Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EskimoJo)
    Well, I don't know how badly these 'countries' were suffering before people came along, changed their languages, changed their religions, changed their borders, removed the point of tribes, changed how they lived, dressed and worked, changed how they were led/governed etc.
    Maybe the people didn't look the way Westerners wanted them to look, didn't act the way Westerners wanted them to act, didn't live the same way as Westerners, weren't using their resources as efficiently as they could, didn't have the same values as Westerners had and obviously weren't even as 'healthy' as Westerners, but they were satisfied and survived.
    It's possible that the actual main problem is that the 'White man' came and adjusted the Africans way and standard of living, shifted the power to where it suited them and then 'left' leaving the people aware of their 'inferiority' and differences and in the middle of a new way of living (i.e. with governments) that nobody left there was really used to or wanted. The problem isn't the poverty, low education and illness, because that has mostly improved, the problem is the awareness the people have of themselves now, which means they cannot go back, but to match up with the standards they have been shown, they would need to advance ridiculously quickly, in a much shorter space of time than the Westerners themselves did. I think that's why the spread of wealth and corruption is so extreme.

    Just me thinking out load/rambling...
    This is basically what I've been trying to argue. What we are doing in Africa is the equivalent of going back to Britain 3000 years ago, and trying to get them to implement a system created gradually over hundreds of years by some of the greatest minds that ever lived. It is like giving formal control of our government over to a bunch of semi-psychopathic 15 year olds.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    This is basically what I've been trying to argue. What we are doing in Africa is the equivalent of going back to Britain 3000 years ago, and trying to get them to implement a system created gradually over hundreds of years by some of the greatest minds that ever lived. It is like giving formal control of our government over to a bunch of semi-psychopathic 15 year olds.
    No it isn't. :rolleyes: It's like giving control of the government to a bunch of people who have lived their lives through farming and battle and no government.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by planetearth)
    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 initailly 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 of 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
    The tribal division has always been there.......hence the different tribes and how the remained after thousands of years. This is reinforced if you look at many other African nations such as Kenya etc.

    Actually, many of these corporations merely higher African companies to work for them and have very little involvement with what happens inside the country. On top of this, if these corporations where not there, then there would be less jobs or far less job stability.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    The elite I refer to are the upper-middle classes, rather than the purely upper classes. Look at the cabinet now - almost all Etonion descendants of Lords and the like - almost all of whom have IQs of over 120.


    I didn't claim that colonialists did good on a single level, but rather they provided all the things needed for an advanced economy to flourish - roads, railways, educational establishments, farming techniques, and rule of law, to name but a few. Indeed India today is still using our railways, educating their children in the imperialist schools we left behind, and ruling using the parliament we set up.

    The English weren't advanced at least until the late 1800s/early 1900s, that system devloped over hundreds of years, and from having no idea of anything but tribal governance Africa is supposed to just get it? They didn't even have a written language, or for that matter a very expansive spoken language either. I do not know why you are getting so offended by me stating that the majority of the world is currently superior to Africans, I'm not even saying they are superior on a fundamental biological level. Imagine, if you can, we built a time machine and went back to the Habsburg empire and tried to get them, with their lower IQs, to implement the systems we use today. It would be a catastrophe.

    And with all your crying I very much doubt you are more conservative than I am, indeed debating with you whilst trying not to offend your sensibilities is proving impossible. It's like having an argument with the Guardian in human form.

    I think posting on a troll account on a mobile would be rather difficult... It takes like 2 mins per page as it is. If it was my opinion why would I seek to protect this account?
    I agree with every point you've made in this thread
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SnowMonster)
    YOU HAVE ENTIRELY MISSED THE POINT

    Without colonialism, without European intervention there would BE NO EDUCATION IN AFRICA.

    ALL knowledge in Sub-Saharan Africa comes from Europeans, EVERYTHING that they know has been taught and told to them by Europeans.

    GET THE POINT
    So you're saying that without any European intervention no education system would have developed at all? I think that's a rather ridiculous claim to make. You have to remember that at the start of colonialism the UK didn't have a comprehensive education system, and education was really only for the rich, yet look how fast we developed an education system for all. There's no logical reason why that couldn't have happened in Africa (Albeit on a later time frame), without European intervention.

    My point is that had these societies developed organically, there's no logical reason why they would be in a worse state than they are now.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tieyourmotherdown)
    So you're saying that without any European intervention no education system would have developed at all? I think that's a rather ridiculous claim to make. You have to remember that at the start of colonialism the UK didn't have a comprehensive education system, and education was really only for the rich, yet look how fast we developed an education system for all. There's no logical reason why that couldn't have happened in Africa (Albeit on a later time frame), without European intervention.

    My point is that had these societies developed organically, there's no logical reason why they would be in a worse state than they are now.
    When the British went to Africa they were still living in the stone age. If Africans were to advance it would have taken them thousands of years to get where the British industrial revolution was at. Thats IF they started to devlop.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    With colonialisation there was a difference between areas where Europeans colonised and settled (eg US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) and areas where they just set up extractive institutions to exploit resources for the benefit of the colonial power. In the places where Europeans settled they usually set up democratic institutions, the rule of law, powers to guarantee contract rights and so on, ie things that encourage private investment and promote growth. In the places with undesirable climates and levels of disease (like Sub Saharan Africa) they just set up authoritarian institutions where the state was there to extract wealth from individuals rather than to protect individual property rights.

    After decolonisation these type of countries just had a period of ethnic struggle and whichever group won took over the extractive institution and they have no incentive to set up better quality institutions, so you get little incentive to save or invest and the economy does not grow.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SnowMonster)
    When the British went to Africa they were still living in the stone age. If Africans were to advance it would have taken them thousands of years to get where the British industrial revolution was at. Thats IF they started to devlop.
    Why would it have taken them thousands of years? You probably ought to reason your argument rather than just posting statements without explaining them. There's no logical reason why it would have taken thousands of years, particularly when other parts of the world had already industrialized which instantly creates knowledge and expertise that African societies can look to.

    You're also assuming that by adhering to our definition of 'better' they'd be better countries, despite the fact that in reality they should be allowed to develop into societies that they please and find natural, not have capitalism (Which whilst we may deem better, is not organic to their society) forced upon them instantly.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tieyourmotherdown)
    Why would it have taken them thousands of years? You probably ought to reason your argument rather than just posting statements without explaining them. There's no logical reason why it would have taken thousands of years, particularly when other parts of the world had already industrialized which instantly creates knowledge and expertise that African societies can look to.

    You're also assuming that by adhering to our definition of 'better' they'd be better countries, despite the fact that in reality they should be allowed to develop into societies that they please and find natural, not have capitalism (Which whilst we may deem better, is not organic to their society) forced upon them instantly.
    Urgh, stop spouting liberal garbage and please begin to think for yourself.

    If no one had made contact with them, then they would have taken at least a similar amount of time to develop as every other nation, and seeing that they are starting from the most basic level, this would have taken thousands of years.

    How developed other parts of the world is has no correlation to the speed of development for African nations. For them to develop they have to change economically and socially - and social change is extremely slow and can not be forced, and again, they are at the most primitive state.

    Also we are better then them.
    Look at crime rates, death rates, the amount of conflicts we have etc. We live in a more developed, safer, and happier nation. Now I am not saying we should force them to change, but lets not lie and pretend that hunting Albinos for witch craft is perfectly normal.


    (Original post by tieyourmotherdown)
    So you're saying that without any European intervention no education system would have developed at all? I think that's a rather ridiculous claim to make. You have to remember that at the start of colonialism the UK didn't have a comprehensive education system, and education was really only for the rich, yet look how fast we developed an education system for all. There's no logical reason why that couldn't have happened in Africa (Albeit on a later time frame), without European intervention.

    My point is that had these societies developed organically, there's no logical reason why they would be in a worse state than they are now.

    Why is it so ridiculous?
    They had not developed education themselves so why would they all of a sudden change and invent a system that took other societies hundreds of years to master? Africa could not have been further away from the economical infrastructure needed for an education system to develop.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jim152)
    I think your confidence in IQ tests is pretty absurd. Any decent sociologist will tell you that IQ, although partly related to innate intelligence, has a much stronger correlation with factors such as education, social class and cultural inheritance.
    Not true, most of the variation amongst a given population is attributable to genetic factors (look up some studies by Robert Plomin or Thomas Bouchard). As Steven Pinker wrote in the NY Times last year:

    The most prominent finding of behavioral genetics has been summarized by the psychologist Eric Turkheimer: “The nature-nurture debate is over. . . . All human behavioral traits are heritable.” By this he meant that a substantial fraction of the variation among individuals within a culture can be linked to variation in their genes. Whether you measure intelligence or personality, religiosity or political orientation, television watching or cigarette smoking, the outcome is the same. Identical twins (who share all their genes) are more similar than fraternal twins (who share half their genes that vary among people). Biological siblings (who share half those genes too) are more similar than adopted siblings (who share no more genes than do strangers). And identical twins separated at birth and raised in different adoptive homes (who share their genes but not their environments) are uncannily similar.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/ma...1Genome-t.html

    http://www.technologyreview.com/biomedicine/22333/

    Also, are you familiar with the Minnesota Transracial Adoption study? Those adopted into middle class white households perform consistently with their group average, not the adoptive parents.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minneso...Adoption_Study

    If you want to see what the evidence shows you should read the June 2005 issue of Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, Vol. 11, No. 2.

    http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tieyourmotherdown)
    So you're saying that without any European intervention no education system would have developed at all? I think that's a rather ridiculous claim to make. You have to remember that at the start of colonialism the UK didn't have a comprehensive education system, and education was really only for the rich, yet look how fast we developed an education system for all. There's no logical reason why that couldn't have happened in Africa (Albeit on a later time frame), without European intervention.

    My point is that had these societies developed organically, there's no logical reason why they would be in a worse state than they are now.
    True, but if you read books like 'The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution' or 'A Farewell to Alms' by Gregory Clark, you'll see that populations were shaped by cultural and geographic environments. So they may have been in a position to develop faster.

    In my recent book, A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World I argue two things. First that all societies remained in a state I label the “Malthusian economy” up until the onset of the Industrial Revolution around 1800. In that state crucially the economic laws governing all human societies before 1800 were those that govern all animal societies. Second that was thus subject to natural selection throughout the Malthusian era, even after the arrival of settled agrarian societies with the Neolithic Revolution.

    The Darwinian struggle that shaped human nature did not end with the Neolithic Revolution but continued right up until the Industrial Revolution.

    But the arrival of settled agriculture and stable property rights set natural selection on a very different course. It created an accelerated period of evolution, rewarding with reproductive success a new repertoire of human behaviors – patience, self-control, passivity, and hard work – which consequently spread widely.

    And we see in England, from at least 1250, that the kind of people who succeeded in the economic system – who accumulated assets, got skills, got literacy – increased their representation in each generation. Through the long agrarian passage leading up to the Industrial Revolution man was becoming biologically more adapted to the modern economic world. Modern people are thus in part a creation of the market economies that emerged with the Neolithic Revolution. Just as people shaped economies, the pre-industrial economy shaped people. This has left the people of long settled agrarian societies substantially different now from our hunter gatherer ancestors, in terms of culture, and likely also in terms of biology.
    http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2010/07...y-edition.html
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    White Mans Burden....eh ? See...white brits came up with this idea that the west is actually saving everybody else from something the others were not aware untill the west told them so. They come into your house, kill, steal and convert your beliefs and claim that they are trying to civilize you.

    • Whites Brits destroyed the civilizations of the Aztecs, Incas and West Africans.
    • They robbed Africa of its riches and made its people into slaves.
    • They wiped out the people of North America and Australia and took their land.
    • By 1900 they ruled most of the world, robbing it of its wealth and freedom.
    • They turned on each other in two world wars, killing tens of millions.
    • They undermine democracies in other countries and keep bad men in power when it suits them.
    • They discriminate against everyone who is not white.
    • They spent $2.3 trillion on Africa over the past 50 years and yet over a million die of malaria every year as if it were some strange, incurable disease.

    Despite all that they still think they are better than everyone else, that they are a force for good, that they are well-meaning. You couldn't make it up. Power corrupts. The west is powerful enough that it can believe whatever it wants about its motives – with no one to tell them otherwise who will widely be believed.

    Firstly I know first hand that most African countries DECLINE aid because aid creates dependency. Oh sure, if you watch TV then you will see the usually african child with flies on there face asking you to donate. These stories proceed from and help support white racist ways of thinking : WHITES ARE BETTER. The natives therefore need their help and are, in fact, being helped. That is what whites like to believe. The truth is whites are no better than anyone else – just more powerful. And most of the time they use that power to serve their own ends, often screwing up the natives in the process – who then become objects of pity in need of saving. Whites know the ugly truth, at least at some level.

    Britain NEVER does nothing for nothing. There is new term for slavery in the 21st century is a four letter word : DEBT.The world bank has given out credits to African countries for building up their infrastructures. The world bank does this to insure the interests of the multinationals and their Western resource junkies. The resource rich African countries are held hostage by the West through debt. The payback is done to a large part as “rebate in kind” by even more resources at ridiculously low prices. The higher the debt the tougher the negotiation basis and the least favourable for the producing country. Those countries are drawn into handcuff contracts of globally or regionally exclusive authorisations to exploit certain local resources.

    In contrast, local infrastructures are crumbling, social programmes and local developments are cut because of the paybacks of interests and the debt itself. The so-called debt relief by western powers comes with a price. The resource producing countries have to sell everything for a special discount price which opens the doors to all sorts of speculations from foreign investors demanding high returns. Another byproduct the west is expecting from their ‘generous gestures’ is to get some more positive votes at the next UN assembly. In case of non-compliance to their conditions, they threaten the local authorities to pull their funds out or threaten them to initiate another ‘government turnover’.

    It’s looting, plain and simple.

    No-one talks about unfairness which the white man is putting on this planet by depleting it of its resources as if there’s no tomorrow.

    Energy consumption per capita in kg of oil per year (2009) :

    Bangladesh 160
    Sénégal 240
    Morocco 360
    India 520
    Angola 610
    Indonesia 770
    China 1200
    Portugal 2500
    Italy 3200
    UK 4000
    USA 8000
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NigerianStudent)
    White Mans Burden....eh ? See...white brits came up with this idea that the west is actually saving everybody else from something the others were not aware untill the west told them so. They come into your house, kill, steal and convert your beliefs and claim that they are trying to civilize you.

    • Whites Brits destroyed the civilizations of the Aztecs, Incas and West Africans.
    • They robbed Africa of its riches and made its people into slaves.
    • They wiped out the people of North America and Australia and took their land.
    • By 1900 they ruled most of the world, robbing it of its wealth and freedom.
    • They turned on each other in two world wars, killing tens of millions.
    • They undermine democracies in other countries and keep bad men in power when it suits them.
    • They discriminate against everyone who is not white.
    • They spent $2.3 trillion on Africa over the past 50 years and yet over a million die of malaria every year as if it were some strange, incurable disease.

    Despite all that they still think they are better than everyone else, that they are a force for good, that they are well-meaning. You couldn't make it up. Power corrupts. The west is powerful enough that it can believe whatever it wants about its motives – with no one to tell them otherwise who will widely be believed.

    Firstly I know first hand that most African countries DECLINE aid because aid creates dependency. Oh sure, if you watch TV then you will see the usually african child with flies on there face asking you to donate. These stories proceed from and help support white racist ways of thinking : WHITES ARE BETTER. The natives therefore need their help and are, in fact, being helped. That is what whites like to believe. The truth is whites are no better than anyone else – just more powerful. And most of the time they use that power to serve their own ends, often screwing up the natives in the process – who then become objects of pity in need of saving. Whites know the ugly truth, at least at some level.

    Britain NEVER does nothing for nothing. There is new term for slavery in the 21st century is a four letter word : DEBT.The world bank has given out credits to African countries for building up their infrastructures. The world bank does this to insure the interests of the multinationals and their Western resource junkies. The resource rich African countries are held hostage by the West through debt. The payback is done to a large part as “rebate in kind” by even more resources at ridiculously low prices. The higher the debt the tougher the negotiation basis and the least favourable for the producing country. Those countries are drawn into handcuff contracts of globally or regionally exclusive authorisations to exploit certain local resources.

    In contrast, local infrastructures are crumbling, social programmes and local developments are cut because of the paybacks of interests and the debt itself. The so-called debt relief by western powers comes with a price. The resource producing countries have to sell everything for a special discount price which opens the doors to all sorts of speculations from foreign investors demanding high returns. Another byproduct the west is expecting from their ‘generous gestures’ is to get some more positive votes at the next UN assembly. In case of non-compliance to their conditions, they threaten the local authorities to pull their funds out or threaten them to initiate another ‘government turnover’.

    It’s looting, plain and simple.

    No-one talks about unfairness which the white man is putting on this planet by depleting it of its resources as if there’s no tomorrow.

    Energy consumption per capita in kg of oil per year (2009) :

    Bangladesh 160
    Sénégal 240
    Morocco 360
    India 520
    Angola 610
    Indonesia 770
    China 1200
    Portugal 2500
    Italy 3200
    UK 4000
    USA 8000
    O yes because if the shoe was on the other foot, and African's came here to colonise us they would be really kind, wouldn't they? No... They would treat us like animals and give us nothing in return. I know it suits your cause to blame what a corrupt mess Africa is on whitey but it is just as much Africans fault as ours. You say that they didn't know their quality of life was poor before we got there and I agree, but they also had no use for the resources they were sat on either. You can't have it both ways. And it's not like any of the resources our country had is distributed evenly amongst the citizenry either.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    O yes because if the shoe was on the other foot, and African's came here to colonise us they would be really kind, wouldn't they? No... They would treat us like animals and give us nothing in return. I know it suits your cause to blame what a corrupt mess Africa is on whitey but it is just as much Africans fault as ours. You say that they didn't know their quality of life was poor before we got there and I agree, but they also had no use for the resources they were sat on either. You can't have it both ways. And it's not like any of the resources our country had is distributed evenly amongst the citizenry either.
    But the fact is Africans DIDN'T come to the UK and colonise you EUROPEANS DID and that's all that matters. This is just a EVERYONE DOES IT argument. Which is like me killing your sister or mom then turning around and say

    "Hey !! What's the problem ? Many men have killed women. Why are getting at me ? What about Peter Sutcliffe ?"

    Or me dropping a bomb on your house amd then saying

    "Hey !! What's the problem ? Many people have dropped bombs and they would have bombed us. Why are getting at me ? What about Hiroshima ?"

    I doubt it that you will think that nakedly or deeply about what you just said otherwise you would realise just how shameless that argument really is.

    Also it doesn’t suit my course to “Blame Whitey” as you point out it but it suits yours to say that I do. You are trying to turn the tables, to point the finger back at Africans and take the attention off of what whites did and are doing and puts it on what Africans do – or not do.

    Basically whatever the misdeeds of whites may be, to you, they are not the root cause of the troubles in Africa. Just like when someone blames others for his own mess to avoid owning up to the fault. Yours is just a case of PROJECTING, projecting onto Africans what whites do. Like when someone tells you your faults but it sounds for all the world like they are talking about themselves.

    Funny thing is white people blame blacks all the time for the fallout of white racism. Look at the topics in here “Black knife crime” “Asian with white women”. When was the last time you saw a topic in TSR that showed how racist most whites are ? Almost NEVER. White racism is always presented in here and in wider society at worst, as a case of a few bad apples (EDL, BNP) Yet blacks are frequently presented screwed up. Like it has absolutely nothing to do with the racism in society is built on. As if people want to be out of work and want to be poor and want to get in trouble with the police. This forum is constantly shifting the blame from whites onto blacks or muslims or Asians.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Yet blacks are frequently presented screwed up. Like it has absolutely nothing to do with the racism in society is built on.
    That is because the problems aren't due to white racism. They are present in non-european countries and stem from a complex web of genetic and cultural issues. For instance, differences in cognitive abilities and testosterone levels. Also, tribal child abuse & slavery well before europeans showed up.

    Most African tribes practice all the abusive and neglectful childrearing practices described above for New Guinea and Australian families. Infanticide of course is a routine practice in African tribes, as in tribal cultures around the world, with more girls than boys killed at birth.124..

    Throughout African history, slavery was rife, and “three men could not be sent on a journey together for fear two of them may combine and sell the third…[in some tribes] any man falling into their hands is killed and eaten.”135 With the development of slavery, kingship and the early state, we move to the next chapter on “Child Abuse and War in Early States.”
    http://www.psychohistory.com/origins...hildAbuse.html
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chi019)
    That is because the problems aren't due to white racism. They are present in non-european countries and stem from a complex web of genetic and cultural issues. For instance, differences in cognitive abilities and testosterone levels. Also, tribal child abuse & slavery well before europeans showed up.
    http://www.psychohistory.com/origins...hildAbuse.html
    Using the psychological reports as a source for opinions and facts on black ppl is a bit like asking Ronald McDonald for opinions and facts on vegetarians. Problem is white people have a louder sound system than anyone else, in fact they have a huge BOOMING stereo, they own BBC, ITV, Channel 3, Sky, The newspapers, Publishing houses, schools, uni’s so they get to drown out what everyone else and white people use there vast talking machine to repeat there point of view over and over and over and again until it becomes fact.

    You talk about child abuse ? The whole child pornography industry is run from top to bottom by white people and it's not’s black people who start wars, incinerate cities, or pollute the environment with toxic waste, develop weapons of mass destruction, or impose deadly sanctions on countries they don’t like, kill millions of Native Americans, raped millions of African women, men, jailed us, beat us, torpedoed us with water hoses, sicced vicious attack dogs on us, flood our communities with drugs and guns and then produce false crime stats which ensure a brutal police force and criminal justice system against blacks, imprisons us ripping apart the very fabric of our families, poisons the food, air and water, giving us unnatural diseases like high blood pressure, diabetes, asthma, cancer.

    Yet you think we are screwed up ?

    Even closer to home, where I’m from in Liverpool, it was shown that, whites are far more likely to drive drunk, have a rate of child molestation and sexual violence against children (As I have just stated). And today white people in TSR prattle on and feel like they deserve a pat on the back for ‘helping’ Africa….yeah right

    It also isn’t black people creating computer viruses that have caused over £65 billion in damages worldwide. Instead, it is almost always upper-middle-class white suburbanites. Do they go to jail ? Nope. Interesting, considering how utterly premeditated virus creation is–far more so than typical street violence, which regularly lands its black people in jail for long stretches, even when the damage is miniscule by comparison. You have this unwillingness to label destructive behaviors by whites while you will readily do so for black people and other ppl of color and the poor. Remember as the old saying goes
    “The fish tends to rot from the head down”
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The explanation for most of africas poverty is because of the corruption that lies within the governments. Only a small proportion is linked with the exploitation.

    You will see the presidents driving VERY expensive cars living in Massive masions with gold pools and what not, whilst they are forgetting they have to deal with the poorest of them all. The lack of education is another point. African leaders should start relying on their own countries to make a difference.

    My parents are both from ghana and come from a fairly wealthy backgrounds. And my grandmother has built a school to help poor children get that important education. Which is what Africans need to start doing. Ghana's economy is blooming because of the Gold, Cocoa, and the newly found oil but yet nothing is being done about the people who suffer
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    You should all read Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond. It explains how the world got to where it is today. Simple fact is, white people had the pure luck of living in a geographically perfect environment that allowed them to flourish. They're arent superior WHATSOEVER ! Now the problem with Africa is a very complex one, and one that won't be sorted for at least a few centuries. I personally believe that if Europeans hadn't set foor in Africa, it would be nowhere near as bad as it is today.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    :O this thread just turned really ugly....:cry:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The effects of colonialism didn't end with independence ceremonies, their influence is far reaching and will remain so.

    European Colonial Empires really ****ed up the world, more than any Empires that preceded them.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.