What's wrong with Africa?!

reply to post by Raustin


Black people and the "Hiv".

Haven't you heard the conspiracy that the "hiv" was created solely for Africa to clear out all of those tribes so that the white nations can rush in and take the leftover wealth?

Originally posted by crookedj0k3r
reply to post by Raustin

 

Black people and the "Hiv".

Haven't you heard the conspiracy that the "hiv" was created solely for Africa to clear out all of those tribes so that the white nations can rush in and take the leftover wealth?

HIV origins - it started in monkeys long ago

HIV had its birthplace right there in Africa.

Scientists around the world have confirmed that.

The Question and the Answers

Let's see if we can sum all this up, then... with 'comments enabled', as MS Word users might say.

Originally posted by GreenGlassDoor
Obvious question: Why weren't the African peoples the one doing the colonizing of Europe?

You will find the not-at-all-obvious answers to that question in a book entitled Guns, Germs and Steel, by Jared Diamond. To put it in a nutshell, the geography and climate of Eurasia (Europe and Asia are really a single continent) supported the development and propagation of agriculture, writing and other technological and cultural inventions. The rest of the populated world wasn't so lucky; each isolated society had to go it alone. This is also why, for example, pre-Columbian Americans never invented the wheel.

Originally posted by GreenGlassDoor
It's a little dishonest to say 'Oh, it's because they were colonized.' Why so far behind to allow them to be conquered and colonized?

That's why.

Originally posted by OhZone
I think we are expecting too much of them. They are not psychologicly equipped to deal with our techno society. They were happy primitives before we went in and mucked them up.

No doubt this was kindly intended, but all the same it is - I'm afraid - racist and paternalistic. You should rethink your ideas.

Yes, African societies have suffered hugely from culture shock, much to their detriment. Still, it is hard to see how things could have been different. Even in the twenty-first century, among sophisticated cultures that have interacted with one another for centuries, the interaction sometimes causes major social problems. Culture shock, which can often be crippling and debilitating, is something that cannot be avoided whenever people of different cultures meet.

Don't forget that Western civilization, too, was warped and damaged by the encounter with Africa. The main cause of damage was the scope Africa offered to the corrupting influence of slavery on the West, but there were other factors also, too many to go into here.

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
One of the fundamental issues is a residual consequence of imperialism and colonization. That is to say that the maps were drawn by foreign nations with little or no regard to historical, cultural, and linguistic delineations. The result was that many African nations were split across countries. This has led to a lot of the existing strife in Africa.

Absolutely. Many of Africa's problems today are the results - economic, social and even psychological - of its dealings with the West. The nineteenth-century 'scramble for Africa' that resulted in the present national and regional divisions of the continent are among those dealings.

Originally posted by mrwupy
Africa is where mankind learned that the strong will always be comfortable and the weak will always suffer. It is the cradle of civilization and those who are in power there are nothing more than infants who care not but for their own needs and wants. Every one else there suffers and they care not.

In Africa, Strength is the law. It has always been that way.

Interesting hypothesis; however, at bottom, things are the same all over. Besides, the genetic similarity among widely-distributed human populations comprehensively scuppers your theory.

Originally posted by mrwupy
It’s time we left Africa and let it grow up on its own. How ever that may play out.

It's about four hundred years too late for that now. You're in the game and you can't leave the table till the last hand has been played. Africa left to its own devices will create far greater problems for the world than it does now.

Originally posted by ShiftTrio
Now people who say colonization is the issue, then why isn't India wrought with Aids and Genocide?

Because India is a very ancient and advanced civilaztion that was able to confront the West from a position of much greater strength. They weren't devasted by culture shock the way the Africans were - in fact, the Europeans were more shocked by the Indians than the Indians were by the Europeans. I am not sure the West has yet recovered from its encounter with India; we South Asians seem to be colonizing you at the moment.

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
if you want to blame colonisation for africa`s woes - first explain why india had prospered.

See above. Also, remember that - despite the permeable barriers of the Hindu Kush, the Himalayas and the forests to its east, the Indian subcontinent is part of Eurasia, and its people share the advantages of Eurasian geography.

Originally posted by Sonya610
Their problems are rooted at every level of society, not just corrupt governments.

Is it becuz they is black, then?

Whatever the content of your commentary, Sonya610, the tone of your posts reveals your attitudes precisely.

Understand that all your supposed knowledge of Africa is filtered by your Western cultural perceptions and prejudices, which are rather egregiously on display here.

Originally posted by Mukiwa
Too many Kaffirs trying to flog a dead horse.

Charming. Now that the N-word is banned, let's all use the K-word!

Tell me, Sonya610, do you see any difference in content between Mukiwa's post and yours?

What about differences in sentiment?

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Let's also not forget where the weapons for the conflicts in Africa are coming from. It's not like the rival tribes are manufacturing their own AK-47s.

Good point. Let's not forget that for generations, it suited the West to have Africa in this decrepeit, impoverished condition, regularly torn apart by war and haunted by famine. The Africa of today is, for better or worse, largely a creation of the West.

Let's also not forget where the weapons for the conflicts in Africa are coming from. It's not like the rival tribes are manufacturing their own AK-47s.

Right again, Vagabond.

Originally posted by Ktadie
Hmm.. I would think that the question which the op asked is pretty obvious.

A star for your post, Ktadie.

Originally posted by Voxel
2) Tons of untapped mineral wealth.

--The other half of the discussion.

And for yours, Voxel. I'd give it more if I could. The post I quote from fully - and, I believe, correctly - answers the OP question.

A Happy New Year to all.

Originally posted by Astyanax
You will find the not-at-all-obvious answers to that question in a book entitled Guns, Germs and Steel, by Jared Diamond. To put it in a nutshell, the geography and climate of Eurasia (Europe and Asia are really a single continent) supported the development and propagation of agriculture, writing and other technological and cultural inventions. The rest of the populated world wasn't so lucky; each isolated society had to go it alone. This is also why, for example, pre-Columbian Americans never invented the wheel.

Yeah I saw some of that show. And yes it DOES explain why the civilizations in the Americas lacked some basic inventions due to being cut off from other human populations. However they still managed to develop some pretty darn impressive civilizations (i.e. pyramids, advanced calendars, etc…).

But that argument does NOT apply to Sub-Saharan Africa AT ALL. They were not at all cut off. They were quite capable of venturing into other areas. In fact they had other people (Arabs/Egyptians) with advanced technology venturing in to their area all the time. They WERE exposed to various technologies, yet they remained almost completely without technology. No writing, no raising of large cities, no numbers, nothing. And they had the most advanced civilization in the ancient world right there in their backyard! On the same continent! Yet they still managed to remain perpetually behind.

That theory does not in any way explain the continual “issues” that plague Sub-Saharan Africa. Infact it amazes me that the producers can make such a big deal out of the isolation of the Americas, yet NOT mention how odd it is that parts of Africa remained so incredibly backwards while other civilizations created in a complete vacuum managed to excel to such an impressive extent.

Originally posted by Astyanax
Because India is a very ancient and advanced civilaztion that was able to confront the West from a position of much greater strength. They weren't devasted by culture shock the way the Africans were - in fact, the Europeans were more shocked by the Indians than the Indians were by the Europeans. I am not sure the West has yet recovered from its encounter with India; we South Asians seem to be colonizing you at the moment.

Uhhhhh…that and the fact India was conquered by Caucasians thousands of years ago. They brought their gods and horses with them, and they eventually formed the basis for India’s caste system. They never left. It is a small wonder they managed to handle the “second wave” of Caucasian colonialization when it happened again a few thousand years later.

Aryans, or more specifically Indo-Aryans, make their first notable appearance in history around 2000-1500 BC as invaders of Northern India. The Sanskrit Rig Veda, a collection of religious texts still revered by modern Hindus, records (often enigmatically) their gradual subjugation of the dark-skinned inhabitants, the Dasyus: e.g. “Indra [=Norse Thor, Celtic Taranis] has torn open the fortresses of the Dasyus, which in their wombs hid the black people. He created land and water for Manu [=Aryan man]”; “lower than all besides, hast thou, O Indra, cast down the Dasyus, abject tribes of Dasas”; “after slaying the Dasyus, let Indra with his white friends win land, let him win the sun and water”; “Indra subdued the Dasyu color and drove it into hiding.”

Indra is the God of War…and he is described has having a yellow beard and fair skin. DNA typing has shown that the upper Indian castes have a lot of Caucasian blood (some Brahams say they are completely Caucasian).

But I am betting NONE of that was mentioned in your PC little book huh?

Indra is the god of War and Weather, also the King of the gods or Devas and Lord of Heaven or Svargaloka in Hinduism. Mentioned first as the chief deity in the sacred Hindu text of Rig Veda, Indra is bestowed with a heroic and almost brash and amorous character

Indra - 10.96.8 - "At the swift draught the Soma-drinker waxed in might, the Iron One with yellow beard and yellow hair. He, Lord of Tawny Coursers, Lord of fleet-foot Mares, will bear his Bay Steeds safely over all distress."

Indra - 1.100.18 - "He, much invoked, hath slain Dasyus and Simyus, after his wont, and laid them low with arrows. The mighty Thunderer with his fair-complexioned friends won the land, the sunlight, and the waters."

[edit on 2-1-2009 by Sonya610]

Originally posted by Astyanax

Originally posted by Sonya610
Their problems are rooted at every level of society, not just corrupt governments.

Is it becuz they is black, then?

Whatever the content of your commentary, Sonya610, the tone of your posts reveals your attitudes precisely.

Understand that all your supposed knowledge of Africa is filtered by your Western cultural perceptions and prejudices, which are rather egregiously on display here.

And you can see how easily it is to misinterpret any commentary by using tone as the only indicator. Surely it alone can not convey the full expression of thought. I too detected what you think you might have interpreted by reading this line. I am certain it's not what you think she means. Obviously, what she meant here is that African society, in Africa, is plagued by more than just corrupt governments. Tone can't solve all semantic issues... The way she constructed her sentence is more important here. Of course, it would be much more prudent if we but asked her to clarify instead of jumping to conclusions, unless we want an argument based on semantic reasoning alone.

[edit on 2-1-2009 by cognoscente]

Sonya610
But I am betting NONE of that was mentioned in your PC little book huh?

The point is, Sonya, that you are not Indo-Aryan, nor are any existing white populations inheritors of this creed. Let's just not make it so apparent that this is what you believe. It's just that the more advantaged populations happened to be "white". They came from the north, where agriculture was a tremendous factor in the development of their civilizations. It's not that they came from the same lineage, or that they maintain genetic similarities, which allow each "white" population to hold some superior benefit. Sure, white culture is superior in terms of "civilization". But let's not hold "civilization" and "intelligence" (in a knowledge based framework) on such a high pedestal. It's only important to those that practice these modern "faiths". Civilization, and we've come to this conclusion together earlier, is just another function, which fit a specific environmental niche (a tipping point where resources were scarce, and it become opportunistically advantageous to concede some power in return for reduced scarcity). What we didn't expect was that when humans learned how much they could alter and improve their personal lives, with this great tool: civilization, there was no turning back.

[edit on 2-1-2009 by cognoscente]

Total B.S. that at somepoint only 2,000 people were left.....Maybe in that area. and if they havn't found the fossils yet of others, how can they prove they didn't exist.?

reply to post by LucidDreamer85


You can think like that all you want but then we'd be questioning the existence of angels and demons. One can clearly see where that would take us...

Anyway, it's about conclusions and not beliefs. All evidence points to the conclusion that there were only two thousand people living at one point in time. That doesn't mean you have to believe it. We maintain a consistent method of reaching conclusions so that our beliefs don't become increasingly arbitrary. Ultimately, our beliefs and conclusions should coincide.

It's not a very far stretch to assume that this could be possible at some point in time. It's not ridiculous by any account. There is substantial evidence, so we choose to believe.

[edit on 2-1-2009 by cognoscente]

Most colonial interests were "not" designed to educate enmasse, but instead to use the existing populace for personal endeavors or ineterests of State. The majority of the Africans that your referencing were never taught much of anything except what a bottle of liqour was, and how to perform the jobs given to them. Century after Century to present, the goal was never to develope an EU or western style type of intellect, but to exploit the Continents natural resources.
I seriously doubt that the majority Africa will ever recover from the Harm the various governments and personal entities have done.

reply to post by cognoscente

...Sure, white culture is superior in terms of "civilization". But let's not hold "civilization" and "intelligence" (in a knowledge based framework) on such a high pedestal. It's only important to those that practice these modern "faiths". Civilization, and we've come to this conclusion together earlier, is just another function, which fit a specific environmental niche...

I've been waiting for that - thanks

If someone's already mentioned it I apologize - been following along - there's a lot here to digest

So about superiority then, because that's what this is about - is it being determined by either might or economics? Or god help us - intelligence?

My apologies to the OP - sincerely - because my argument isn't with you - I understand your question

So many of the responses explain the situation - but they don't explain the question

"What's wrong with Africa?" No one wonders - what do you mean by wrong?

We could just as easily ask "what's wrong with the U.S.?"

First - who's asking? And then by what scale do we measure what's right and what's wrong?

We have an obesity/health crisis going on here in the States

I know it's true because I saw it on the TV

We have so much food, and yet we're too frigging stupid to know how not to kill ourselves with it

That's just one ridiculous example - we could come up with plenty more

Explain to me about superior civilizations one more time...

What are we actually talking about? Food? Education? Roads?

Peace?

Is it that our actual national character is superior? We're just better people? How do we determine that - is it that what's valued by the western world is what should be valued?

The "we have guns, money and air conditioning - they don't" argument is dancing around the obvious.

"Why can't they live like we do without our help?" Is that the real question?

Why should they?

The only reason I can come up with is so that outside forces can't exploit, enslave or slaughter them.

Why can't they pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and live the same wonderful, quality lives that we all live?

because it's hard to even find your bootstraps when you're being exploited, enslaved and slaughtered - all of that takes up a lot of valuable time and energy.

Even if you manage to survive all of the above - you don't just regroup and carry on immediately - we've yet to see what becomes of Africa because the rest of the world is still in there mucking about

How long since the colonials really pulled out? Did they really pull out? When was that exactly?

Give Africa time



[edit on 1/2/2009 by Spiramirabilis]

reply to post by Astyanax

Because India is a very ancient and advanced civilaztion that was able to confront the West from a position of much greater strength. They weren't devasted by culture shock the way the Africans were - in fact, the Europeans were more shocked by the Indians than the Indians were by the Europeans. I am not sure the West has yet recovered from its encounter with India; we South Asians seem to be colonizing you at the moment.

I think this is very interesting - I emphasized my favorite part

it's something I've actually wondered about

not to steer the topic in a different direction - but when it comes to the British at least - I've always sensed a strangely different attitude towards India than Africa - even in fiction

but then, even if that is true (you're in a better position to know than I am) and they didn't suffer the same amount or type of culture shock - how did Britain still manage to get such a strangle hold on India?

besides guns



[edit on 1/3/2009 by Spiramirabilis]

Although India had a booming economy prior to British colonization, the country as a whole was political unstable, having just recently been partitioned into dozens of tiny states after the fall of Maratha Empire in the late 18th century. There really is no historical or racial ideology, which can possibly be ascribed to this country's subjugation. It really was just an unlucky time for India's sovereign unity. It provided the perfect opportunity for British traders to exploit and capture the country's largest markets. If China had been in the same disarray as India when their trade markets were being "colonized" in the early 20th century, it might have been possible for the British to actually usurp the state itself. Although they failed in that regard the British managed to maintain a very large part in Chinese affairs for the greater part of that century, returning Hong Kong to China only as recently as 1997. The Chinese have long expressed a history of staunch opposition to anything foreign, and have maintained a highly esteemed image of themselves as second to none. China's history is characterized by vast, ethnically homogeneous empires, which saw foreign powers and Dark Age European merchants as second class world citizens. Although their power waned exponentially compared to Europeans as time went on, their incredibly superior, paternalistic culture reigned supreme in the end, ultimately ensuring Chinese sovereignty over itself.

I caution against using the "colonizability" of a country as a factor in determining whether or not such a country is a successful one or not. The period of colonization was simply fraught with economic turmoil and civil unrest, as true free market capitalism was just emerging for the first time in modern history, out of the industrialization process, and with it increased private property rights and the incessant civil infighting that goes hand in hand with an effectively anarchistic, largely unregulated market economy.

As we know from history, China was disadvantaged geographically (Agriculture and commerce were hardly sufficient to support a vast trading empire like the British) but it managed to pull through with superior culture and unrelenting civilian military campaigns, which ultimately culminated, in a fight for national sovereignty, with the Communist party. On the other hand, India was technologically advanced, it was far richer than Britain. Its per capita income exceeded the average British citizen in real terms during that period. The total revenue of its economies far surpassed Britain's as well. India has always been the richest place on the planet, situated between Europe, Africa and Asia. In the end it was a lack of political stability, and the attractiveness of British power structures in their ability to pull India out of economic turmoil at that specific period in history that enabled it to colonize the country. The problem with Indian rulers at the time was that they absolutely rejected foreign market competition. They became increasingly economically isolated, and hoarded wealth for themselves in response to foreign markets sucking their economies dry. They couldn't really do anything but collapse. Also Indian culture was primed to foreign influence, because for much of the history of the country it had been under the influence of Greek monarchical legacies since Alexander the Great.

Again, "colonizability" in modern history isn't a very good rule to stick by when deciding how successful a civilization was, and how much of that success can be attributed to individuals involved. Modern history was rather turbulent, with things such as a renewed interest in forming empires, the process of industrialization and free market capitalism and elements of liberal Democracy coming into play. Nations began shaping their own economic futures for the first time in thousands of years, in more ways than strictly military operations could possibly aspire to.

Africa is a case in point, however. It's been susceptible to economic subjugation for thousands of years. That's why it's so interesting.

I still think European writing, especially in philosophy, flourished due to the protected environments those populations created for themselves (their tool making was so good after having migrated out of Africa that qualities, which favored intelligence were no longer selected for as vigorously because, for one, of the invention of walled cities). This allowed for the creation of, by way of cultural mutation (there were no physical pressures, which prevented people from exploring diversity of thought-Africans were deprived of this), the strongest social and educational institutions on the planet, providing the backbone to powerful empires. European society was primed for the influence of Christianity when it came about, and in time became heavily influenced by it. The papal states had a profound influence on all European activity, especially military. European civilization became multi-goal oriented at little cost to other aspects of society (it could invest in many areas of its civilization, not just military and agriculture, without wasting precious resources), a quality not found in any other civilization at the time. Its citizens sought personal economic wealth, personal freedoms (property rights) and personal self determination (liberal Democracy). It's not a coincidence that cycle repeated itself several times on that continent, first with the Greeks in their struggles against the Persians, then with the Romans and finally during the Age of Discovery and Enlightenment, continuing today into to the modern era. In Africa, the only cultural institutions that would survive were the strict tribal customs, which maximized reproductive fitness at a cost of uniformity and a deficiency in diversity of thought... due to the harsh environmental conditions (although Africa was resource rich, that meant little when tribal warfare was endless).

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Most colonial interests were "not" designed to educate enmasse, but instead to use the existing populace for personal endeavors or ineterests of State.

As compared to non-colonial governments throughout the world? Until modern times, virtually NO governments were in the business of educating the masses.

And this business of blaming all Africa's ills on European colonial powers is ridiculous! And it isn't surprising that they were easy to take over. For 1300 years it was common practice to sell off their own people to foreign powers as slaves, in fact it was a MAJOR source of revenue.

Then, as now, they didn't really give a darn about their own people, so why should anyone else?

In Senegambia, between 1300 and 1900, close to one-third of the population was enslaved. In early Islamic states of the western Sudan, including Ghana (750-1076), Mali (1235–1645), Segou (1712–1861), and Songhai (1275-1591), about a third of the population were slaves. In Sierra Leone in the 19th century about half of the population consisted of slaves. In the 19th century at least half the population was enslaved among the Duala of the Cameroon, the Igbo and other peoples of the lower Niger, the Kongo, and the Kasanje kingdom and Chokwe of Angola. Among the Ashanti and Yoruba a third of the population consisted of slaves. The population of the Kanem (1600–1800) was about a third-slave. It was perhaps 40% in Bornu (1580–1890). Between 1750 and 1900 from one- to two-thirds of the entire population of the Fulani jihad states consisted of slaves. The population of the Sokoto caliphate formed by Hausas in the northern Nigeria and Cameroon was half-slave in the 19th century. Between 65% to 90%population of Arab-Swahili Zanzibar was enslaved. Roughly half the population of Madagascar was enslaved. When British rule was first imposed on the Sokoto Caliphate and the surrounding areas in northern Nigeria at the turn of the 20th century, approximately 2 million to 2.5 million people there were slaves.[10] Slavery in northern Nigeria was finally outlawed in 1936.

The Atlantic slave trade peaked in the late 18th century, when the largest number of slaves were captured on raiding expeditions into the interior of West Africa.[citation needed] These expeditions were typically carried out by African kingdoms against weaker African tribes and peoples. Europeans rarely entered the interior of Africa, due to fear of disease and moreover fierce African resistance.

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 3-1-2009 by Sonya610]

A lot of great points, I'm glad I asked this and that most did not seem offended by the question. I have to read the last several pages but all in all I certainly learned a lot and appreciate all the comments.

One person asked what I meant by what's wrong with Africa. The thing I consider to be wrong with Africa is that so many are starving, so much infighting, so many human rights violations, so many displaced, so much disease, so little infrastructure, etc... I'm not suggesting others need to live the way we do in the West, only that Africa seems to be suffering more than most places.

reply to post by Raustin

One person asked what I meant by what's wrong with Africa.

that would be me - and leave it to me to ask the nonsensical question

... I'm not suggesting others need to live the way we do in the West, only that Africa seems to be suffering more than most places...

I know you're not - this is why I apologize - there's nothing wrong with your question

Africa has problems

and most of the posts in this thread have all in one way or another been right - because there is more than one reason for what's wrong

the discussion seemed to be veering away from the real world point of view towards a philosophical point of view that began to examine not what's wrong with Africa - but what's wrong with Africans

I have a problem with that - not with your question

Africa has problems that are in many ways no different from the problems experienced by many other countries around the world - but Africa tends to be discussed as if it were one country instead of a continent - and while many of the issues are the same in many of the countries - the same could be said of much of South America (as just one example) at one time or another - war, poverty, famine - corruption...

a continent that was invaded - colonized - their resources gone - making wealthy a few at the expense of the many. South America's historical and current struggles seem to be discussed in a very different way from Africa's - as if there's something just inherently wrong with Africa

reply to post by Sonya610


supply and demand - who were their customers?

what's your opinion on serfdom?

that's as white as it gets

reply to post by cognoscente


interesting - and more than I was expecting - thanks

I caution against using the "colonizability" of a country as a factor in determining whether or not such a country is a successful one or not. The period of colonization was simply fraught with economic turmoil and civil unrest, as true free market capitalism was just emerging for the first time in modern history, out of the industrialization process, and with it increased private property rights and the incessant civil infighting that goes hand in hand with an effectively anarchistic, largely unregulated market economy.

life is conditional - and timing is everything

Originally posted by Sonya610

Originally posted by Astyanax
You will find the not-at-all-obvious answers to that question in a book entitled Guns, Germs and Steel, by Jared Diamond...

Yeah I saw some of that show. And yes it DOES explain why the civilizations...

My emphasis, above.

Television is not a trustworthy medium of education or information.

reply to post by Spiramirabilis

Well said, Spiramirabilis. In fact, you've said it all.

And cognoscente, I am in full agreement with most of what you say, but I think you'll grant, now, that my interpretation of intent from tone was correct...

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


I notice you ask when the colonials pulled out.

Some might say they have yet to fully do so, I know Ken would
if Shell had not ordered his death.

Ken Saro Wiwa - ordered killed by dutch shell

He was peacefully protesting to get Dutch Shell to clean up the
massive pollution they left behind on their lands that was
poisoning their children.

Dutch Shell instead applied pressure to the corrupt government to
have him killed, and so it goes.

Exploitation continues to this day.