African poverty.
A few months ago there was a thread about something to do with Africa, can't remember the details but one theme kept coming up and that was that most of Africa's problems were caused by colonisation and various atrocities committed by European nation's.
Now is this really still a relevant way to explain many of Africa's problems?
Take the Congo for example. Belgium left the country in 1960 that's more than half a decade ago. Would it still be relevant to blame problems like the civil war an the violence on colonisation?
Also can much of the poverty we see today still be linked to European empires exploiting their colonies?
Now is this really still a relevant way to explain many of Africa's problems?
Take the Congo for example. Belgium left the country in 1960 that's more than half a decade ago. Would it still be relevant to blame problems like the civil war an the violence on colonisation?
Also can much of the poverty we see today still be linked to European empires exploiting their colonies?
(edited 13 years ago)
Scroll to see replies
Look. The Congo's problem is a lack of investment. NOBODY is going to invest a penny in the Congo because it has a corrupt government and flowing from that - zero guarantee over any property rights. That's really why it is pisspoor. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Belgium.
If Africa wants to prosper it has to attract countries to invest there. It's not going to do that while it is rife with corruption.
If Africa wants to prosper it has to attract countries to invest there. It's not going to do that while it is rife with corruption.
Original post by Aj12
A few months ago there was a thread about something to do with Africa, can't remember the details but one theme kept coming up and that was that most of Africa's problems were caused by colonisation and various atrocities committed by European nation's.
Now is this really still a relevant way to explain many of Africa's problems?
Take the Congo for example. Belgium left the country in 1960 that's more than half a decade ago. Would it still be relevant to blame problems like the civil war an the violence on colonisation?
Also can much of the poverty we see today still be linked to European empires exploiting their colonies?
Now is this really still a relevant way to explain many of Africa's problems?
Take the Congo for example. Belgium left the country in 1960 that's more than half a decade ago. Would it still be relevant to blame problems like the civil war an the violence on colonisation?
Also can much of the poverty we see today still be linked to European empires exploiting their colonies?
Take a look at the reply under yours; that's caused by colonialism which set up a government in a country which was clearly working fine before such a system was in place. Yeah, it is still a relevant answer because it's the root cause of the current problems. Government doesn't work everywhere, contrary to what the arrogant British imperialists will have you believe.
Original post by Howard
If Africa wants to prosper it has to attract countries to invest there. It's not going to do that while it is rife with corruption.
If Africa wants to prosper it has to attract countries to invest there. It's not going to do that while it is rife with corruption.
Belgium created the divison between Hutus and Tutsis which led to extreme amounts of violence and death during the Rwandan genocide in 1995, which also took a great toll on Congo, having similar divisions initially caused by the Belgians and being a neighbouring country to Rwanda only made the situation worse than one could possibly imagine.
Countries don't need to invest in Africa, giant TNCs and MNCs exploit its resources and a lot of corruption that is present there is useful for these companies and sometimes created by them.
Exmaples would include Shell's exploitation of Oil in Nigeria. The suffering that ordinary people have to face because of companies like these is truly horrible.
Source:http://www.essentialaction.org/shell/issues.html
(edited 13 years ago)
The problem that former colonies suffered from was the frantic nature of decolonisation - particularly after WW2 which is more relevant when referring to African colonies. Unstable government has meant corruption has been rife and vital institutions such as banks, state education and infrastructure are unreliable and substandard which means the economy struggles to function properly. Colonisation was evidently the reason why many countries suffered economically when under European rule but the countless problems which would inevitably emerge as a result of decolonisation were not resolved before independence was granted.
Original post by Aj12
A few months ago there was a thread about something to do with Africa, can't remember the details but one theme kept coming up and that was that most of Africa's problems were caused by colonisation and various atrocities committed by European nation's.
Now is this really still a relevant way to explain many of Africa's problems?
Take the Congo for example. Belgium left the country in 1960 that's more than half a decade ago. Would it still be relevant to blame problems like the civil war an the violence on colonisation?
Also can much of the poverty we see today still be linked to European empires exploiting their colonies?
Now is this really still a relevant way to explain many of Africa's problems?
Take the Congo for example. Belgium left the country in 1960 that's more than half a decade ago. Would it still be relevant to blame problems like the civil war an the violence on colonisation?
Also can much of the poverty we see today still be linked to European empires exploiting their colonies?
well there's lots of reasons why poverty is so prevalent in sub- saharan africa. I know that SOME debt has been lifted from some countries, and it's defo nothing to do with climate. In some areas there's ridiculous inflation so that doesn't help, and yes, the colonial thing is still a big deal, before colonies began, Africa was pretty well off. Civil wars have worsened the situation but many companies use Africa to grow crops for little money so farmers have no choice, even with fairtrade they still earn next to nothing waste is deposited in african seas and at border so their livelihoods-fish- is destroyed too.
there's loads more reasons but i guess atm it's every country for itself...We colonialised Hong Kong right up to the 90s, and it's one of the best places in the world. Clearly colonialism isn't to blame. If anything a lack of colonialism is Africa's problem. We left, thereby pulling the rug out from under the local population because there was never going to be a viable elite to take over and run things in an at least vaguely fair way. The most prosperous state in Africa is South Africa - where whites stayed to govern and although they had to be forced to, eventually transferred power to blacks. Unfortunately Africans seem extremely resistant to education - in Africa the elite's IQs at present average around the 100 mark, whereas the UKs are around 130-140. The average adult there hovers around 70, which roughly equates to the intelligence of a Western 8 year old and is borderline retarded. So the situation is that we have a bunch of 15 year olds trying to bring order to a country full of 8 year olds. Here we were lucky, our population was allowed to regulate itself naturally, so when our elite had lower IQs they didn't have to try and keep order amongst a country of more than a few million at most. Like the poster above states, these countries cannot handle our 'advanced' forms of democracy.
Original post by Elipsis
We colonialised Hong Kong right up to the 90s, and it's one of the best places in the world. Clearly colonialism isn't to blame. If anything a lack of colonialism is Africa's problem. We left, thereby pulling the rug out from under the local population because there was never going to be a viable elite to take over and run things in an at least vaguely fair way. The most prosperous state in Africa is South Africa - where whites stayed to govern and although they had to be forced to, eventually transferred power to blacks. Unfortunately Africans seem extremely resistant to education - in Africa the elite's IQs at present average around the 100 mark, whereas the UKs are around 130-140. The average adult there hovers around 70, which roughly equates to the intelligence of a Western 8 year old and is borderline retarded. So the situation is that we have a bunch of 15 year olds trying to bring order to a country full of 8 year olds. Here we were lucky, our population was allowed to regulate itself naturally, so when our elite had lower IQs they didn't have to try and keep order amongst a country of more than a few million at most. Like the poster above states, these countries cannot handle our 'advanced' forms of democracy.
You would be as well if you were starving to death. Education would have been the last thing in your mind.
Original post by Elipsis
We colonialised Hong Kong right up to the 90s, and it's one of the best places in the world. Clearly colonialism isn't to blame. If anything a lack of colonialism is Africa's problem. We left, thereby pulling the rug out from under the local population because there was never going to be a viable elite to take over and run things in an at least vaguely fair way. The most prosperous state in Africa is South Africa - where whites stayed to govern and although they had to be forced to, eventually transferred power to blacks. Unfortunately Africans seem extremely resistant to education - in Africa the elite's IQs at present average around the 100 mark, whereas the UKs are around 130-140. The average adult there hovers around 70, which roughly equates to the intelligence of a Western 8 year old and is borderline retarded. So the situation is that we have a bunch of 15 year olds trying to bring order to a country full of 8 year olds. Here we were lucky, our population was allowed to regulate itself naturally, so when our elite had lower IQs they didn't have to try and keep order amongst a country of more than a few million at most. Like the poster above states, these countries cannot handle our 'advanced' forms of democracy.
No. Botswana. Would just like to take this post to say you're great at a) being a bigot b) being ignorant c) being a troll d) a and b.
Out of all ex British colonies. Ireland was colonised the longest and saw the most brutal oppresion. Before this world wide recession and even before ireland joined the EU its economy was booming.
So don't give me this bull**** about the british causing Africas problems. Colonialism although evil has benefited many, many countries. Colonialism brought to africa knowledge, sicence, engineering, infrastructure, engineering, agricultural methods that feed the whole sub saharan africa (which was previously hunter gatherer and nomadic).
The problem with africa is africans. I do not refer to their colour, ethnicity, or race. I solely refer to sub saharan Africans in Africa when I say that they are the most incompetent, incapable, courrupt, backwards, primitive, idle, useless people on the planet. The problem with sub-saharan Africa is Africans.
Having been to Africa and spoken to many of them in their land and abroda, most would agree with me. Infact most of them would prefer to have white run governments.
So don't give me this bull**** about the british causing Africas problems. Colonialism although evil has benefited many, many countries. Colonialism brought to africa knowledge, sicence, engineering, infrastructure, engineering, agricultural methods that feed the whole sub saharan africa (which was previously hunter gatherer and nomadic).
The problem with africa is africans. I do not refer to their colour, ethnicity, or race. I solely refer to sub saharan Africans in Africa when I say that they are the most incompetent, incapable, courrupt, backwards, primitive, idle, useless people on the planet. The problem with sub-saharan Africa is Africans.
Having been to Africa and spoken to many of them in their land and abroda, most would agree with me. Infact most of them would prefer to have white run governments.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by Elipsis
The most prosperous state in Africa is South Africa - where whites stayed to govern and although they had to be forced to, eventually transferred power to blacks.
They didn't 'transfer power to the blacks.' After many anti-apartheid campaigns, including many notable ones in the West, South Africa extended rights to black and coloured people, resulting in a black president being voted in by popular mandate.
Unfortunately Africans seem extremely resistant to education - in Africa the elite's IQs at present average around the 100 mark, whereas the UKs are around 130-140. The average adult there hovers around 70, which roughly equates to the intelligence of a Western 8 year old and is borderline retarded.
Sadly, a lot of Africa doesn't receive proper education so I would describe the scenario as a vicious cycle - they can't educate the next generation, because they are not educated themselves and so on.
The average IQ of Britain is 100. No country on earth has an average of over around 107. In regards to IQ, you will notice a correlation between the poorest countries and the lowest IQs. Generally, this is because without the right social factors, such as education it's ridiculous to expect a Sub Saharan to perform the same as a person educated since the age of four.
So the situation is that we have a bunch of 15 year olds trying to bring order to a country full of 8 year olds.
That's enough Adolf.
Here we were lucky, our population was allowed to regulate itself naturally, so when our elite had lower IQs they didn't have to try and keep order amongst a country of more than a few million at most. Like the poster above states, these countries cannot handle our 'advanced' forms of democracy.
I was going to rebuttal to this, but for efficiency I will simply say 'stfu' as you clearly do not know what you're talking about.
Original post by ptrsoos
yes,take a look at india.once you loose many of your resources and become poor it is hard to gain back your strength.
What resources to Britain completely loot to oblivion ? The reason for Indian occupation was trade which Indians benefited massively from. Along with the sheer amount of knowledge that brought them to the modern age. Where would Indians be if we took that back ?
Original post by ANARCHY__
No. Botswana. Would just like to take this post to say you're great at a) being a bigot b) being ignorant c) being a troll d) a and b.
Don't mind him. He forgets that a few generations ago most people had a bath a year in this country if at all and were still throwing their defecations out of the window. Considering England has existed for 700,000 years, it's the weakest of gloats.
Original post by lovely_me
They didn't 'transfer power to the blacks.' After many anti-apartheid campaigns, including many notable ones in the West, South Africa extended rights to black and coloured people, resulting in a black president being voted in by popular mandate.
Sadly, a lot of Africa doesn't receive proper education so I would describe the scenario as a vicious cycle - they can't educate the next generation, because they are not educated themselves and so on.
The average IQ of Britain is 100. No country on earth has an average of over around 107. In regards to IQ, you will notice a correlation between the poorest countries and the lowest IQs. Generally, this is because without the right social factors, such as education it's ridiculous to expect a Sub Saharan to perform the same as a person educated since the age of four.
That's enough Adolf.
I was going to rebuttal to this, but for efficiency I will simply say 'stfu' as you clearly do not know what you're talking about.
Sadly, a lot of Africa doesn't receive proper education so I would describe the scenario as a vicious cycle - they can't educate the next generation, because they are not educated themselves and so on.
The average IQ of Britain is 100. No country on earth has an average of over around 107. In regards to IQ, you will notice a correlation between the poorest countries and the lowest IQs. Generally, this is because without the right social factors, such as education it's ridiculous to expect a Sub Saharan to perform the same as a person educated since the age of four.
That's enough Adolf.
I was going to rebuttal to this, but for efficiency I will simply say 'stfu' as you clearly do not know what you're talking about.
I was saying that the elite averages an IQ of 100, not the wider population. A lot of the African elite went to top schools around the globe. I'm not saying Africans can't have the same intelligence as we enjoy in the west, just that it is an uphill battle. If you read what I actually said about SA you would notice that I said blacks had to seize the power they deserved... So don't put words in mt mouth you dumb tard.
Original post by Mujeriego
Don't mind him. He forgets that a few generations ago most people had a bath a year in this country if at all and were still throwing their defecations out of the window. Considering England has existed for 700,000 years, it's the weakest of gloats.
You are correct. *FUN HISTORICAL FACT* Did you know that Queen Elizabeth spoke with a Midlands accent, similar to present day Birmingham?
Original post by Mujeriego
Don't mind him. He forgets that a few generations ago most people had a bath a year in this country if at all and were still throwing their defecations out of the window. Considering England has existed for 700,000 years, it's the weakest of gloats.
Erm it was an englishman who invented the toilet. I am sure wherever you or your family are from people still **** in a hole in the ground and use their hand to clean their arse.
Original post by Elipsis
I was saying that the elite averages an IQ of 100, not the wider population. A lot of the African elite went to top schools around the globe. I'm not saying Africans can't have the same intelligence as we enjoy in the west, just that it is an uphill battle. If you read what I actually said about SA you would notice that I said blacks had to seize the power they deserved... So don't put words in mt
lolwut?
(edited 13 years ago)
I think it is, for the most part, indirectly linked to the prevalence of colonialism in Africa.
In a lot of cases the transition from colonial to independent government was very rushed due to internal pressure, and thus it was never achieved properly i.e a proper constitution was never drafted, elections were shambles and the new administration/civil service equivalent had no true idea how to run a country.
For example with the Congo, independence was extremely rushed, and at the time of independence only 30 Congolese had graduated from university and only 136 children had completed secondary education. "There were no congolese doctors, no secondary school teachers, no army officers" (From a book about African independence), and out of the 1,400 strong civil service only 3 posts were held by Congolese. In other words they clearly weren't prepared for independence, and this wasn't exclusive to the Congo. Other European governments conceded independence drastically quickly for fears that violence would break out between European minorities and militants as had happened in Algeria already.
You could blame the African states for pressuring for independence so quickly, and that was probably the main issue, however ultimately it's the fault of the European powers as they shouldn't have been there in the first place. Plain and simple.
In a lot of cases the transition from colonial to independent government was very rushed due to internal pressure, and thus it was never achieved properly i.e a proper constitution was never drafted, elections were shambles and the new administration/civil service equivalent had no true idea how to run a country.
For example with the Congo, independence was extremely rushed, and at the time of independence only 30 Congolese had graduated from university and only 136 children had completed secondary education. "There were no congolese doctors, no secondary school teachers, no army officers" (From a book about African independence), and out of the 1,400 strong civil service only 3 posts were held by Congolese. In other words they clearly weren't prepared for independence, and this wasn't exclusive to the Congo. Other European governments conceded independence drastically quickly for fears that violence would break out between European minorities and militants as had happened in Algeria already.
You could blame the African states for pressuring for independence so quickly, and that was probably the main issue, however ultimately it's the fault of the European powers as they shouldn't have been there in the first place. Plain and simple.
Original post by ANARCHY__
lolwut?
1000 points for pointing out I pressed the wrong key whilst posting on my Blackberry... First you don't argue against any of my points using either facts or logic, then you point out spelling mistakes caused by slips on a small keyboard. You are turning out to be a worthy poster on here aren't you.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Family won't let me go to uni, i'm illegal
- Edexcel History A Level option 1F In search of the American dream
- Development Studies: Sussex, UEA, Reading, Birmingham or SOAS?
- AQA A-level History USA: Making of a Superpower (7042/1K) - 24 May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Questions for EPQ project:
- OCR A level History
- Chance of getting onto MPhil African Studies at Cambridge with a very low 2:1…
- Studying For A Levels
- Nigerians in Oxford
- Gordon Brown calls for new poverty fund to halt slide into ‘hungry decade’
- Paper 3B: Global politics
- African Folktales Reimagined | Emmanuel Katto African Man
- English Lit GSCE- ACC (AQA)
- anyone worked for Cloudworkers before?
- Of mice and Men essay
- a christmas carol practice answer
- I didn't watch a single minute of the coronation today!
- Gcse grade from africa are equal to which grades in uk.
- Quick anonymous survey for my project
- Which country do you think I am from ?
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
OCR A-level Religious Studies Paper 3 (Christianity) - 20th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 minute ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 2 minutes ago
IBM Degree Apprenticeship 2024Last reply 3 minutes ago
Weidenfeld Hoffmann Trust (WHT) Scholarship Notification (2024-2025)Last reply 7 minutes ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 13 minutes ago
LSE politics and Economics 2023/2024Last reply 13 minutes ago
Is it really such a bad thing to have an undefined relationshipLast reply 14 minutes ago
Home Office: Immigration Enforcement Casework Support AO 2024Trending
Last reply 7 minutes ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 46 minutes ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 4 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 7 minutes ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 46 minutes ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 4 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
