part of one "type", homo sapiens, human, thus they all can think the same). Thus, in the opinion of detractors of this theory, it is inhumane to think that race could be a problem for ruling state.
6.Religion
Supporters of this theory says that Africa is so undeveloped because they have keeped their polytheistic animist religions for so long time - each tribe had it's own religion thus it was hard to contact and do diplomacy and people became warlike. Supporters also gives examples of Aborigenoes and Native Americans - people, who also didn't had common monotheistic religion and thus their tribes/nations were undeveloped. The other examples they gives are Asia, Europe and Mid East - places, which had common monotheistic religions and thrived.
Detractors says that it is impossible religion can actually change that much, they also says that Roman Empire, Greece and Egypt all also had old polytheistic religions and yet they thrived. Also that in Mongol empire no state religion was used, and Khans in each conquered state supported it's (that state's) own religion, yet the empire without common religion still was huge.
7.Borders
Supporters says the major trouble of Africa is nonsensional borders, set also mostly by Europeans, which are not marking the true borders of nations and that means civil wars are ussual. They says that it is not so in North Africa because the nation there is only one - Arabs - and that it is (was) not so in South Africa because of apartheid system, which cruelly bashed any attempts for other athnical groups than AFrikaners to gain any control to politics.
Detractors says that many countries with more than one nation are very successful and gives current American countries as an example, especially USA - where people of many religions, nations, origins lives together and except for some supremacists (Black Panthers, KKK, etc.) the country didn't had civil way for one and half a century.
8.Lack of advance
Supporters claim that everything was because that there weren't any technologically powerful countries for other countries to obtain that technology from in Africa. They claims that in other continents there was always at least one powerful country, which later given it's advances to other nearby countries (Roman Empire in Europe, China in Asia, etc.) and that it was not so in Africa. Also these people says North Africa, most of time controlled by powerful European/Mid Eastern states (Roman Empire, Arab Caliphate), was always a great buffer zone protecting Africans to go to more advanced countries.
Detractors says this explains troubles only in old Africa, not the current one. Also that Egypt was once powerful country near Africa and that this theory explains nothing, because it says "lack of advanced countries is the reason why there are no advanced countries in Africa".
9.Bananas
Supporters says that there are too much bananas in Africa and that this (eating them) made minds of African people too small to understand anything, especially politics and contraception [sorry if this offended someone].
Detractors says that bananas are the best meal in all the world and they says they are eating about 20 bananas per day and are still clever to do mathematical formulas as hard as this one:
2+2
Well, now you can discuss...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
Race. Black Africans are on median physically superior to whites but mentally inferior. Asians are mentally superior to whites but physically inferior, speaking of the median of course.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dauphin
|
 |
Caught in a tuna net
Jan 1970
time: 05:23
|
|
Does Belgium still have a GDP greater than all of sub-saharan Africa?
Last edited by Dauphin on 24-11-2002 at 08:41
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Seeker
|
 |
London Ontario
Jan 1970
time: 00:23
|
|
Yes, progress from negative is easy...
Some factors:
-Colonialism:
a.The lack of a 'native' middle class of (competent) bureaucrats and professionals....hopefully this is starting to emerge.
b. The ending of colonialism was mismanaged. Here's something controversial for you: Colonialism was, in a sense, ended too soon and too abruptly. In short, they left before they finished building all the railroads and roads and ports etc.
In Mary Poppin's terms colonialism did not last long enough to build enough 'railroads through Afric-er' (infrastructure).
c. war, on and off, in many (until recently, most) african countries.
-Social/Cultural:
African society has some problems. I think many African cultures have certain features that they need to change because they foster 'warlordism/sultanism', these being:
a. Nationalism: It is difficult to be patriotic about what is, in sense, someone else's country. Oh, there is plenty of 'nationalism' in the sense of 'aren't the rebels/white farmers/scapegoats bad' kind, but they need more of the 'No, I won't take that bribe because I work for the Zimbabwean people' 'No, I won't just topple that weak civil government because I can, because I work for the Ugandan people, even if I hate that democratically elected governments Marxist/racist whateverist policies'
b. What I can only call 'primitive features'. Supersitions, religious frenzies, lack of education. Lack of modern scientific agricultural practices.
c. Disciplined, but generous lenders: Let's get away from the two extremes of no credit or credit only for big colonial companies or 'let's give money to everyone' ideas.
d. A Greater Africa political and trade union of somekind, whose main purpose is to either lower EU, Japanese, and American agricultural protections or try to subsidize and grow their own agricultural.
Let's face it, given their position I don't see, say, Rwanda as a 'global IT leader' or RAM producer, or even electrical parts manufacturer.
Africa needs to build a solid agricultural base and industry first, and then think about the 'frills'.
And that means lowering 'our' protections.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
Ned, the northern Africans were white.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
Oh, let me back up and say that I am thinking more of why Africa has not developed over the past 2,000 years moreso than the problems that are causing it not to "catch up" now.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
I think it would be more accurate to say that Mali and Songhay became more developed states because of the influence of Islam.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wernazuma III
|
 |
Decolonize!
Aug 2000
time: 06:23
|
|
I'm really shocked that a third!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! here says that race is one of the major factors.
I'm honestly completely disappointed, shocked, scared and have feelings I can hardly express.
What do people want to say? Blacks are dumber? Blacks are more aggressive and destructive? It's a shame that people with such a viewpoint aren't isolated freaks but a third here!
It's not that Colonialism is the only cause for underdevelopment, but surely an important one. Another reason is the unwillingness of African elites (which were strengthened in the colonial period) to make necessary measures for education for the masses.
Thus postcolonial African politicians play an active part in the problem, detached from unreversable colonialism.
The bad political situation, which again is a combined problem caused by colonial borders, ancient tribal thinking, corrupt politicians, lack of education, capitalistic interests (diamond problem) etc. of course makes investments not very likely to rise in the region.
In those areas where there is no war, only poverty, we have to ask ourselves if this is really misery. Generally "poor" peoples with intact social networks and community don't consider themselves to be poor and wouldn't change their life, so what enables us to call this "undeveloped" or "underdeveloped" - that's a rational choice - they can chose between a life in a functinoing community and being a marginalized, really miserable part of a globalized world, which isn't theirs.
Gnerally, I think Seeker presented a good analysis, so I won't bother to explain what I think of being the causes.
One thing is sure though for me: The reasons are political and cultural and not racial. There's only one smiley here which comes close to explaining what I feel about a third of the voters here to hold racial prejudices:
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
King of Rasslin
|
|
Seriously, a lack of natural boundaries is a major factor. There are many small countries in Europe (Estonia, Latvia, Lituania, Belgium, Switzerland,etc) that developed because of natural boundaries like mountains and rivers. Because Europe was very crowded with many different groups, competition was very strong and it fueled the growth of colonies, technology, etc.
In Africa, it's much more open. The dominant tribe doesn't have to worry about making new tools and stuff. When it gets wiped out, the next dominant tribe takes its place. They know they are #1 and they don't need technology to enforce it. In Europe, you wanted to be strong because you never knew when 100,000 invaders would cross those mountains and take over your country. 
Asian countries like China developed fast and and powerful because Asians are naturally very intellegent people. Indians have absolutely sick math skills! They are also very disciplined. Martial arts, for example. If Asians aren't the strongest race, then explain how 2/3 people are Asian. They are certainly winning the real life game of Civ 3.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Timexwatch
|
 |
Columbia Heights, Washington D.C.
Jul 1999
time: 00:23
|
|
After studying British Colonialism for a semester, I'd have to say that the reason Africa is such a basketcase now is becuase of Britan. South Africa is a notable exception to the basketcase statement, but then again the legacy of the apartheid system outweighs the degree in which it can be called an "exception"
For a little backround, there was a heavy dichotomy between "White Settler Colonies" and everything else; white colonies were Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa (partially b/c of the large number of Boers and Brits and the degree in which they subjugated the natives) and had far greater freedom to legislate and evolve politically. The "Non-White" colonies were governed largely by proxy through local princes/chiefs/etc. The Non-white colonies often received less attention than white ones although large parts of any colonies' investment was from the colony itself. South Africa's relative success can partially be attributed, IMHO, to the degree in which the South African Dominion Gov't was able to install stable governing institutions. Cecil Rhodes and the diamond mines didn't hurt either. India was a unique situation all together; its not relative to my point anyway. The fact that Britan cared far less for its African possessions than it's Indian one was part of the reason that they were left underdeveloped in the period of decolonization.
Of course this doesn't take into account that Britan control of large swaths of Africa simply for strategic interest rather than any perceived economic gain, garrisoning them and investing very little. They spent more time ruthlessly "pacifying" the natives, especially in Eastern Africa. During these pacification campaigns, it is thought that millions of African porters alone died. Such huge losses certainly hurt the development of large sections of East Africa.
Britan's near monopoly on the slave trade decimated West Africa. The British took the asiento away from the Spanish, allowing them to maintain a monopoly over Spanish slave trade. There was large importation of Slaves to the Carribean to the degree that Britan repopulated many of the islands with those of African descent (i.e. Jamaica). The sugarcane plantations of the Carribean and Africa greatly perpetuate the slave trade; the decline of the sugar trade hastened its outlawing. On a slightly different note, the British apprentice or indentured servant system is responsible for large numbers of isolated pockets of Indians and Chinese in the Carribean, Africa, Ceylon and the South Pacific.
Now, before any Brits have a knee-jerk reaction, I'm not indicting Britan as a whole, just its colonial legacy. Britan is in some degree resposible for the state of Africa today. Whether or not they want to admit that they have a responsibility today is up to them.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-11-2002 06:55
|