[Snagprophet]

(Original post by sj27)
By many metrics, Botswana would be considered more stable than South Africa. Some attribute Botswana's relative wealth and stability on the continent to the fact that diamonds were only discovered after independence, not before...

And it's interesting how you don't think it's worth mentioning that South Africa's growth rates (and inflation, and most other metrics you might think of) improved considerably since ....what did you say? "We put a black leader in charge".

Well I'm no economist but I think it's fair to call South Africa more advanced anywhere else in Africa. And that's not to say black people are useless.

[Skeppy]

Africa was robbed of its resources its not their fault

This was posted from The Student Room's Android App on my HTC Wildfire S A510e

[sj27]

(Original post by Snagprophet)
Well I'm no economist but I think it's fair to call South Africa more advanced anywhere else in Africa. And that's not to say black people are useless.

The economy is more advanced, yes, in the sense that it is more diversified. But you said stable...
Anyway all this "put a black person in charge and they ruin everything" bull certainly hasn't proven to be the case in SA. Problems, yes of course. But as I said a lot of economic indicators - average growth rates, inflation, foreign investment etc - have all improved significantly since 1994.

And of course Mugabe has done a lot to destroy Zim. This is not however a preserve of either being black, or Africa. (Examples might include the Yugoslav civil war, Belarus and a number of other ex-USSR states, and who knows where Russia would be without oil....) Not to mention countries like Rwanda, Mozambique and Angola that have managed huge turnarounds after devastating civil war. Not "advanced", and not without problems, but not basket cases either.

[Tahooper]

Yes, how dare the third world be enslaved against their will by European colonialists, then once they break free from their oppressors, they are given loans which they have no choice but to accept even though they cannot pay them back.

[Melikeyflute]

(Original post by im so academic)
Agreed. We should stop all foreign aid and concentrate on using the money to help British people.

why? just why?

[dongonaeatu]

yh

[affleming]

(Original post by Alofleicester)
Does it matter if it is?
Morals are not important compared to survival of both yourself (more children = more hands to help work and get food) and your genes (more children = increased chance one survives and becomes a parent) - that's all that matters, surviving long enough to successfully pass our genes on to the next generation.

I dont think this is neccesarily true allocation of resources must also be taken into account, one or two healthy children is better than several malnourished children.

[chefdave]

(Original post by sucess)
british colonism created poverty today

Not in Britain it didn't, or in Australia, or the U.S, or Canada or New Zealand or even Hong Kong. We don't even blame the Empire for the relative poverty suffered in India, it seems we only ever make an exception when it comes to Africa. Strange.

[sucess]

(Original post by chefdave)
Not in Britain it didn't, or in Australia, or the U.S, or Canada or New Zealand or even Hong Kong. We don't even blame the Empire for the relative poverty suffered in India, it seems we only ever make an exception when it comes to Africa. Strange.

i guess the lot that went to africa were lazy because they didn't kill off the natives

[Nick100]

(Original post by Snagprophet)
Well I'm no economist but I think it's fair to call South Africa more advanced anywhere else in Africa. And that's not to say black people are useless.

But Botswana is much wealthier than South Africa and has less wealth inequality and less crime; surely that makes it more advanced?