What's wrong with Africa?!

I am sure the exploitation of Africa has played a significant role in its poorness, but why Africa has not followed the steps of Europe and Asia historically? Africa was primitive, and it still largely is. It's not only exploitation, it's the nature of its inhabitants that lack any drive to expand.

Good points everyone (or most) I have actually learned a lot. Yay for ATS. I have been pretty impressed this hasn't turned into a racial flame fest and that people are staying on topic. Sorry I'm not responding more but I don't really know what I'm talking about obviously (why I posted the question).

As someone who has lived in Africa all his life I can confidently say that our biggest problem is the lack of education. Without education the masses don't know that they have the right to question the evils of the few corrupt and greedy. They are easily manipulated into committing atrocities.

South Africa is probably one of the most progressive countries in the world. We have 11 official languages, ethnic diversity, a solid constitution, democracy of sorts, one of the few countries not officially in a recession... and millions of educated people who are now starting to question the governments motives.

The media always focus on the bad news - when last did you hear a good news story?

www.southafrica.info

Despite my colonial forefather roots I am proud to call myself African!

reply to post by Koppy

I think I'll expand on this then since what you said was so entirely insubstantial and wholly ignorant of a wide range of scientific thought.

Racialism and Africa

While racial evolution might be a reality under a longer time scale and without the presence of a limiting factor, such as the relatively small amount of habitable land on the planet and the extensive rate of proliferation of the human population across it (which will eventually cause all populations to homogenize before any new human species or genetically superior population could ever possibly emerge); the level of genetic expression responsible for biological differences, incurred throughout the process of natural selection present during the out-of-Africa migration are entirely negligible. Simply put, in an essentially closed system, whereby absolute mobility is the limiting factor (until we develop the technology to allow vast amounts of people to populate other planets) genetic differences based on race will be insignificant in shaping our society (although personal opinion has always been subject to ignorance). Racial evolution is simply a matter that we as modern people shouldn't bother with and totally disregard whenever it is brought up concerning reproductive fitness.

To select a mate based on race, in some vein attempt to increase reproductive fitness, is superfluous. It's not an effective strategy. It is difficult for anyone to estimate the genetic costs and benefits of selecting one individual for procreation over another based simply on external racial characteristics. It is more plausible to assume that when given a choice between individuals of different races, people make a decision based on the obvious social implications incurred. The benefits of belonging to a powerful social network are very apparent, so often people will go for the simplest choice. Don't tell me this selection process is derived from natural selection either. People are fickle; they are also xenophobic. It's essentially a vestigial psychological condition, which did not, as you would love to believe, arise specifically for the purpose of separating "smart and endowed" humans from the weaker ones.

The transmission of traditional information, or culture, to successive generations essentially provided human populations a shield against the indiscriminate subjections of natural biological selection. Not only did we not become genetically superior, genetically we became less "goal oriented", because of this reliance on transmitted information, or education. When selective pressures are eliminated, genetic mutations become more visibly apparent in a population as they are physically manifested at a greater rate, given that an individual with these mutations are granted the opportunity to procreate. Certain mutations, which aren't terribly counterproductive, are carried through into newer generations, and as a result we get lots of people with arthritis, for example, and other annoying physical ailments (which, when accumulated create one pathetic physical specimen, which wouldn't last a day butt-naked in the jungles of the Congo). When selective pressures for physical fitness become relaxed, diversity increases. You can think of this new human culture, emerging out of Africa and epitomized in philosophy and the pursuit of knowledge, as such a change in diversity, or rather the product of a genetic mutation.

European educational institutions became incredibly powerful. This newly populated continent gave birth to the most prolific philosophers, mathematicians, and scientists... all starting more than 5000 years ago with the ancient Greeks. This is what gave European society the absolute advantage. It was all attributed to biological laziness. Just imagine if we didn't have any classical literature. No Renaissance, no Age of Enlightenment, no Democracy, no Empiricism, no modern scientific method.

Further, because of the environment they created for themselves, natural selection failed to have much of an effect on intelligence after a certain point. As soon as agriculture became widespread, which wasn't much longer after Europeans actually became "Europeans", after emigrating out of the Near East, that selective pressure for intellectual fitness would decrease. Instead of selecting for responsiveness, willingness to learn, etc. (prime qualities for a young student) those populations became capable of feeding even its "dumbest" individuals. There was no competitive reason to have a population full of highly brilliant individuals. And although some people view the pursuit of knowledge and hermetic study as so divine, it's quite arbitrary. It's just another function of evolution. It's another characteristic that happened to be randomly expressed, and happened to fit a niche. The demand for intellect as a part of reproductive fitness was formed out of this great reorganization of the human population, from tribes, whose members were required to be powerful physical specimens, to city states, whose members, in order to protect their lives built walls and catapults, which required substantial knowledge of math, and also whose major concerns became satisfying more complex social and emotional desires, rather than fulfilling instinctual urges.

What we should get out of this, however, is that the true significance of this endeavor lies not in the growth of physical characteristics, which favor intellect, in Europeans, but in the social and educational institutions, which evolved out of this and provided European societies the background necessary to become the geopolitical masters of the known world for a rather long time in human history. Genetically, the differences in intellectual power stopped shortly after the initial emigration, specifically because in Europe, the environmental conditions, which would give rise to a booming agricultural society, were unsurpassed on the entire planet. Perhaps if instead of migrating toward the fertile and resource rich, sparsely populated regions of Mesopotamia and later Europe, they had reached some barren wasteland, these people might have become much different, but they hit a lucky stroke. As quickly as intellectual fitness within a knowledge based framework become the sole factor in survival, it grew to be just as unimportant.

Continued...

There is no evidence to suggest that people of African descent are less intelligent than their European contemporaries. There seems to be evidence, however, that African Americans in the U.S. do poorer on standardized tests. I wonder why? The reasons are fairly obvious, but I'll let you contemplate them since you haven't bothered to use your "superior" intellect to understand them. If you dig deep enough, a lot of the economic conditions, which produced those poor test results, have been wrought by the history of hundreds of years of oppression and segregation based on racial principle. This type of thinking is just wrong.

Bottom line, racial evolutionary thought is just an example of how the study of evolution has become one of the most well known of all the sciences, yet the most misunderstood and misrepresented. Everyone thinks they're an evolutionary biologist, and so they apply the theory to everything and mostly in the wrong ways. Racialism is so overdone, and so dead... at least until we colonize other star systems and it really becomes an issue.

Interesting Sources

www.gnxp.com...

This is just one source I kind of used as a basis to form a foundation for my "mutation" theory. It kind of supports my hypothesis that a detraction from pressures of natural selection on physical fitness allowed for an explosion of sorts, releasing all sorts of "mutations", which having been given the chance to be passed on, evolved into a very beautiful, very diverse society. Europeans received a cultural advantage, and solidified their ability to transmit relevant technological and philosophical information to future generations, by freeing themselves of the restricted, tribal cultural institutions which favored strict uniformity but virtually ensured reproductive success in times of extreme hardship.

I just don't can't believe in any of this "Europeans had to deal with the harsh winter so they became smarter crap." It's just so neglecting of so much human history and evolutionary thought. Africa was just as difficult an environment as Europe, probably more so.

Africa is only resource rich today. Back during the periods of greatest migration resources such as oil, diamonds, iron and gold were meaningless. Africans had access to a lot of food, but the catch was that the food itself posed a danger. The animals were vicious. Africans would become the best hunters on the planet. The world's top predator at the time. People filled different niches as best as they could. So yes they are equal in the sense that ability comes at a cost of adaptation. The way you frame and reference the word "superiority" is what's important. What does it matter if you can have a high proclivity to not conform to tribal customs if society is all about conforming and uniformity to maximize survival. You would be the dumbass in this society. It's just that certain abilities would provide a stronger foundation for this artificial, unnatural construction called civilization. And the Greeks happened to have those. People that filled certain niches, such as the Greeks and their culture which placed value in nonconformism, just happened to fill the niche of civilization better than Africans did. It was just chance.

All species on this planet share essentially the same gene pool, they are just expressed differently in favor of certain environmental conditions. I really don't understand why we put the two terms: civilization and intelligence (in a knowledge based framework) on such a high pedestal, like it's some holy grail. It's just a random cultural mutation. Intelligent people are only "better" than those less intelligent because of civilization and the way it is set up, the memetic value we place in retaining and absorbing information and turning it into knowledge to pass on to future generations... for purposes of advancing civilization.

Source on memetic evolution:
1. mbscientific.com...

[edit on 30-12-2008 by cognoscente]

Well guys you know why. Because the western unions don"t want us to advance and be a 1st world country, we will then be a threat with alot of resources.

So what is the logical thing to do?

Using their influance to appoint incompentant presidents and people in power positions.

Why do they make war against iraq? Because of oil so that they can control it.

Why not wage war against Zimbabwe? Maugabe critisizes Bush,Blair,America,Brittan Zimbabwe has no rich rescources

So what do you think?

reply to post by privateeye


They have even trickier ways of doing this. And by this evidence I stand by the maxim "whoever controls the money supply controls the world."

To Continue This Discussion: Agricultural Subsidization

I seem to have a bad habit of posting giant walls of text and then the discussion just ending because of what I imagine to be hundreds of people at their computer screens bleeding from their eyes... I hope that's not the case.

Anyway, one thing that no one has mentioned yet is government subsidization of agriculture, the world's biggest industry, which a lot of developing nations are solely dependent on for developing a sustainable income. Countries such as France and the U.S. are printing gravy piles of money to subsidize agricultural production in their own countries, in an attempt to drive food prices down. Though this might be good for poor countries needing to feed themselves, it makes them reliant on foreign food exporting countries, and more importantly, makes it impossible to sell their own product at a competitive rate. The IMF and other organizations want these countries to abandon agriculture and take on deals with foreign multinationals to stimulate industry. The problem here is that this method completely neglects the local inhabitants, as wages are severely cut to below what they could be making as entrepreneurs, while real living conditions fall simultaneously.

India is just rife with entrepreneurial spirit. So is China. I honestly believe Africa hasn't gone through it's revolution yet. Both China and India shook off their foreign oppressors with violent stoicism. But the difference there was that they focused their violence on their oppressors and not themselves, as is the case in Africa. Current leaders in Africa are little more than true reflections of their colonial predecessors. African entrepreneurial spirit is in the gutters, and something like restricting agricultural production (the obvious first step in a self sustained industry) just doesn't seem like a good idea from a cultural or nationalistic point of view.

If you take a look at the industrial histories of all the first world countries today they took a pretty clear path. Started at traditional agriculture, then mechanized, then mass manufacturing of goods, and in today's economy: information technology and financial services. If you disrupt that chain I really don't know how anyone could come out of it.

EU subsidies deny Africa's farmers of their livelihood:
www.independent.co.uk...

Not a burden, but a land of opportunity:
www.independent.co.uk...

[edit on 30-12-2008 by cognoscente]

A book just came out on what's wrong with AFRICA.
“WHITE POISON” by Kayemb Nawej
Available at Amazon.com

If you care for the future of Africa this is a must read. It is well documented, spanning from the black Egyptian empires to the current situation. It shows to what extent the “whites” colonial countries went to erase the “black” history and keep Africans in a state of dependency by undermining its population to steal its natural resources. The role of Belgium and the Vatican is laid out in its horrendous reality as the true cause of the Rwanda genocide. But most interesting is the plan for a revolution to be of Africans still kept in shackles by ex-colonial countries. Plan that starts with the rediscovery of the “erased” past history of Africans, a self-awareness of their potential to create the “United States of Africa”.

Michel Beluet

Originally posted by GreenGlassDoor


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

There was, and is, a huge technological gap between those outside Africa and those within. So what gives, why were they so far behind?

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?

In a word? it wasn't their time. In its prime, African nations did have some colonies elsewhere, but that fell apart.

I think the only nation stable around the equator was the native Americans is because they were isolated from European and Arabic division issues.

reply to post by Raustin


Wrong Advice?

They go to do good and THEY Do very well....Advice is one thing Africa is not short of. “If the hungry could eat words,” said a BBC television commentary, “Africa would recover.” Some 80,000 foreigners provide this service. “Advising Africa,” states Timberlake, “has become a major industry, with European and North American consulting firms charging as much as $180,000 for a year of an expert’s time.”

These experts promote expensive farming methods that require high-yield seeds, chemicals, and heavy machinery. This has meant good business for overseas suppliers but has brought little benefit to Africa’s rural poor. Attention is given first to farms that produce cash crops for export and then to farms that produce food that is sold in Africa’s more affluent cities. Many of these projects have proved inefficient, and some have failed. Africa’s climate, explains Newsweek magazine, “is often far too harsh for the high-yield seeds put to such good use in Asia.” Also, Africa’s soil is fragile, and crops are sometimes damaged by new farming methods.

Overseas governments and aid agencies promote other expensive schemes. These likewise bring “benefits to their own companies and consultants and economies,” states the development journal People. The schemes are attractive because they make African countries look modern, and they are backed by large loans of money. This helps some African governments to satisfy rich city dwellers whose support they need to stay in power. Thus, impressive hotels, universities, airports, highways, cars, and luxuries are seen in African cities while the countryside is neglected. Africa’s rural peasants have a name for their rich city neighbors. In Swahili they call them the Wabenzi, meaning “the Mercedes-Benz tribe.”

The humanitarian motive behind development aid is questioned by many. “Far from aid being charity,” state the authors of the book Famine: A Man-Made Disaster?, “donor countries are getting a bargain. . . . The influence and economic opportunities that both West and East get from aid is cheap at the price.” Development aid has contributed to Africa’s staggering $175,000,000,000 debt.

The most important thing for a country is Social System, including political system, economic system, cultural system.
A good social system can make a weak country strong, a bad social system can make a strong country collapse.
take Japan for example, several hundreds years ago, it was a footy
nation, after accepting western system, it became a strong nation
30 years ago, most of Chinese people were in poverty, but now, things
changed a lot, what made this? modified social system.
I believe if African people get the right social system, they will make
huge progress in not quite long period.
Of course Japan or China changed social system on its own initiative,
African maybe need to introduce right social system forcibly.
I don't mean colonialism and I don't mean Bush style of freedom democracy promotion, but to help them found a right social system.

[edit on 30-12-2008 by gs001]

I don't know if this has been touched on already, but the main problem in africa is that the continent has a very under developed internal infrastructure, i.e. all roads lead OUT of africa. Just take a look at the destinations of any african airport, flights to the US, Britain, France etc but very few african destinations. The reason, economic imperialism. Africa removed it's european rulers but europe still controls the resourses through debt.
Anyway, how could we in the west afford coffee, sugar, tin, copper etc if these comodoties weren't produced in conditions almost slavery. Frankly, the wesrtern ecomony requires africa to be poor.

OK folks, I read through this entire thread and guess what - I learned a lot.

I joined ATS only recently. I've become so used to even intelligent threads being swamped by ignorant, paranoid, delusional, racist contributors to the point that reasonable discourse gets drowned out.

So lately I've developed a reflex of seeing a posting I disagree with violently and lashing out with what I consider a more thought out position.

On the question of why Africa is the way it is relative to the more developed continents I will say that the factors are multiple and inextricably intertwined.

I do want to bring up something I think underrepresented so far. Northern Africa, countries bordering on the Mediterranean, have a very different history and contemporary influences that separate them from the rest of the continent. Egypt was virtually centre of the universe once. Now it's a struggling populous Muslim nation that can be considered failing. It has intellectual capital, a strategic location, and is not as susceptible to the post-colonial trauma that the black African regions succumbed to. So what happened there?

I'll accept the demonstrable IMF abuses though I personally think this is not the full answer. Ditto, the climate and environmental factors as being the explanation.

I spent many years in South America, and will point out that Argentina, despite recent economic devastation, became a country culturally, socially and academically on par with Western counterparts, due to a later wave of European immigration that brought greater emphasis on education than the Spanish conquistadors. Adjacent Chile and Uruguay benefited similarly.

Extra points for the education or lack thereof as being primary factors.

It is an interesting to compare S.A. to Africa, as it removes the tribal black and Western white racial component from the argument. But in the end, despite resource richness and availability of Western advantages, S.A. still lags behind in moving forward on many of the fronts as Africa. Why? No answer either. Maybe the warm climate and removal of the need for permanent shelter is a bigger factor in moulding social structures and reliance on technology than is conceded.

Much more I could say here, but my word count runneth over.

Anyway, thanks for the unhostile, non-lunatic fringe, intelligent discourse I'm seeing here.


Mike F

reply to post by troos1


Actually Colonization raised most African's standard of living.

reply to post by mmiichael


This posting is not really a reply to Mike, he just happen to be the one
at the end I hit reply on

I think it is best to look at the big picture and each country as well.

The IMF swindle loan factor is part of the equation, they are not helping.

The foreign corporations that come in and rob the resources for
discount prices over other locations on the planet are just exploiting
those ppl if they pay their country below market for the raw resources
by the ton.

The countries that are dictatorships have tyranny as one of their
main issues, and will have a lot of pain to address that.

They will not have the strenth to stand up for themselves and
take their country back til they correct the basics below.

Funny enough the CIA has some good information on each country
on their world factbook site, but as many might say you have to
parse it for truth accordingly, ie. check their sources.

Wikipedia also has good info on each african country, but again
as always verify the sources.

Some key things would radically change the fate of Sub Sahran
Africa.

A plant that is easy to grow and provides a complete protein is Amaranth.

Amaranth - one of the few complete plant proteins

Show them how to make the two medicines that afflict rabbits,
and they would have a rabbit population explosion like
Australia already fears.

Australia fears a rabbit population boom - mandantory cullings

Rabbits could help the food problem.

HIV/AIDS is a serious problem.

Via a old trick some ppl said was used by Don Juan, Lemon Juice
may provide a solution and lemon tree seeds could be sent to
Africa by ppl here in the states for next to nothing once the
research into this is complete.

AIDS/HIV and pregnancy amy be controlled by Lemon Juice ?

Water filtration and purification has been a major issue, and some
ppl have come up with some good methods they have passed onto
the Africa communities.

Getting the word spread amongst all the dialects and regions has been
a problem so some way that could reach them all would be best.

Here are some of the cheap ways to disinfect water and kill bacteria in it.

SODIS - water purification thru solar UV radiation

It has a nice map there where they are spreading the word of this,
but it needs to go to all the countries there ASAP.

London used to use this next method itself and it requires little or
no mechanical power.

Slow Sand Filter

To get water in dry areas they will best be served by doing one of
4 things.

1) Move to water somewhere else.
2) Dig wells if it is not too far down.
3) If near the sea make low tech solar evaporators that capture and
separate the sea salt and water, the salt is worth money.

Solar Still for seawater

4) If in a extreme desert, look to the ways of the Bedouin tribes.
they watch the birds and other animals where they get their water,
and go to low spots between hilly areas and dry lake and river beds
and dig there. In many desert regions according to Israeli scientist Shmuel Duvdevani dew falls in a quantity which would amount to 25 inches in a year if you have the means to collect it.
The best thing to do if in a desert is leave it though.

The heat can be truly brutal in Africa but 3 feet down it is 59 degrees.

This can be replicated above ground by an ancient housing design
used in England with some of the house from the 1600's still standing
to this day, I have been in them to drink Carling a few times
while I was working Telecom there.

So for Shelter I offer Cob building:

Cob building - cheap but labor intensive

If it is done 3 feet thick on the walls it stays cool inside year round,
also with a very thick thatch roof.

For low power electricity a brilliant man invented the wind belt:

The Wind Belt - Low cost low power wind generation thats easy to repair

One of the things that harms ppl in rural poor Africa is they cut firewood
to cook their food, and then burn it in their home and breath it.
They could instead use a solar oven to heat water, and food.

Cardboard box solar oven design example

It can be made better by adding addition reflectors and using
less flammable materials such as junked car fenders and hoods
to hold the reflective aluminum foil.

Also if you get a chance to watch what one man has done with
Biodynamic agriculture in India it is truly amazing.

Biodynamic Agriculture

Big Agra Biz hates this guy, he is exposing their lies and taking dead
soil and bring it back to life.

He is starting a revolution and HIGHLY recommend you watch:

How to save the World : One man, One Cow, One Planet ( trailer )

How to save the world via Biodynamic Agriculture

Permaculture is also a very good idea and is spreading too:

Permaculture - sustainable non-depleting farming

None of these ideas are cure alls, but they will give ppl hope,
and they will make things better than they currently are for
millions in Africa.

If any of the Millionaires and Billionaires of the world really cared
they could spread this information to the masses there and the
ppl could take care of themselves without their governments.

If anyone knows of a rich person that wants to make a difference
I will offer my help via Email for free for what is worth.

If they want me in person I cannot work for free, but will work for cheap.

Send me a U2U

Good Luck to all !

[edit on 1-1-2009 by Ex_MislTech]

Maybe it's a stupid reply but it could be that despite being mineral rich, it's generally inhospitable because of water.

I know this doesn't exactly prove something, but when I played civillization it was pretty essential that for a colony to thrive properly it had to be built near water. All I hear about Africa is that they have to walk miles to get water and it's rife with malaria because it's taken from stagnant non flowing water.

Lack of water makes growing food and life in general impossible. You'll find conditions are much more favourable on the coastal areas. But why choose to live in the middle? I spose people don't have a choice where they're born

reply to post by Lazyninja


"Maybe it's a stupid reply but it could be that despite being mineral rich, it's generally inhospitable because of water."

Check my post above yours for the water solutions.

Africa has some enormous rivers running thru it.

All they need is irrigation canals like modern nations have and the
problem is largely solved.

The disinfection for drinking I cover in my post above yours.

reply to post by Ex_MislTech

The interesting thing about the technologies listed is that they do not help the Africans form their own civilizations. The technologies and techniques you posted about are great ways for individuals, and very small communities, to help themselves barely survive for another year or so. Africa's problem is that all they have been doing is just barely surviving for centuries.

In order for civilizations to rise, there must be a time when there is plenty of food and plenty of water. By plenty, I basically mean "too much."

My opinion is Africa doesn't need anymore smaller "do-it-yourself" technology. Instead, she needs larger scale "do-it-together" technology. She needs canals, reservoirs, and aqueducts that aren't build by some outside contractor paid for by IMF loans.

You need to get Africans working together for Africa.

All of those soldiers and rebels you see are an untapped labor force. Each one of those idiots walking around with guns is a person supported by there an abundance of food and water in the region.

Imagine if that person was educated instead of indoctrinated since a young age. I bet Africa would start to turn around in a generation.

Jon

Originally posted by Voxel
reply to post by Ex_MislTech

 

The interesting thing about the technologies listed is that they do not help the Africans form their own civilizations. The technologies and techniques you posted about are great ways for individuals, and very small communities, to help themselves barely survive for another year or so. Africa's problem is that all they have been doing is just barely surviving for centuries.

The ppl of Africa often have governments that horde the wealth
for the elite, and the commoners live in poverty.

If their governments were not corrupt and or paid off by
multi-national corporations a lot of their problems could
be taken care of by the influx of money from said corporations
as you suggest, that just has not been the case.

If the ppl cannot get the ppl in power to help them, then they
must help themselves.

City government can be like a small community and can pool
resources and make wells, bridges, and small local projects.

The irrigation canals could be done too if it does not cross property
of ppl that are uncooperative.

In order for civilizations to rise, there must be a time when there is plenty of food and plenty of water. By plenty, I basically mean "too much."

My ideas give them food and water ideas they can implement now with little to no cost, and other ppl are less likely to try to steal to sell it.

Cattle Rustling is pretty easy, rabbit rustling would be near impossible.

Growing Amaranth in 60 days yields a full pound of grain per plant.

Theft is bad enough in the civilized world, for the desperate it becomes
a way of survival.

My opinion is Africa doesn't need anymore smaller "do-it-yourself" technology. Instead, she needs larger scale "do-it-together" technology. She needs canals, reservoirs, and aqueducts that aren't build by some outside contractor paid for by IMF loans.

You need to get Africans working together for Africa.

Do-it-together would be great if the truly poor had the funds,
and the violence was less rampant, and desire for power.

Any large scale projects and food shipments are often seized by
warlords as a control mechanism to get the ppl to do what they want.

Any centralized thing worth doing will be looked at as valuable
and the warlords, militias, and pirates like in somalia will seek
to hold it hostage for their own concerns.

Only small scale and scattered becomes to unconcentrated for
them to try to seize it all as they can only focus their power
at a few places at a time.

The refugee is best served if he can live well while being mobile
when the power hungry come to their small village.

If you do not have the strength of arms to defend your village
then it is just best to "quickly" get out of the way til you can
build up to defend yourself from marauders.

All of those soldiers and rebels you see are an untapped labor force. Each one of those idiots walking around with guns is a person supported by there an abundance of food and water in the region.

Imagine if that person was educated instead of indoctrinated since a young age. I bet Africa would start to turn around in a generation.

Jon

What you say here has been the logical argument for a long time.

The problem is the way the Africans treat each other is often illogical.

A lot of the ppl weilding guns work for governments that are
corrupt or heavily influenced by large multi-national coprorations.

Take the case of Ken Saro-Wiwa an activist in Nigeria trying to
get the pollution and environmental destruction caused by Shell
cleaned up by Shell and instead Shell pressures the government
to have him killed.

Ken Saro-Wiwa - ordered killed by dutch shell

In situations like this the poor ppl with no power in the government
are very much on their own, and are better "below the radar" until
they can slowly build themselves up to the point where the
government would be afraid to pull a stunt like that due to the
ppls self reliance, self confidence, and ability to stand on their own.

Often in Africa it is a hostile environment between the government
and the poor, and they'd be better off withdrawing from conflict
rather than die by the tens of thousands as in Darfur when they
are being killed by militias sent by their own government.

The millions dead in Rwanda are also a good example of how
standing up to overwhelming odds when your ill prepared can
end very badly.

The Brits did not have the stomach to kill millions of peaceful Indians
when Ghandi had his peaceful protests.

The leaders in Africa have no problem killing millions of their
neighbors or their own ppl if it suits their agenda, same for the Brits.

en.wikipedia.org...(1879-1915)#Anglo-Zulu_War.2C_.281879.29

Two very different scenarios between Africa, India and colonists.

The ppl of Africa wanted to fight but they were out gunned.

Only thru guerilla warfare could they have hoped to win against
the several European powers that carved up Africa.

Basically burn everything from a great and safe distance and
it would have been too expensive to stay for the colonists.

If the colonists cant make money or lose too much money and
never see the faces of the arsonists, they'd leave to exploit
an easier location.

Openly confronting the current problems will only get the same results.

A way of stealthily strengthing the poor is the only way they will
grow strong enough to reclaim what is theirs.

Any large and visible projects will likely be seized as a control
mechanism by the predators that seek power at any cost.

Handouts do not work in Africa as they are seized for the same
reason, just like the warlords sat on the food in Somalia til it rotted.

Some countries there are making progress though, but some are
definitly in horrible shape.

Too many times 3rd ppl fight colonial powers thinking they love
their soldiers, but they do not, they love money and that is all
they reall care about.

Make it too expensive or unprofitable while staying out of sight,
and the greedy will look for easier places to exploit.

reply to post by Ex_MislTech
nbvm


Thanks for the fantastic information on natural technologies and innovations for solving these survival concerns. I'm just looking at them now.

I'm sure to be older and a lot more cynical than you. When I was in university more than a couple decades ago, friends in environmental sciences were telling me about wonderful new solutions to basic issues in the underdeveloped world. Things like cheap natural power, effective non-pharmaceutucal disease control, large water purification and conservation, improved agriculture.

Sadly, I've seen few of these breakthroughs in quality of life improvement implemented. In fact, I've had to watch situations like Zimbabwe go from being thriving and agriculturally bountiful to a basket case due to bad politics and ignorance destroying an effective use of the soil already in place.

As water rapidly becomes the oil of the 21st Century, the resource most important to basic survival, hopefully there will be some intelligent utilization of new ways to capture and produce fresh water. Again cynically, I see more likely providing vital water and food just becoming instruments to extract financial and political gain rather than smart leaders realizing new methodologies translate to better societies and economies.

If I'm wrong in this, I will be pleased.


Mike F