And ta-DA!
Didn’t we just do this?
I should also warn you: among the explanations not considered tenable on this Board is a fundamental difference in the inherent capability of the sub-saharan populations. Contrary to Tristan’s assertion, no evidence at all (there is none) will be posted to demonstrate the equivalent success to other populations of the sub-saharan diaspora, but it is a tenet of faith on this board that we are all equal.
As to blaming colonialism (the most popular external explanation); other previously colonialized countries in the rest of the world seem to have moved on, and even prospered. Within sub-saharan Africa itself, South Africa and Zimbabwe seem to be counter-examples to the general notion that it is the geography itself which is at issue. European-run farms made Rhodesia into a breadbasket, for example. Sub-saharan Africa is rich in natural resources but has not been successful at avoiding being plundered the way that, say Saudi Arabia has avoided being plundered. In general the plunderers seem to be able to take advantage of weak populations, governance structures and internal corruption.
In short, sub-saharan Africa has been unable to get its act together even in places where getting its act together would produce real wealth across the population of a whole country.
For a more promising note on sub-saharan Africa, see this article in last week’s The Economist. Let’s hope some of that foreign investment (by, for example, China) ends up being more than simply developing a foreign-based infrastructure that further plunders Africa the way that Nigeria is being plundered for its oil.
How much blame for its current plight you lay at the feet of incompetent Africans and how much on rapacious foreigners is probably a matter for a different debate.
EvenSven is going to be pissed.
Well…I think it’s fairer to point out that the success of what you term “West Africa” was really influenced by North Africa populations such as the Berbers, and the scholasticism in Timbuktu and the Songhai Empire (for example) was heavily contributed to by Islamic learning and trans-saharan trade with the North African populations. In any case, the farther sub-saharan one goes, the less “success” one sees, historically.
It certainly wouldn’t be accurate to portray most of sub-saharan Africa on par with the rest of the European and Asian world 600 years ago despite the pocket of “Empires” you reference.
This is some racist, “one drop,” white-wash bull. Any native/local African empires can be traced to outside/white/Arab/non-black “influences”? Standard racist bull.
You better start making some specific claims, about some specific rulers/technologies, pertinent to specific empires while citing some credible sources, before you will get any rational person to buy this racist narrative.
The notion that Africa is lagging behind is poorly formed. 50 years ago lots of the world was just as bad off. Africa, Latin America, China, India, Central Asia, the Middle East, SE Asia, all were suffering from wars, famine, poverty, dictatorship, and so on.
We seem to have the notion that peace and prosperity are the natural state of affairs, and that any deviation from peace and prosperity must be the result of some problem, and if we address the problem peace and prosperity will automatically return.
Except, peace and prosperity are the exception. It takes many mutually-reinforcing social, political, and economic institutions to create a modern first-world country. And France and the United States and Germany and Belgium and Canada and all the other decent places to live didn’t just spring forth full-grown like Athena from Zeus’s brow. There was a lot of conflict and war and border shifting and slavery and genocide and tyranny and ethnic conflict and religious strife and brother killing brother going on, which you might read about if you open a history book.
Asking “why hasn’t Africa gotten past all this, like we did” is kind of silly when you look at it this way. They haven’t gotten past it because they haven’t had the same history we had. And while we’ve gotten past a lot of stuff, just look at the history of the 20th century. The Soviet Union just fell a 20 years ago. China just started liberalizing 30 years ago. Remember World War II? You know, with the Nazis and such? That JUST HAPPENED RECENTLY.
The success of countries that have adopted western-style liberal democratic capitalism in the last 20 years has led us to believe that it’s easy. Just build some schools, elect a prime minister, build a few factories, and suddenly we’re back to normal. Except it doesn’t work that way.
Well put.
Hard is a relative term. Yes it’s amazing to think about the progress that has been made since WWII, but then again huge regions of the world were able to lift themselves up from sub-African levels of poverty, and yet almost the entirety of Africa has failed to do the same. That’s a striking pattern and demands explanation.
Just because racists can dream up an alternative racist reality (where the rules of nature have bent to their racist whims) doesn’t mean that rational people should take their racist science-fiction dreamland as fact. You have racist claims; you bring proof to back them up. No fiction. Fact.
That’s because the key to the issue of colonialism is how colonies were run, not whether colonies existed or not. Most people in this thread are referencing the complex historical/political ramification of colonial administrations. This much more informative and interesting then judging whether or not a country is a former colony. Colonialism is how most of these modern states were formed, developed, and ran; it is as relevant as any other part of history (the cold war to the current political era). You should not downplay it, but understand it’s current role in the stability of these states.
Yes, but then again modern farming techniques were never really an option for the rest of the world before the industrialization of agriculture. Modern colonies of European states were fortunately able to profit from this; however, unfortunately, the profits all went to the new European landowners of these colonies. Zimbabwe and South Africa are still trying to deal with the historical consequences of such a racist, feudal-like allotment of landownership. Zimbabwe (for example) has dealt with this issue in a much more drastic and damaging way then South Africa.
Saudi Arabia is a kingdom that is ruled by a people with one shared religion, language, ethnicity and history (although it has strong clan divisions). It has been unified many times in its history from the Islamic Caliphate to the fall of the Ottoman empire. It is also a place that has a high percent of urbanization and a strong central government that is fueled by riches from a sole export. This is an entire different history then any current African country (Minus Ethiopia which doesn’t even have any oil).
-
You haven’t defined what “getting it’s act together” means. That is just a vague claim that you use to make even more bizarre racist claims.
-
African countries are “getting their act together” IMO at all general measures.
This is not an African vs foreigner blame-game. Quit playing the race angles.
Fact:
The sub-saharan population, on average, has not done as well as the Eurasian population, on average, anywhere at anytime in history.
Not in their own region of sub-saharan Africa; not as transplants to other regions where they are a majority; not as emigrants to regions where they are a minority; not as emigrants to regions where Eurasians are also immigrants (South America, e.g.).
Fact:
The Eurasian population, on average, has done better than the sub-saharan population, on average, everywhere and all through history.
In their own regions; as transplants to sub-saharan Africa; in regions where they are a majority; in regions where they are a minority; in regions where they share transplant status with populations of sub-saharan ancestry.
Fact:
In every measure of socio-economic success, Eurasians, on average, have out-performed sub-saharan African populations, across the world.
Fact:
In every standardized testing measure for cognitive skills such IQ, academic testing and for academic excellence in high-cognition fields such as the STEM sciences, Eurasians have out-performed sub-saharan Africans, on average, across the world.
Fact:
Nearly every major high-cognition innovation (industrial revolution; nuclear science; space exploration; transportation; communication; computers…) has been developed by and generated within, systems created by societies with vastly more Eurasian than sub-saharan input.
Fact:
When sub-saharan and Eurasian populations are brought together, it has been the experience, on average, that the Eurasian population has taken advantage of the sub-saharan population and not the other way around. There is a greater history of Eurasian populations dominating, subjecting and plundering sub-saharan populations rather than the other way around.
Fact:
In every country of the world, despite very targeted and pro-active programs to eliminate outcome differences between populations of sub-saharan ancestry and Eurasian ancestry, no success in eliminating disparities has been demonstrated. This is true even if one corrects for (for example) family income and parental education and uses educational achievement testing as a standard.
Fact:
Distributions of genes vary in the two broad populations of sub-saharan Africans and non-sub-saharan Africans, and it is commonly-accepted dogma that this was the first major division of human populations.
Perhaps you would like to give some examples of sub-saharan cultures and empires on par with Eurasian ones outside of the pocket of empires in West Africa on the trans-saharan trade route with North Africa.
As to the (lack of) “Arab” and “outside” influences, a look at the names within those empires might cause you to adjust your thinking, if you are thinking the Islamic influence was minimal…
Do you have any cites for your facts?
**Bullshit assertion #1 a):**Blacks/Sub-Saharan Africans are not a biological population.
Bullshit assertion #1 b): Eurasians are not a biological population.
Bullshit assertion #1 d): “done as well” not a measurable quality
Bullshit assertion #1 e): There are/have been many populations of black people who have (IMO) “done well” by any of your bizarre racist measurements (from the west-African Medieval Sahelian states to the east-African Swahilian states; from the southern African Great Zimbabwe to the ancient Empire of Axum or Nubia. You have been told about these before you just choose to ignore history in favour of your own bizarre race theories. These empires/kingdoms/states existed just like any other region in the world (the Aztecs/Norman-England/etc).
Quit making stupid claims.
ETA: I’ll try to cover all of your assertions later, but I can tolerate only so much bull.
If your job to is make so many bullshit claims/assertions that I have no option but to drown in the sheer amount of them; you should give yourself a big freakin clap right now.
Why would I want to discount west-Africa empires, because it doesn’t fit your racist narrative? Why would I just stick to the Axum empire, or the Nubians, or the various smaller African kingdoms like Great Zimbabwe and the various Swahili states? Why would I play your stupid game?
There was no “Islamic influence” in such that they were foreign. Those Islamic empires were local ones and “influence” is a weasel word.
It’s a simple incomprehension of language, being accurate or having credibility isn’t an issue. For Chief Pendant, blind-racist assertions are facts; he can just sit back and drown everyone in them.
Actually, Northern Europeans (the ancestors of most white Americans) were quite backwards until fairly recently in world history. It took Northern Europeans centuries to reach the level of prosperity and organization that were standard in the Roman Empire.
You’d have us believe that Pictish war chieftains somehow share in the achievements of the Tang dynasty because the two groups have some DNA markers in comparison.
Chen19, what’s your claim here with regard to Africa?
I’ve decided to siphon my bubbling anger to a pit thread.
See this chart for a division of the earliest two main allopatric groups: Africans, and non-Africans.
As to your second point, if sub-saharan Africans have done just as well as other populations, you need to announce that. Start with Mr Sharpton, who doesn’t seem to feel his work is done yet. I’ve given some socioeconomic and educational metrics; would you like to advance some other ones? Or am I missing some important studies?