why is the african continent being kept a 3rd world country by the G7 countries?

*if this in the wrong section then please move as apropriate*

anyone have any answers to this interesting question?

its something thats come up between myself and several others but we know next to nothin about the politics so maybe someone on here does?

I wouldn't call all of them 3rd world - just less developed and I wouldn't blame everything on the G7.

When the USA was very young, people invested in the country. For example, the railways were built. The profits from this stayed in the country, and the wealthy millionaire bought goods etc with his money. In the case of Africa, most economies there are too unstable. So when someone makes a fortune, they ship their money off to Switzerland. Hence, money is being taken out of the African countries without any being put back in. Also, it doesn't help when there are dictators such as Mugabe present.

There are many reasons, corruption being one of the biggest. South Africa before sanctions had a booming economy. But see in some countires the have not's want what the have's have. That makes the Have's leave and take the wealth with them.

its europes fault really. see back in like the 1800's and possibly even earlier they started to colonize the place and breaking up tribes and relocating them to other tribes land. needless to say that there were many a tribal war that resulted from this. thats why it is the way it is today. the tribs are still fighting and doing nohing but fighting. if they put aside their differences they could probally get this going. i wounldt say that they are keeping them 3rd world countries deliberatly though.

The G-7 is not in a conspiracy to keep Africa down. The major problems with most African countries are three-fold.

Europeans colonized many African countries, built factories, fashioned a working government, sanitation and schools. When the Europeans pulled out of each country because blacks of those nations claimed Europeans had colonized them only for profit, the population fell back into savagery, with heads on poles. The following generations of leadership took control by force and established a cadre of followers who didn't have a clue about how to keep things working. These leaders were out for money and power and have achieved it through brutality. A less dramatic version of this is now at work in South Africa.

Secondly Muslims who took over many of the countries are determined to keep those countries in the Dark Ages. They leave no room for democracy, other moral authority, technology or science to take root.

And finally, the United Nations is evidently incapable of doing anything about this. The U.S. or any other country with U.N. veto power would stop the U.N. from stopping the slaugher of blacks in Nigeria or Sudan, for example. Yet no one at the U.N. does anything. Only a few countries like the United Kingdom, the United States, South Korea and Poland seem to give a damn and those few countries cannot police the entire world.

The G-7 is not the problem. The G-7 is only organized for profits of the member nations. (France is no longer one of the largest 7 economies, so I don't know why that nation is even a member.)

www.onealclan.com

I don't think it can be blamed on Islam or just on tribal hatreds either....when the "colonial" powers pulled out, in most cases, no real power structure was in place to keep democracy viable. The exception being Nigeria, in which the British seem to have honestly tried to leave a government in place that could actually run a country.
If the G7 ignores all the bloodshed and atrocities, they find themselves in a better negotiating position with the dictators to do whatever the G7 wants, such as secret deals for resources.
Although I do find it strange that no one will speak out about the white families being killed and pushed out in Zimbabwe and South Africa...but I believe it's just as the G7 views the AIDS crisis in Africa, if it kills off a few more blacks, so be it.

Too many people in the world and 1/3 need to wiped out. Its sad, thats UN policy. I remember reading the article on propaganda matrix about it, it was shocking stuff

Good question 'the bandit' and its good hearing all your views

I sometimes wonder if its about keeping them 3rd world so there is people around to do the cheap labour like working for a few pound a week etc

Makes you think

Rynaldo

The reason the African economies are so 3rd word is purely because of the corruption of the people involved.

Just take Zimbabwe as an example. .. corrupt, barbaric, country destroying their own society and intrastructure.

All the problem is internal, its not the G7.

If was lead to belive it was largely due to some countries and the world bank insisting on the nations paying back huge loans that they gave to them while under certain despot leaders. They can never repay the loans and the repayments cripple the country to its a sad little arrangement.

Africa�s Debt crisis
Have a read of that site

I agree with the last post. It's primarily the IMF's dpoing. But that's not only with Africa.


This is an example from a third world (asian) economy.

Suharto and his cronies stole about $60 billion from the Indonesian people, thereby bankrupting the economy. The United States and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) rode to the rescue and "loaned" Indonesia about forty billion dollars to stay solvent. Part of such a "rescue package" is the imposition of "Structural Adjustment Programs" that essentially cut out such "frills" as affordable food and heat for the Indonesian masses, so they can pay back the "loan." The loan, like Suharto's looting, never makes it into the hands of the citizenry. Starvation and other austerity measures are imposed on them to pay off the "loan." The U.S. and IMF have provided that kind of "help" to scores of Third World nations, and they starve while they export food and other commodities to the United States in order to earn "foreign exchange," to pay off the loan. It is merely shell-game slavery, and America gets cheap imports out of the deal.

home1.gte.net...

wow, so much to think about....

but can i just throw another thought into the mix....

it wouldnt create to much of a chaos if africas debt was 'wiped'

and does anyone know how much oil is underneath africa?

imagine if they managed to get on their feet and then 1 or 2 oil companies decided to aproach africa....

thats a HUGE shift in economic power!!

because then... whoever manages to control the flow of oil in africa, then suddenly gets a kick up the rear into the upper levels of control....

The problem is that Africa's products were practicaly always in control of European countries, even now corporations would have control IMO...

First off, the IMF and World Bank are responsible for building up and protecting the economies of the "third world". Not the G7. And those two institutions are doing a fine job.

You can only do so much with Africa, which is a place wrought with war.

Originally posted by TheBandit795
The problem is that Africa's products were practicaly always in control of European countries, even now corporations would have control IMO...

which is exactly my point....(and also a better explenation than mine! )

its all about control.... who has the control has the power...

and africa is a HUGE source of control/power if they were ever able to pull it together and sort it out!

[edit on 27-6-2004 by The Bandit]