How poor is Africa

Africa is a big continent, as we saw in an earlier post. It is second in size only to Asia. What does this mean? I don't know. Probably doesn't mean anything.

A more important question to ask is why Africa is the poorest continent. Some of you know the answer -- racism and European colonialism. Simple. But when we hear simple answers we should ask "But is it true?"

There has been racism and European colonialism on other continents, but they aren't as poor as Africa.

This article Why Is Africa Still Poor? | The Nation is in the Nation, which is definitely NOT racist or conservative. It says that Africa has been poor since it was liberated, and keeps getting poorer, because of corruption. The corruption of evil white racists? No, the corruption of African leaders. Almost invariably, African governments have been corrupt and self-serving.

As the article explains, Jeffrey Sachs never gets tired of saying African poverty can be solved if only rich nations give enough money. How does Sachs know this to be true? He knows it's true because he wants it to be true. He knows that rich nations are tired of pouring money into Africa, only to see it stolen by corrupt governments. But he blames their unwillingness to give ever more on racism. Yes, everything is racism, as we all know.

The article says the people who are most angry about corruption in African governments are Africans. There goes the racism theory.

You ignore the obvious reason for Africa's poverty.

Geography.

It is the second largest continent in the world and though it has many large rivers, historically most of the length of these have been unnavigable for the point of providing transportation routes into the interior.

Finally you have substantial, heavily populated regions such as around Lake Victoria that are hotbeds for various deadly and/or debilitating diseases.

Good4Nothin said:

Africa is a big continent, as we saw in an earlier post. It is second in size only to Asia. What does this mean? I don't know. Probably doesn't mean anything.

A more important question to ask is why Africa is the poorest continent. Some of you know the answer -- racism and European colonialism. Simple. But when we hear simple answers we should ask "But is it true?"

There has been racism and European colonialism on other continents, but they aren't as poor as Africa.

This article Why Is Africa Still Poor? | The Nation is in the Nation, which is definitely NOT racist or conservative. It says that Africa has been poor since it was liberated, and keeps getting poorer, because of corruption. The corruption of evil white racists? No, the corruption of African leaders. Almost invariably, African governments have been corrupt and self-serving.

As the article explains, Jeffrey Sachs never gets tired of saying African poverty can be solved if only rich nations give enough money. How does Sachs know this to be true? He knows it's true because he wants it to be true. He knows that rich nations are tired of pouring money into Africa, only to see it stolen by corrupt governments. But he blames their unwillingness to give ever more on racism. Yes, everything is racism, as we all know.

The article says the people who are most angry about corruption in African governments are Africans. There goes the racism theory.

Click to expand...

Africa is poor due to a combination of colonialism and internal fighting. simple as that!

Dayton3 said:

You ignore the obvious reason for Africa's poverty.

Geography.

It is the second largest continent in the world and though it has many large rivers, historically most of the length of these have been unnavigable for the point of providing transportation routes into the interior.

Finally you have substantial, heavily populated regions such as around Lake Victoria that are hotbeds for various deadly and/or debilitating diseases.

Click to expand...

I can see you didn't read the article.

beerftw said:

Africa is poor due to a combination of colonialism and internal fighting. simple as that!

Click to expand...

Since you didn't read the article, there was not much point in commenting.

Good4Nothin said:

Since you didn't read the article, there was not much point in commenting.

Click to expand...

Their poverty is a combination of multiple acts, Colonialism robbed them of their resources, and in many forms that still happens today, while their own tribes and factions infighting prevents them from any economic recovery or stability. I think your article is to linear in thought.

beerftw said:

Their poverty is a combination of multiple acts, Colonialism robbed them of their resources, and in many forms that still happens today, while their own tribes and factions infighting prevents them from any economic recovery or stability. I think your article is to linear in thought.

Click to expand...

Since you didn't read it, you can't comment on it. The article says there are multiple factors. But the MAIN factor is the corruption of the leaders. The article doesn't say WHY there have been so many corrupt leaders.

Colonialism can't be such a big factor, since there has been colonialism on other continents. India, for example, has not continued getting poorer and poorer. Just the opposite.

Dayton3 said:

You ignore the obvious reason for Africa's poverty.

Geography.

It is the second largest continent in the world and though it has many large rivers, historically most of the length of these have been unnavigable for the point of providing transportation routes into the interior.

Finally you have substantial, heavily populated regions such as around Lake Victoria that are hotbeds for various deadly and/or debilitating diseases.

Click to expand...

Geography is a factor but not for that reason you stated. They could just as easily build roads in this day and age, but the problem is that very few countries that are internally stable have stable neighbors that they can transit safely through. The perpetual wars and civil unrest are a strain on other countries beyond the ground zero countries' borders.

it's as poor as North America use to be.

Good4Nothin said:

Africa is a big continent, as we saw in an earlier post. It is second in size only to Asia. What does this mean? I don't know. Probably doesn't mean anything.

A more important question to ask is why Africa is the poorest continent. Some of you know the answer -- racism and European colonialism. Simple. But when we hear simple answers we should ask "But is it true?"

There has been racism and European colonialism on other continents, but they aren't as poor as Africa.

This article Why Is Africa Still Poor? | The Nation is in the Nation, which is definitely NOT racist or conservative. It says that Africa has been poor since it was liberated, and keeps getting poorer, because of corruption. The corruption of evil white racists? No, the corruption of African leaders. Almost invariably, African governments have been corrupt and self-serving.

As the article explains, Jeffrey Sachs never gets tired of saying African poverty can be solved if only rich nations give enough money. How does Sachs know this to be true? He knows it's true because he wants it to be true. He knows that rich nations are tired of pouring money into Africa, only to see it stolen by corrupt governments. But he blames their unwillingness to give ever more on racism. Yes, everything is racism, as we all know.

The article says the people who are most angry about corruption in African governments are Africans. There goes the racism theory.

Click to expand...

The reason why Africa is poor and misgoverned is because it is run and inhabited by Africans. The only hope they have of any level of prosperity is if they're ruled over by benevolent foreigners. Unfortunately for Africans, Europeans no longer have the moral self-confidence to rule over others, so they're basically SOL. China may improve their lot, or it may literally enslave them, only time will tell.

It's a complicated topic. Two things to note are that unfortunately, people have a tendency to 'blame the victim', and that African poverty plays into racists' incorrect beliefs.

There are no easy answers IMO. What would you think of a country where corruption leads to a few taking most of the wealth, while workers are paid starvation wages, dying of poverty, while 10 year old children work long hours six days a week in dangerous conditions, and if they try to work together to bring improvements, the government sends in troops to kill them?

The country where those terrible conditions exist, of course, is gilded age United States.

We had a political system, luckily, however, which led to reforms after decades - the progressive movement made the Senate elected instead of corruptly appointed, ended child labor, created a right for workers to organize, created government regulation for safety, and so on.

African countries don't have our political system and our rights for the people, and it's all too easy for tyrants to rule oppressively and take wealth for themselves - especially but not only when foreign powers sometimes put such leaders in power who will serve them rather than their country.

Perhaps the most notable leader who wanted to improve things for Africa, make it a democratic region better for the people, was the first elected leader of the Congo. JFK agreed and looked forward to making him his partner in Africa. So, the Eisenhower administration had him assassinated after JFK was elected before taking office.

But sometimes pictures tell a story.

The moment President Kennedy, weeks after taking office, learned of Lumumba's assassination, the White House photographer was tking pictures of him on the phone when he was told. It's probably the most anguished you've ever seen JFK. The author of a book on JFK's forgotten Africa policies put it on his book's cover. It's a complicated issue.

AmNat said:

The reason why Africa is poor and misgoverned is because it is run and inhabited by Africans. The only hope they have of any level of prosperity is if they're ruled over by benevolent foreigners. Unfortunately for Africans, Europeans no longer have the moral self-confidence to rule over others, so they're basically SOL. China may improve their lot, or it may literally enslave them, only time will tell.

Click to expand...

"Benevolent foreigners"? Like Apartheid era South Africa or the Congo under vicious Belgian colonial rule? I would suggest that Africa has had more than enough of this 'benevolence', and trusts foreigners even less.
Furthermore there are more than a few African nations which are doing well:

10 Most Prosperous Countries in Africa

Dayton3 said:

You ignore the obvious reason for Africa's poverty.

Geography.

It is the second largest continent in the world and though it has many large rivers, historically most of the length of these have been unnavigable for the point of providing transportation routes into the interior.

Finally you have substantial, heavily populated regions such as around Lake Victoria that are hotbeds for various deadly and/or debilitating diseases.

Click to expand...

When one thinks of diseases, I'd say watch the older movie...

"The Constant Gardner"

In flashbacks, we see how in London, Justin met his future wife Tessa, an outspoken humanitarian and Amnesty International activist. He falls in love with her, and she persuades him to take her back with him to Kenya. Despite their loving marriage, Tessa keeps from Justin the reason why she approached him in the first place: to investigate a suspicious drug trial in Kenya and expose it. When Tessa starts getting too close to uncovering the malpractices of an influential and powerful pharmaceutical company, she and her colleague are brutally murdered.

Click to expand...

(A must read before any spin is creating about these documented facts)

Medical experimentation in Africa
(African countries have been sites for clinical trials by large pharmaceutical companies, raising human rights concerns.[1] Incidents of unethical experimentation, clinical trials lacking properly informed consent, and forced medical procedures have been claimed and prosecuted.

Contents
1 Specific incidents by date

1.1 Meningitis testing in Nigeria: 1990s

1.2 HIV/AIDS testing in Zimbabwe: 1990s

1.3 Forced sexual reassignment in South Africa: 1970s–1980s

1.4 Forced contraception in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe): 1970s

1.5 West Nile Experiments: 1960s-1970s

1.6 Ebola and HIV Experimentation: 1950s

1.7 Sterilisation experiments in German South-West Africa (now part of Namibia): Late 1800s–1910s

Click to expand...

RealityNow said:

When one thinks of diseases, I'd say watch the older movie...

Click to expand...

Yes, Big Pharma went to Africa, discovered that anti-retrovirals worked, completed their trials and left AIDS sufferers to their fate, unmedicated.

Craig234 said:

It's a complicated topic. Two things to note are that unfortunately, people have a tendency to 'blame the victim', and that African poverty plays into racists' incorrect beliefs.

There are no easy answers IMO. What would you think of a country where corruption leads to a few taking most of the wealth, while workers are paid starvation wages, dying of poverty, while 10 year old children work long hours six days a week in dangerous conditions, and if they try to work together to bring improvements, the government sends in troops to kill them?

The country where those terrible conditions exist, of course, is gilded age United States.

We had a political system, luckily, however, which led to reforms after decades - the progressive movement made the Senate elected instead of corruptly appointed, ended child labor, created a right for workers to organize, created government regulation for safety, and so on.

African countries don't have our political system and our rights for the people, and it's all too easy for tyrants to rule oppressively and take wealth for themselves - especially but not only when foreign powers sometimes put such leaders in power who will serve them rather than their country.

Perhaps the most notable leader who wanted to improve things for Africa, make it a democratic region better for the people, was the first elected leader of the Congo. JFK agreed and looked forward to making him his partner in Africa. So, the Eisenhower administration had him assassinated after JFK was elected before taking office.

But sometimes pictures tell a story.

The moment President Kennedy, weeks after taking office, learned of Lumumba's assassination, the White House photographer was tking pictures of him on the phone when he was told. It's probably the most anguished you've ever seen JFK. The author of a book on JFK's forgotten Africa policies put it on his book's cover. It's a complicated issue.

Click to expand...

I made bold a line in your comment, and highlighted red, a vile act that was done.

We can trace these things and find much that history is yet to reveal to the public. Including related to America and Racism within America. Kennedy wanted to end Segregation, and a segment of society, did not want to see the profits they made from segregation changed !!!
It was the same nearly 100 yrs earlier, when the end of Slavery, which saw the assignation of Lincoln, because people did not want to see the profit made from slavery changed. it goes on to the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. because his next steps was to pursue "economic equilibrium".

We can also trace the escalation of War in Vietnam, which brought and created distance between President Johnson and Martin Luther King Jr. Both understood how it came to be, they also saw the acts of divide it promoted, but the powers that created the rifts and bridges between the two were more than either could overcome... and still move the nation forward... King spoke (the speech "Beyond Vietnam")

For those who don't want to read: YouTube
a comment from the comment sections: This speech is so scary to listen to that words cannot capture the emotion. Everyone who listens to this should print out two copies of the speech, cross out Vietnam and write Iraq on one copy and Afghanistan on the other. Once you do that you never have to listen to another policy pronouncement from Washington about our efforts in those countries.

Click to expand...

Both men were remarkable in what they achieved... but the powers of a Military Industrial Complex and a segment of America that still saw desperation to fight against Civil Rights... were forces that resulted to wreak havoc in America... by those seeking to cling to the vile ideals of the past.

This saw the emergence of Richard Nixon to the likes of Ronald Reagan... all the way to the current day.. presence of Donald Trump.... still chasing the past, and still fighting against the principles of full circle Equality and Economic Equilibrium of All America People, including the still and current segregated system that still to this day exist in white society, between poor whites and well to do and wealthy whites.

Still trying to pit poor whites against poor blacks... as a means of containment of "poor people" by the acts and promotions to blind the working poor and poor white people from the reality of the ongoing segregationist systems that exist within white society, between poor whites and well to do whites.

Nice to know that an article that tells the brutal (albeit hurtful) truth was actually published in the Nation, a magazine that I hear is very leftish and would be expected to follow the party line that the horrible conditions of that continent are all due to the big, mean colonialists!

TheParser said:

Nice to know that an article that tells the brutal (albeit hurtful) truth was actually published in the Nation, a magazine that I hear is very leftish and would be expected to follow the party line that the horrible conditions of that continent are all due to the big, mean colonialists!

Click to expand...

Colonial Africa was indeed a mean period, and I'm being generous.

10 Atrocities Committed by the British Empire that They Would Like to Erase from History Books

Atrocities in the Congo Free State - Wikipedia

Germany moves to atone for 'forgotten genocide' in Namibia | World news | The Guardian

Pidjiguiti: Portuguese Colonial Massacre and the Fight for Independence in Colonial Africa

TheParser said:

Nice to know that an article that tells the brutal (albeit hurtful) truth was actually published in the Nation, a magazine that I hear is very leftish and would be expected to follow the party line that the horrible conditions of that continent are all due to the big, mean colonialists!

Click to expand...

I don't know anyone who says they're "all" due to colonialists. The left largely tells the truth, as you note in this case, unlike presumably your side which would like to say colonization was NONE of the cause, just as your post has not a word to say about that harm.

snakestretcher said:

Furthermore there are more than a few African nations which are doing well:

10 Most Prosperous Countries in Africa

Click to expand...

Lol, so much fail. First country listed, Senegal, has a GDP per capita approximately .12 times the world average. Even the most "prosperous" country from that article has a GDP per capita less than Greece. By what metric would any of these nations be considered to be "doing well?"

snakestretcher said:

Colonial Africa was indeed a mean period, and I'm being generous.

10 Atrocities Committed by the British Empire that They Would Like to Erase from History Books

Atrocities in the Congo Free State - Wikipedia

Germany moves to atone for 'forgotten genocide' in Namibia | World news | The Guardian

Pidjiguiti: Portuguese Colonial Massacre and the Fight for Independence in Colonial Africa

Click to expand...

And really, when you look at it, consider how opposed the US is to the word 'genocide' for what it did to how many millions of natives? This whole 'we're better than them, so enslave them, colonize them, or kill them' mentality was dominant. No wonder people look at the white European/American forces as such a scourge to so many, despite the good that has also come. Brush it under the rug...

I do think it's a fair challenge for the left, besides noting how much hindsight affects our views and how nearly impossible it would have been to change those policies, to ask us to re-write a plausible, more humanitarian history.

Really, there aren't many versions of American history that are at all plausible or make any sense in which the natives continue to this day to dominate the larger part of the country, simply out of respecting their rights. And that largely leaves a question of 'more human' ways that the United States would take control of the country.

While the usual debate is the right saying 'who care snowflakes' and the left is saying 'we should recognize the history of how many were murdered', the real issue of how it SHOULD have happened is much more difficult, raising a lot of issues that aren't answered by simple principles, whether 'eminent domain' on the right or 'total respect for sovereignty' implied by the left.

Metric Mouse said:

Lol, so much fail. First country listed, Senegal, has a GDP per capita approximately .12 times the world average. Even the most "prosperous" country from that article has a GDP per capita less than Greece. By what metric would any of these nations be considered to be "doing well?"

Click to expand...

Oh dear. Do you understand the meaning of 'relative'? If an item costs 1/10 in Africa of its cost in a developed nation, and a person's purchasing power is equally reduced, that's an example of 'relatively prosperous'.

Dayton3 said:

You ignore the obvious reason for Africa's poverty.

Geography.

It is the second largest continent in the world and though it has many large rivers, historically most of the length of these have been unnavigable for the point of providing transportation routes into the interior.

Finally you have substantial, heavily populated regions such as around Lake Victoria that are hotbeds for various deadly and/or debilitating diseases.

Click to expand...

Basically, this. Interesting in the article that kicked off this thread, several of the cited researchers mentioned bits and pieces of the overarching geographic issues that plague the African continent, but none of them focused on them in their entirety.

snakestretcher said:

Oh dear. Do you understand the meaning of 'relative'? If an item costs 1/10 in Africa of its cost in a developed nation, and a person's purchasing power is equally reduced, that's an example of 'relatively prosperous'.

Click to expand...

To be fair, you stated "doing well" and not "relatively prosperous." I even quoted it, so I'm not sure how you missed it, having said it and then re-read it...

At any rate, it would seem that the best that can be said about the most prosperous countries in Africa is that relative to other abjectly destitute countries, some are slightly less so.

Metric Mouse said:

To be fair, you stated "doing well" and not "relatively prosperous." I even quoted it, so I'm not sure how you missed it, having said it and then re-read it...

At any rate, it would seem that the best that can be said about the most prosperous countries in Africa is that relative to other abjectly destitute countries, some are slightly less so.

Click to expand...

Ok, point taken. I should have been more clear.

Good4Nothin said:

Africa is a big continent, as we saw in an earlier post. It is second in size only to Asia. What does this mean? I don't know. Probably doesn't mean anything.

A more important question to ask is why Africa is the poorest continent. Some of you know the answer -- racism and European colonialism. Simple. But when we hear simple answers we should ask "But is it true?"

There has been racism and European colonialism on other continents, but they aren't as poor as Africa.

This article Why Is Africa Still Poor? | The Nation is in the Nation, which is definitely NOT racist or conservative. It says that Africa has been poor since it was liberated, and keeps getting poorer, because of corruption. The corruption of evil white racists? No, the corruption of African leaders. Almost invariably, African governments have been corrupt and self-serving.

As the article explains, Jeffrey Sachs never gets tired of saying African poverty can be solved if only rich nations give enough money. How does Sachs know this to be true? He knows it's true because he wants it to be true. He knows that rich nations are tired of pouring money into Africa, only to see it stolen by corrupt governments. But he blames their unwillingness to give ever more on racism. Yes, everything is racism, as we all know.

The article says the people who are most angry about corruption in African governments are Africans. There goes the racism theory.

Click to expand...

Don't show this to the guy who started the "How big is Africa" thread(LOL)