Why Africa?

[Creative_Munster]

Nah, we should look up to cultures that slaughter men for words, that rape women because they have lust. Are you insane? Yes, we can judge these people. Christ.

[Shalmanese]

I would say that a significant reason that has not had too much of a mention is that simply Africa is not a very good place to live for Humans.

1. High Humidity: People tend to become sluggish and have shorter working hours due to humidity. This has been borne out all over the world: South America vs North America, Vietnam vs China, South USA vs North USA etc.

2. High Temperatures: Again, this makes people sluggish

3. Lack of fresh water: water is one of the universally needed things in order to develop agriculture.

4. Lack of navigatable riverways: rivers were the primary route for trade to occur since it allowed much higher bulk.

5. Huge swathes of desert: not conducive to civilisation

6. Dense rainforest: Very hard to clear away and mould.

7. Poor soil quality: Although rainforests have huge amounts of biomass, they are notoriously poor for agriculture.

[smiling_bandit]

There is a common thread running through this and what Abe User posted. This same thought bothers me, when everyone says that Iraq and other countries in the Middle East need to become democracies.

Most of them are paper democracies. In any event, it is hardly racist or prejudicial to state that the autocratic and often brutal Middle Eastern governments might be made better by democratic reforms.

[cowgirl]

Shalmanese: you may not be aware that the human species has its roots in Africa. It’s a perfectly good place for humans to live, as long as you don’t expect them to live the way that North Americans and Europeans do. Capitalism is very resource-intensive, many resources (in Africa and elsewhere) have been depleted in order to feed the beast.

It is notable that many of their environmental problems (pollution, lack of fresh water, destruction of forests, soil erosion etc) are due to the production of export commodities - the African countryside has been pillaged, and the proceeds of this pillage have been sent overseas.

Your other points reflect the assumptions I objected to above - that the only way to prosperity is the American way. For example:

High Humidity/High Temperatures: People tend to become sluggish and have shorter working hours due to humidity: As long as they are not trying to work a 40-hour week to please their employers, this should not be a problem. They have been able to work enough to feed themselves for centuries.

Lack of fresh water: Industries and intensive agriculture, most of which are foreign-owned or required by IMF ‘reforms,’ are largely responsible for polluting fresh water and depleting aquifers.

Lack of navigatable riverways: rivers were the primary route for trade to occur since it allowed much higher bulk: How much ‘trade’ do they themselves need, and how much is for other people’s profits?

Huge swathes of desert: not conducive to civilisation: What’s ‘civilisation?’

Poor soil quality: Although rainforests have huge amounts of biomass, they are notoriously poor for agriculture: It depends what you are trying to grow. Things like cotton, sugar and coffee require good soil. But the people who have lived on African soil for generations know about things that will grow in the soil. Problem is, they are obliged to grow unsuitable things for export, and are left with the absolute worst soil to grow things for themselves.

These points are not really conducive to a solution: it is not so important how the river got polluted, the fact is that it is polluted, and history can’t really offer any solutions. But the reason I bring these things up is to try and offer a change in the way we think about Africa and its problems: solutions are too often imposed by people who haven’t really thought things through in this way. We need to drop the assumption that Africa is there for the taking. Africans need it much more than we do.

kniz: yes, the reason there’s so little interest in Africa is because there’s so little disagreement on the issue! Also there’s no apparent solution that you can slap on a placard and wave in front of the UN. This is what upsets me so much: we all agree that it’s a tragedy, that things are going downhill fast for a lot of African people, and so we don’t talk about it because there’s nothing to argue about! It seems that it’s not consensus that enables action, but some kind of impetus. For us lucky ones, there’s no urgency. It’s because those of us who are comfortable have no reason to try to change it, and those of us who have the power to change it aren’t convinced that anyone wants them to (and wouldn’t know what to do anyway). In the meantime, African society is in crisis, people are dying, dictators are operating freely … and the world watches, saying ‘Tsk tsk, what a shame.’

[Mooster]

I don’t mean to bring tired old arguments into play here, so if this is repetitive of things discussed far too often here, please ignore. However, if we assume that an IQ test was created and given to a representative sample of the world, how could we interepret the data obtained? It seems obvious to me that a test designed by one culture would have to show a favorable bias for areas of the world where that culture exists, and an unfavorable bias for other areas. Further, many of the aspects that we think of as “intelligence” are more correctly labeled “education”; hence, areas with poor infrastructure and educational opportunities for their citizens would also be penalized by such a test. None of this, of course, would explain where anyone arguing about the ignorance of others would use the word “stupider”…

[SentientMeat]

Indeed, Mooster, in answer to the question “What is IQ?”, the inventor of the test replied “It’s what my test measures”.

One human can recite the 9 times table having had it spoon-fed to them throughout childhood. Another human can survive indefinitely in the jungle, where some of the fittest and most able westerners are routinely shipped out from in an emergency helicopter after a few days of eg. combat training.

Which one is “intelligent” and “civilised” again?

[smiling_bandit]

Quotes by cowgirl

As long as they are not trying to work a 40-hour week to please their employers, this should not be a problem. They have been able to work enough to feed themselves for centuries.

Not true. The human body will try to burn less energy and will require more water in hotter climates, even among “adapted” people. I can’t say whether or not this is relevant or important.

Industries and intensive agriculture, most of which are foreign-owned or required by IMF ‘reforms,’ are largely responsible for polluting fresh water and depleting aquifers.

But Africa didn’t have enough anyway. Large sections - and often populated sections - of the country are desert. In any event, Africa is having a hard time feeding its people, the population is grown too big. Would you have them starve?

How much ‘trade’ do they themselves need, and how much is for other people’s profits?

Since they themselves want the fruits of other civilizations technology and production, yes, they need trade. Your last snide remark is mere anti-capitalist screed.

It depends what you are trying to grow. Things like cotton, sugar and coffee require good soil. But the people who have lived on African soil for generations know about things that will grow in the soil.

You can grow small amounts of things in rainforest soils, yes. Butit canot support many people. As there are quite a few people who now need the food they can get from it…

Problem is, they are obliged to grow unsuitable things for export, and are left with the absolute worst soil to grow things for themselves.

Bullscheisse. No one is being forced to grow anything. They’ve foudn they can sell it on a world market for a good price. This is quite possibly the most illogical complaint I’ve seen today.

posted by SentientMeat

I don’t are about intelligent, but the jungleman is not civilized. He would also perish easily in the desert, the North American forest, or South East Asia. What of it? Lack of experience and applicable knowledge has nothing to do with intellect.

Civilization means a unified and coherent culture and technology, advancing beyond merely using the fruits of natural randomness (hunting, gathering, using just natural materials), and a systematic governemnt of an organized group.

[cowgirl]

smiling bandit: My point is that the vast majority of Africa’s resources (agricultural, industrial, labour etc) are being exported, rather than being reinvested in Africa. It’s not a matter of being unable to produce enough to feed themselves. They mostly do not have control over what they produce.

It is important to remember that, even within Africa, there is an ‘elite’ sector which makes decisions based on their own self-interest. Because some Africans have come out in favour of something, this does not necessarily mean that it is good for Africa or for other Africans. Most of the population is unable to participate in decisions regarding trade and industry (they are poor/unasked/oppressed/uneducated/working/suffering from AIDS or nursing someone who is). What this means is that the people who make decisions are the ones who want “other civilizations technology and production,” increased trade and so on, and the ones who want clean water and food and health care aren’t represented. (Yes, this is not really ‘our’ problem. But this is the context in which our actions exacerbate the problem.)

From this site:

During the 1970s and early 1980s the IMF’s loans were conditional on governments following the advice of the Fund’s economists who had their own take on what Southern nations were doing wrong and how they could fix it … Essentially, the agency argued that the debtor country’s problems were caused by ‘excessive demand’ in the domestic economy.

Exports to earn foreign exchange were privileged over basic necessities, food production and other goods for domestic use.

So what we have is an economy geared towards export. Surpluses are sent overseas, in debt repayments and tariffs, rather than being reinvested in industry or spent on social services or food. Cash crops are ubiquitous, not because farmers prefer them to crops that their family can eat, but because they are obliged to by IMF reforms. Rather than growing corn, for instance, they grow sugar cane and use the proceeds to buy corn. What this means is that if the price for sugar cane slumps, or if the price for corn increases, they will have less money to buy corn. Furthermore, on global markets their exports must compete with subsidized agricultural production from the developed world, and can’t. So they grow things for export, which they must sell to ‘boards’ (eg the Wheat Board) for fixed prices, which are often lower than market value because of the subsidized imports. This haphazard approach to agricultural planning is disasterous for the environment: forests are destroyed, soil is eroded, and natural water systems are disrupted.

On the effects of the Uruguay Round (which created the Bretton Woods institutions: World Bank, IMF, GATT/WTO) on Africa’s agricultural economy

agricultural trade became more protected in the developed countries after the conclusion of the Uruguay Round negotiations, while in Africa the sector became more open and vulnerable to external forces such as cheap and subsidised imports. This has had adverse effects on the production and the food security situation in the African continent.

And this one

… the simple fact that the most important decisions having to do with agriculture and the access to food are being made by outsiders; by the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, Western donor countries including USAID, and agribusinesses … the World Bank has pushed African governments to prioritize export crops to earn foreign exchange to repay international loans … contrary to population control advocates, most African countries are currently under populated. Labor shortages are a critical constraint on increasing agricultural production. The more labor devoted to tea and green beans for export, the less labor available for maize and millet for household and local consumption.

See also this site re: environmental problems

Rising cocoa output [in Cote d’Ivoire] has been the primary source of decreased forest cover which now equals 3.9 million hectares, a small fraction of the 12 million present in 1960. Belatedly recognizing the threat that twenty years of export-led agricultural development has wrought, the Policy Framework Paper (PFP)** for 1998-2000 states that the country’s environment and forests are “faced with a number of problems, particularly soil degradation, deforestation, the loss of biodiversity and pollution.”

What’s ‘anti-capitalist screed?’

[smiling_bandit]

So what we have is an economy geared towards export.

This is not a bad thing, however. The problem is not that stuff is being exported, but that the profits are not reinvested. There are many successfull export-oriented economies.

The IMF has helped things and hurt things, and I think they need to try and get foreign nations to cancel debts, possibly with some sort of internal economic agreements.

However, the point is that few African countries’ governments are really working toward the benefit of their people. There is too much corruption there. I think thats the biggest thing that is killing them.

What’s ‘anti-capitalist screed?’

Because to me you are blaming local balance of power issues and poor policy and terrible leadership on international capitalism and trade.

[cowgirl]

smiling bandit:

I think we agree ! An export economy is not necessarily bad. If the people producing the exports are not having their most basic needs met, this is bad.

Also I agree that the IMF really needs to consider cancelling debts.

I do object to your ‘anti-capitalist screed’ comment (although I’ve never heard that word before!) - I do believe that international capitalism and trade are responsible, and this is indeed debatable, but name-calling is not appropriate. I am not ‘anti-capitalist’ - I think it is a useful model, but imperfect, and badly applied in Africa’s case.

[hijak]
Adam Smith made several assumptions, when coming up with his free-market model, which are absolutely not met in today’s market (eg, that consumers would have perfect knowledge about the goods they buy). I think that capitalism would be much improved by re-thinking its origins.
[/hijak]

I also believe that few African governments are working towards the good of the people, because they are in such a tight position - do they spend money on servicing the debt, or on their people? There’s not enough money for them to do both. Also, even if they did have the best interests of their people at heart, there is absolutely no consensus on how they would go about serving these interests. For example, many black Zimbabweans are excited about Mugabe’s land reform plans (although not with his methods). In his own mind Mugabe is doing good for his people. This is an extreme example, I know, but it shows how different opinions can be on what is ‘good’ for people.