I would believe you, but I'm going to need written sources here. Oral history is great, but only when it is backed up by written sources. North Africa is different, of course, and isolated from Africa-proper.
>>24690 corruption, tribal mentality, lack of educaion, low morals, plus a whole tonne of geographical shit - like crops not growing, or the seeds not actually being there (i.e. it's hard to feed a stable population when weat wont grow in a desert
I'd say it's a mix of africans being (on average) genetically/biologically shit (including intelligence) and the actual area not having ports, etc
I mean yeah there are resorces but it's no good when you live in some desert 234567590432km away
plus there isn't much water in a lot of it
also a lot of tribal religion, and colonialism didn't really do that much good
>>24899 >Carthage They were semites not Africans they only lived in Africa Also the Great Bazinga isn't particularly impressive, it's less advanced than ruins on Sicily from 2000 years earlier and is only celebrated because Africa doesn't really have these kind of ruins
>>24690 Africa used to be considered very wealthy in what we now call the middle East (Egyptians Morocco ect.) And also a few other parts >Europe conquering and dividing Africa up regardless of the tribes >they all started fighting each other idky >now its a poop whole because of such animosities among tribes
Rbh Africa is really is the bad spot it is because they didn't know how too work together as all natives when being invaded..
Need to limit the area a bit.. Africa is fuck huge. There's huge differences in Europe and in Africa.
>Has Africa always struggled with poverty, throughout history? Kinda loaded question, as if any other continent hasn't struggled with that exact same problem. The huge difference in living conditions between west and rest of the world is product of last 100 years, go back 1000 years and your average european fellow didn't live in any luxury. North Africa is somewhat developed, and has historically been very rich area (Carthage, etc) and a lot of the time richer than Europe.
It's the middle part (subsaharan) that is the problematic part of Africa. And one of the reason could be geographical location. When world started trading the large distances of Africa kept them out trade, apart from coast where some very rich port cities were founded. Now I know people hate blaming colonialism, but it did take its toll on Africa, less about the stolen resources, but more of the fucked up borders Europeans which didn't respect African cultural borders at all. That's why you have African states in civil war and breaking in half now (Congo, Sudan)
We can't ignore IQ as an explanation anymore,intelligence has been long confirmed for being mainly genetic and education having little to no effect over it. Inb4 /pol/ I'm saying this as someone who studies genetics,we cannot just ignore the awful IQ scores of Africans and their diaspora.
>>25279 >but there are so much more relevant, critical reasons as to why Africa is so shit. I mean, this sounds nice but it's really not the case, except that low intelligence produces shitty environments (read: environments that cultivate stupidity).
'Rich in natural resources' is a bogus meme. Most of Africa is a dusty sun-baked waste good for little else besides pastoralism without intensive use of modern technology (irrigation, chemical fertilizers and pesticides, etc.)
>>24690 The whole world was desperately poor until about 1750 let's say. Then Britain started getting rich, then the rest of Europe caught up, then Asia in the 20th century. Why is Africa not caught up your asking?
>>25444 No really,those comments are cringeworthy,they treat genetics as a barely irrelevant co-factor in human behavior.That's burning witches at the stake levels of anti science,genetics and biology are the basis of everything humans do. I wish I had the power ¡to kill humanities students by channeling my disgust towards my monitor.
>>24690 north africa had some good times the roman era for northern africa was better than most of europe. We also had some great times in islamic era when piracy and our merchants were super strong but when the spaniards started to get pissed off and the ottomans controlled piracy things got worse. for sub sahara africa ethipio was wealthy and had some influne before islam but the arab merchants made them less irrelevant in the region Some west african empires like mali and songhai did have some recourses but they were inferrer to the north African kingdoms
>>25007 tunisian here :D The Carthaginians mixed alot with the locals allied with them and used in them in war
>>25649 >Tunisian here It doesn't matter m8 Carthage was over 2000 years ago you don't have anymore knowledge of Carthage than I do. It's like I lectured you about Abos from 2000 years ago because I know these things as an Australian.
european imperialism set them back a lot. ite environment itself is one of the most hostile to humans, with disease, predators and extreme weather. not only that, but it also isolated the established people from the eurasian conflicts throughout history, and so it kept them from gaining a lot of the technology. they also lacked a lot of the basic things that gave europeans and asians a head start, like domesticable animals and easy access to mineral deposits to forge tools.
Native sub-saharans may have lower IQ than let's say europeans but this is most certainly not the only reason of their poverty. And what do you even consider to be poverty? Sub-saharan africans did not achieve the same levels of technological progress as others but they had their way of life and they did fine. Big problem was the desert Sahara becoming a desert, it wasn't always like that. If it weren't for that barrier contact with sub-saharans would be achieved way earlier and this would, I assume, result in much faster technological progress for them.
>>25592 you're gonna have to meme harder than that
>>24690 Every country has struggled with poverty. Africa was probably not much worse off than Europe was before the industrial revolutionary in terms of poverty Some places in Africa were wealthy and stable, pic related But blacks generally have lower intelligence so that probably contributes too (there are intelligent black communities too)
>>25649 Does that map adjusts for wealth distribution ? :^) North Africa was high income because that's where most of the agricultural production came from,we have no way of telling how the average Gaius lived,judging by the amount of infraestructure left behind I'd say Anatolia was the richest part of the empire or at least tied with Italy.
For the most part, besides a few false-start civilisations and minor civilisations here and there, African societies always teetered on the line of subsistence.
Africa is rich in certain resources, particularly minerals, but without a certain level of civilisation, who needs tantalum? or tin? As for agriculture, natively very few food crops exist in africa, I can only think of Yams and Sorghum/Millet. In the tropical regions of Africa, you suffer from many more crop-failing parasites than in Europe (where winter's frost protects seeds), which causes lower yields and less potential to store crops.
Similarly Africa also suffered from disease, like Tsetse flies by the great lakes, or Malaria in most regions, significantly lowering life expectancy.
Many people will just say 'NIGGERS', which is sort of the wrong way round, IF black people are less intellectually endowed (on average), than it would be because of these conditions, these are conditions which do not favour the replication of intellectual traits.
Despite this there was some level of organisation, resource extraction, even low-level industry and extensive trade networks in different parts of Africa prior to colonialism.
>>25822 its just some ebin map that i posted in /int/ for shitposting >>25840 do you really think thats impressive my 100 m local mosque is better than it and its basically the only monument they had and when i went its was full of poor people begging for money
>>24690 "Sub-Saharan Africa has some of the most tragic geographic handicaps of any region of the world. Navigable waterways, which have been crucial to the development of nations and of cultures, are severely limited in most of Africa. Poor soil and inadequate and undependable rainfall patterns shrink the possibilities still further.
Ideologues love to think of African poverty as caused by "exploitation" on the part of Western countries. But, with a few notable exceptions, Africa has had little to be exploited. Even at the height of European imperialism, there was far less foreign trade or foreign investment in the whole vast continent of Africa than in a little country like Belgium or Switzerland.
In more recent times, so-called "foreign aid" has left many monuments of futility in Africa, from rusting machinery and the ruins of many projects to cows sent from Europe that keeled over in the African heat.
With all its handicaps, Africa used to feed itself and even export agricultural produce to Europe. In some of the more geographically favored parts of sub-Saharan Africa, iron was smelted thousands of years ago." Part 1/?
>>25984 >>26006 >implying this isn't the case >implying the majority of african soil is well suited for agriculture >implying africa isn't chocked full of parasitic fungi and insects, that fuck up your yields, the equivalents of which get btfo by the frost in europe >implying crop yields in the jungle are greater than in temperate areas >implying crop yields in the savanna are greater than in temperate areas >implying you can store food when you don't have silos or fridges and its 25 degrees every single day
>>26049 Townfolks were 0,001% of the population and they werent too rich as well. Rest of the population were villagers who were barely able to afford food because they were working for free and sometimes getting a small pay to get some porridge. The cities look like this because the nobility was indeed rich and they organised and builded those places.
>>26042 "During the first two decades after African nations gained their independence in the 1960s, one sub-Saharan nation that stood out with its economic prosperity and political stability amid economic disasters and social catastrophes among its neighbors was the Ivory Coast under President Felix Houphouet-Boigny.
Yet neither the Ivory Coast nor its leader attracted nearly as much attention, much less adulation, as was showered on Julius Nyerere in Tanzania, Kwame Nkrumah in Ghana, or other big-name African leaders who led their countries into ruin.
The Ivory Coast in those days relied on markets instead of the kind of policies and rhetoric that the intelligentsia favored. When its policies changed, it became just another African basket case.
Today, too many people in the West continue to see Africa as an outlet for the visions and policies of the left that have failed in the West and are even more certain to fail in Africa." 2/?
>>26101 "Nature and man have combined to make Africa the most tragic of the continents -- and the men who did this have been both black and white.
The great French historian Fernand Braudel said, "In understanding Black Africa, geography is more important than history." Much of Africa's history was in fact shaped by its geography.
Almost every great city in the world has arisen on navigable waterways -- and such waterways are more scarce in Africa than in any other continent. An aircraft carrier can dock on the Hudson River in midtown Manhattan but there is not a single river where that is possible on the vast continent of Africa, which is larger than Europe or North America.
Even smaller boats can travel only a limited distance on most African rivers because of cascades and waterfalls. Most of the continent is more than 1,000 feet above sea level and more than half of Africa is more than 2,000 feet above sea level. That means its rivers and stream must plunge down from those heights on their way to the sea.
Water transport was crucial in the thousands of years before there were trains or automobiles. It was crucial for developing an economy and crucial for developing a culture in touch with enough other widely scattered cultures to make use of advances in the rest of the world. But many African societies have been isolated by that continent's dearth of both navigable rivers and harbors." 3/?
>>26044 I'm honestly not even racist but I just hate hypocrisy. We all know when we think of great civilizations we don't think of Africa, when we look for a nice neighborhood or school that means few blacks and our prisons are filled with blacks. I'm not here to argue why they're like that but to pretend we are all equal is just bullshit hippy trash. Blacks are better at sports, whites are better at intellectual stuff, why is it controversial to admit these things? It's not wrong to say that certain dogs are smarted or have certain traits but we can't do it for people because they might get their feewings hurt :((
No, Africa has always been rich. East Africa was rich thanks to the Indian Ocean, North Africa thanks to the Mediterranean. West Africa thanks to resources, in fact, the richest man who ever lived came from there.
The two odd ones out are Central Africa and South Africa, the latter of which was not populated and the former which was probably quite poor. Muslim colonization strengthened most of these states, but the eventual European colonization drained them of all their wealth and left them in a poor state to utilize what they have.
This is the MONETARY situation, I'm not even going to touch on ethics and slavery.
>>26019 That's the mosque of Djenné you massive fucking retard >>26078 >Townfolks were 0,001% of the population Proofs? > Rest of the population were villagers who were barely able to afford food because they were working for free and sometimes getting a small pay to get some porridge Proofs? >The cities look like this because the nobility was indeed rich and they organised and builded those places. Nobles did not live in those houses m8,they lived in castles. Pic related,a medieval republican city free of feudal shits.
>>26125 "Isolated regions have almost invariably lagged behind regions in touch with a wider cultural universe. One among many signs of the isolation and cultural fragmentation of much of sub-Saharan Africa is that African languages are one third of all the languages in the world, even though African peoples are only about 10 percent of the world's population.
Small, tribal societies were another consequence of geographic isolation -- and the vulnerability of such societies to conquest by outsiders was another.
If cultural diversity was all that the multiculturalists claim, Africa would be a heaven on earth. Too often and in too many places it has been a hell on earth." 4/?
>>24977 >>24947 >Credo Mutwa, the 94-year-old Zulu shaman or "sanusi" in South Africa, claims that this picture he had painted of tall, blond-haired, blue-eyed beings had been seen by black African tribes people throughout that continent long before the white Europeans arrived.
>>26258 "Many people expected great things from Africa when new independent African nations began to emerge from colonial rule in the 1960s, often headed by leaders who had been educated in Europe and America.
Unfortunately, what these new leaders brought back to Africa from the West were not the things that had made the West prosperous and powerful but the untested theories of Western intellectuals and ideologues who had taught them. Such African leaders by and large lacked both the common sense of the African masses and the technological and economic experience of the West.
The net result was that African leaders, full of confidence because of their Western education and the adulation of the Western intelligentsia, made their people guinea pigs for half-baked theories that had contributed nothing to the rise of the West and had contributed much to its social degeneration.
Poverty-stricken Africa could afford these economic and social disasters far less than the affluent West could. However, African leaders were not judged in the West by their results but by their rhetoric and their visions that resonated with the rhetoric and the visions of the Western intelligentsia.
Thus Julius Nyerere became virtually a secular saint in the Western media while he was driving the people of Tanzania deeper into poverty and tyranny. Nor was he alone.
Conversely, when Felix Houphouet-Boigny made the Ivory Coast an oasis of economic advancement and civil peace, he was either ignored or disdained. He was one of the few new African leaders with any previous experience in business or any understanding of economics. His successors have ruined the country." 5/?
>>26280 "Whatever damage European colonialism did to Africa during its relatively brief reign, that was probably less than the damage done later by well-meaning Western would-be saviors of Africa. Africans do not need to be treated as mascots but as people whose own efforts, skills, and initiatives need to be freed from the tyranny of their leaders and the paternalism of Western busybodies." 5/?
>>26322 i didnt even compare to europe just posting african stuff to prove some people wrong also calling i things built near the sahara sand castles as an insult is retarded ofc they will look like that our nature isnt like europe
>>24690 >rich in natural resources That is not what facilitates the birth of a civilization, mong.
Just because those resources are valuable in a very technologically advanced society such as ours doesn't mean they were so for tribal societies.
Africa was largely isolated from the rest of the world due to deserts. It has a smaller percentage of arable land.
What fucked modern Africa over and created most of its problems wasn't colonization. It was its abrupt ending. Taking a tribal society, giving them tech, roads, hospitals, schools, laws, then saying "alright time for me to fuck off, I'll just take all the people in power with me and leave you with all this progress and ideals we brought, I'm sure you can handle it and establish a functioning democratic government on your own :^)" is pretty detrimental to a society. Obviously it created a huge power vacuum in which, since all of the governing powers were absent, those with military power took over. Hence the endless civil wars, coos, lawlessness and corruption.
Sub-Saharan Africa wasn't much for most of the history, indeed. But neither was Europe less than 3000 years ago, which isn't much at all in the grand scope of things. In adopting agriculture, the lag between America and the Middle East was 6000 years, for comparison.
>>26403 >>26403 >>26346 the thread is about africa deal with it >>26371 funny coming from a /pol/ idiot who cant identify pictures i posted a city wall 2 mosques a house and souk and avenue in some town no castles also your opinion is subjective
>>26430 >Has Africa always struggled with poverty, throughout history? If yes, why? It's the opposite of what I would expect from a continent that is so rich in natural resources. >Africa >Africa >Africa
>>26234 >Nobles did not live in those houses m8,they lived in castles. kek, are you serious anon? Townhouses were housing for the nobles and wealthy in the city Most peasants lived in the countryside anyways
>>26460 >Are you dumb? Holy shit. This is too much.
Reddit please? Congo is rich in tantalum, but Tantalum's only use to my knowledge is in electronics and alloys for nuclear power plants and jet engine components.
Tantalum is worth alot to modern people becuase we have a use for tantalum, but for pre-colonialism Congolese what value/usefulness did tantalum have? They weren't creating electronics or nuclar power plants or jet engine components in congo prior to the invention of all those things my man.
>>25962 That's why Buganda stood out as so remarkable. The delicate balancing of ecological factors, combined with new crops from the Columbian exchange, created a year round farming ecology that was incredibly productive.
>>26454 >calls him pol fag >guy says he's not polfag >better call him polfag again
Dude seriously just leave 4chan, this isn't gonna be a fun place for you. This is a place where people blurt out the unpopular truth. Black cultures suck and Arabs are right below them, you can cry about it or accept the truth.
>>26532 europeans still didnt have castles when Ethiopia was powerful and i dont wanna compare to europe you /pol/tard just proved :" sub saharan africa has been literally shit since the birth of man." you wrong
>>26394 The burden of proof is on you,oh my god humanities students,nigger you were the one who made claims about the lifestyle of medieval peasants. You watched too much monthy phyton,english people seem to believe everyone was as miserable as their lower class during the industrial revolutions.
I wonder if the trans atlantic slave trade(which predominantly took away able bodied males) caused stagnation and demographic problems(more women than men) in the african kingdoms and the slave raids/ wars caused instability, could this have been a major reason for the underdevelopment of africa?
>>26593 Considering most European nations didn't spawn until after fall of Rome, there was only European tribes which mostly kept to themselves. Even after that it took hundreds of years of civil wars and inter-european wars before Europe could challenge anyone globally in any arena. With some exceptions, like Venice as trade power.
>>26571 >Hundreds of even thousands of years ahead That doesn't even make any sense. In 5000BC, your 100 years didn't mean jack shit when it comes to technological advancement. European superiority is in the past 500 years, not 5000.
>>26660 >Mesopotamia What the hell does this have to do with Europe? >Ancient Greece >Ancient Rome And this leaves 80% of Europe out of the picture. Even Romans were more interested in Mediterranean and northern Africa than northern Europe.
Also btw when the transatlantic slave trade started to end the African kingdoms collapsed because they heavily relied on it economically, making them vulnerable for colonisation >>26681 In what sense are africans unevolved? Never seen anyone make that argument >>26706 Never to such a massive scale
>>26782 >White people destroyed and polluted africa But the majority blacks somehow didn't huh? Forgot how they're known for their cleanliness. Also whites built the best parts of Africa >took half the population as slaves Citation needed, not nearly that much and fellow blacks captured and sold them >and put communists and dictators in power They usually vote in commies and dictators themselves
>>24690 Because unlike the harsher climate/geography of Europe, there was no need to build massive buildings or even farm. Without any real development in those areas, you don't get much development in weapons either.
Adversity forces progress, there was far more adversity from nature in the north so it force progress. Add to that trade across the Mediterranean compared to far less across Africa and there's your answer. Plus this >>24930
>>26821 This, humans need to be pushed by nature to start developping themselves, we would never have gone to agriculture if it wasn't for nature pushing us f.e. since hunting and foraging was 'easier'
>>25540 Oh, have they done so since the beginning of human history? I also didn't know Africa is all out of resources now. Oh wait, it's still the richest continent on Earth, but those resources are unfortunately in the hands of idiots.
>>26792 1) No it is not. 2) Even if the Greeks had constructed such a thing, the Greeks antedate the time period in discussion by quite a bit. In fact, the entire Indo-Iranian Migration is many thousands of years too late to be relevant.
I once saw an argument(by some professor)made that a reason why Africa is so unstable is not necessarily the forced adoption of institutions of the colonizers but the fact that the colonizers failed to completely eliminate native and tribal institutions
>>25687 That's like telling a Brit he doesn't know more about his countries origins than the average foreigner.
I'm from NZ I can guarantee I know a fuck load more about my countries history than most foreigners, because I had to learn it all in school. And you probably do know more than others about abos because we were never taugh it (unless we went out of our way to find out about them).
No need to be pissy to tunisians because you lost the final, mate.
>>27036 >I'm from NZ I can guarantee I know a fuck load more about my countries history than most foreigners Your country has no history you stupid shit. This isn't nearly the same level. Stop trying to be relevant.
>>26975 >the labyrinth It says 10 thousand years old,maybe he fucked up in plurals,he is still right that Europeans had castles at extremely early periods of history. >>27006 >Africa and the middle east are shit because Europeans made no divissions between ethnic groups >Diversity is our strenght Chose one tumblr >>27021 >Glorified wall Are you blind and running some bootleg reading software? look at the reconstructions.
>>26654 My source is that buganda had developed no writing system, my source is that whilst they were being introduced to asian and american crops, asia and america were already in contact with industrialised goods.
>>27021 That's not even the issue here. The issue here is it is 16,000 years too late.
To give you an idea of the period we're talking about here:
http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nercEUROPE.html >Last Glacial Maximum/Full Glacial (22,000 14C years ago) to 14,000 14C years ago. The last late Glacial from 22,000 up until just before 13,000 14C years ago was very cold and dry throughout Europe. Large ice sheets were present over much of northern Europe, and ice caps covered the Alps and the Pyrennes. Forest and woodland were almost non-existent, except for isolated pockets of woody vegetation in and close to the mountain ranges of southern Europe. Instead, a sparse grassland or semi-desert covered most of southern Europe, whilst a mixture of the dry, open 'steppe tundra' and polar desert covered the parts of northern Europe not occupied by ice sheets. Ice-wedge features suggest that permafrost extended across most of Europe, down to about the latitude of central France. Drifting sand and wind erosion were common in north and central Europe, and desert animals such as Saiga antelope were present as far west as France.
>>24690 ethiopian and mali empires did some shit. East Africa has some cool city-states which I consider equivalent to any other ones of Greece and Italy, Zulus had a centralized state in the 19th century which collapsed for lack of technology not skilled leadership
>>27064 I never claimed diversity is a strength. It's usually a weakness of societies that needs to be taken into account when drawing borders. Tumblr and /pol/ are not the only ideological options in the world.
Wtf are you argueing about castles, this is a thread about why africans were so underdevelopped, it's ironic really, because castles are a sign of repression not a strong centralized society(here we go) Honestly let's not derail the thread any further and continue
>>25101 >Rbh Africa is really is the bad spot it is because they didn't know how too work together as all natives when being invaded.. That's the thing. Europe created vast empires with one dominant culture replacing the inferior. This never happened in Africa it seems although they were constantly fighting each other. Well, except when the Romans and the Arabs conquered them.
Another reason for africa's underdevelopment is africa's north south orientation unlike eurasia's east west orientation because of which the same crops couldn't be cultivated everywhere because of the difference in climate
>>27167 this a really interesting question because compared to the average welfare recipient in the west today Louis XIV was living in squalor in many ways. But I still have a sense that there was fairly substantial and important variations in standard of living in pre-industrial societies. The Romans had running water and indoor plumbing but their descendants in 1000 AD didn't.
>>26049 medieval towns had notoriously high deathrates compared to the countrysides...not a good example there m8. They didn't have any sanitation, the only reason it looks nice today is cause the government cleans it to promote tourism
>>26152 > Blacks are better at sports Just thought I'd point out it depends greatly on the sport, notice how there's fuck all great black swimmers or weightlifters? Also there should be more black people in sports globally, there's more of them to sample from. It also depends on a races cultural attitude towards a sport, ie basketball is extremely popular with blacks, but fencing isn't for example.
A lot of people parrot this "blacks are better at sport" with zero thought behind whether this is true. It almost seems like people want it to be true to give blacks something, tossing them a bone out of pity.
>>27406 >>27413 Then why has both fauna and flora naturally developed into more complex creatures since the precambrian era? How come the heart, bones and all those other non-ordovician traits make up so many creatures today? In fact, why did cells even lump together in the first place if remaining simple was natural for evolution?
Either it's all a very unlikely coincidence, or nature favors complexity.
>>27492 At the bottom of the ocean can still be found some of the most primitive beings, which are millions of years of olds. they haven't evolved because they haven't had the need to do so.
Traits are either kept or forgotten depending how they are used and how well individuals with those genes reproduce. Because Trait A might work in place X, it doesn't mean it gives edge at place Y where trait B might dominate. Like it was said, evolution has no plan, it just works, like apple phones.
>>27905 If all you consider are the exceptions. We don't consider the Platypus to be the rule for mammals, and neither should we consider isolated underwater monsters to tell us anything about our evolution.
Needless to say, if our situation was even remotely similar to theirs, humans would not exist.
>>24690 >resources Meh, there are resource bright spots but huge chunks are just desert, which has steadily expanded over time.
Consider that Europe went right in and annexed the Americas outright, pushing out the indigenous populations, but put relatively half-hearted attempts into conquering the much more easily reached African lands. Mostly they were satisfied with installing their own governments. The actions would have been much more aggressive if more of the lands were all that valuable.
>>27388 Yes. Which really, really, is not as much of an impediment to a functioning society as people think. Non-literate societies can manage complex legal codes, abstract philosophy, literary traditions, etc. Just fine.
The problem is these don't tend to leave a record that survives societal disruptions. (Ironically, this is one area that the Stormfags COULD theoretically bitch about. There's long been an assumption that Northern Europe = Nothing going on because a bunch of people in the Middle East started writing shit down, and they didn't. Not the case).
So it basically comes down to what do we mean by progress. Because obviously some linear, whiggish conception of history where we're moving through the same stages towards the same goal is completely insane.
So, based on the outline of this thread, I decided to talk about this in terms of poverty. And yes, in the late 19th century, Buganda was a kingdom with remarkably little poverty. On a tiny bit of land, a man could provide for himself and his family, to such an extent that it impressed European explorers, and lead to wild speculation about the causes of such wealth.
If you had to drop me down as a petty laborer in the 1880s and I had the choice of say, Buganda, Sicily, China, and Brazil, there's no doubt in my mind which one I'd pick.
There are many reasons. I'm only going to talk about sub-saharan Africa here, because north Africa has had some success during it's history (egyptians, carthage, greek occupation, roman occupation, arab occupation, and so on). None of these civilizations were purely African however, most of them were settlers from other civilizations and egyptians were mostly semitic-middle eastern (from that area generally) and sub-saharan african / nubian only to an extent.
First of all, sub-saharan africa is relatively cut off from the outside world, and it's enormous. This meant that there wasn't enough trade and interaction between civilizations, and trade is very important for the growth of civilizations. It doesn't come as a surprise that the only relatively advanced sub-saharan civilizations were Mali and Ethiopia, both of which were based on trade. Ethiopia was very close to Arabia, in particular.
Another reason is the climate. African climate is very warm and humid and winters aren't very dangerous. This meant that Africans didn't have to take many measures against winter like the europeans did, like storing food, and because of that, Africans weren't really looking to improve themselves. They didn't look to the future, they were just living the moment I guess, which is a big part of african culture.
I suspect that the big jungles and the dangerous wildlife also played a role. Tribalism was also a huge problem.
"Genetics" is something that could have played a role. Africans may have inferior genetics now because they didn't create powerful civilizations (on par with europe, asia, etc).
>>25129 There were actually a great number of prosperous states in Sub-Saharan Africa, such as Mali, Songhai, Benin, Kongo, Karnem Bornu, Ethiopia, etc. That being said most of Africa land-wise was separated into small tribes
>>24690 Most of those resources are in the hands of either a nation's elite like in Nigeria, or in the hands of some foreign power, like the Congo, so the natural resources really don't end up benefiting the average citizen sadly
In terms of why in the broad sweep of history, Africa lagged behind, just read Guns Germs and Steel.
As for recent history, I'd say it's an issue of pastoral iron age tribal cultures being thrust into the modern world. Populations predictably exploded (effects of modern medicine and cultures that emphasized having lots of children), while they were unable to compete in the modern global economy except in selling off resources. Having so many un- and under-employed working age people probably means even more instability going forward for many countries, although those which have gotten their grown rates under control (basically just South Africa, Namibia, Botswana, and to a lesser degree Zimbabwe) might actually be able to start raising living standards notably.
>>25125 >go back 1000 years and your average european fellow didn't live in any luxury.
In England in the late 14th century people people had a higher life expectancy than most African nations, fewer homicides than Detroit (per person) and more leisure time than at any point until the 1960s.
>>24690 >Has Africa always struggled with poverty, throughout history? Africa was a creation of 19th century narratives about racial justifications for colonisation. In this sense "Africa" has always been poor, as it has been produced as the subalternarity of the Western dominated world-system, a necessary periphery where the imagination runs wild.
>>28538 Oh I totally agree. Africa is a phenomenally shitty place, and even today the amount of human potential lost to Malaria is astounding.
But the societies that developed there were still remarkable and it's not a monolithic image of constant poverty and barkwardness.
I still standby my choice. Because there's a good chance I'll shit myself to death of dysentary in India. And the health issues I face mean that the nondiversified diet of an Indian laborer would probably kill me. And because there's a good chance there just won't be any food.
Africans have been stymied in some directions, and surged ahead in others. They independently developed Iron Working so clearly Africa is capable of growing and developing on it's own.
He still sort of gets BTFO though. My own biases make me keen to see humanities majors get a butt full of hard facts in the face of whichever form of "we're all exactly the same" they're pushing, but this guy was not the one to do it. The deconstruction of his argument is much more convincing than his argument was to begin with.
>>25125 >but more of the fucked up borders Europeans which didn't respect African cultural borders at all. That's why you have African states in civil war and breaking in half now (Congo, Sudan) This desu, but go try and tell the public/academia/powers-that-be in the liberal West about the importance of nation states and you'll be laughed to your suicide.
>>27492 Life's complex because it had time on its side, yo. As long as your random mutation doesn't impede with your daily survival and/or passing down genes, it'll get passed on to the next generation and so on. Organisms get more complex this way because we can't just delete the junk genes, we work around them. Like the first fishes to stumble upon land. Some of them mutated to breathe oxygen from air instead of water, and survived, and it lead to the first lungs being made. Life went from gills to lungs. Yet when the first ancestors of the whale started trying to swim, they already had lungs, so they work around that and got high-capacity lungs instead of growing gills.
>>25125 >but more of the fucked up borders Europeans which didn't respect African cultural borders at all. That's why you have African states in civil war and breaking in half now (Congo, Sudan)
That's a good point and there's definitely truth in that but would be todays situation any better if every clan/tribe/whatever (I'm not familiar with African demographics) would have it's own country? I mean the ethnic/linguistical maps of Africa are a giant and confusing clusterfuck and every group having a country would lead to a gazillion tiny states with even more exclaves/enclaves and other potential casus belli.
Black university students in South Africa also show relatively low mean test scores. Sixty-three undergraduates at the all-Black universities of Fort Hare, Zululand, the North, and the Medical University of South Africa had a full-scale IQ of 77 on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Revised (Avenant, 1988, cited in Nell, 2000, pp. 26 –28). In a study at the University of Venda in South Africa’s Northern Province by Grieve and Viljoen (2000), 30 students in 4th-year law and commerce averaged a score of 37 out of 60 on the Standard Progressive Matrices, equivalent to an IQ of 78 on U.S. norms http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/pppl1.pdf
Just think about it university students with sub 80 IQ
>>36013 I've been all over Africa in person. Tropical jungle is good for nothing once you cut it down: what little soil there is will wash away pretty much immediately.
Most of SS Africa is scrubland/savannah, which isn't good for much else besides pasture unless it's heavily irrigated and fertilized. The tropics generally are shitty for agriculture since the soils are so leached of any nutrients; you can far them for a while, but nothing long-term with putting nutrients into them.
Trinidad and Tobago is a successful African country, and like I said, the many other Caribbean countries that aren't colonies. In Africa, Ethiopia is developing and Nigeria, Angola, and Namibia are all successful countries.
>>36653 I don't make up an excuse, I'm just stating the obvious. Trinidad and Tobago is a bunch of hotels owned by whites staffed by the local blacks. Were it not for tourism it woild be Haiti tier.
As for Nigeria, are you being serious? Lagos is a huge slum, most of the population lives in poverty, their only lifeline is their oil money but the authorities are so corrupt that none of it gets invested in infrastructure, and large parts of the north of the country is controlled by jihadists.
The best way to think about it is this. Africa was comparable to Europe until around the 1500's when a lot of the major states in the area collapsed for the same reasons every state collapses. So take 600 AD Europe and have it be invaded by waves of traders and colonizers with awesome weapons, untouchable ships, and much more money and manpower than your feeble broken up tribes of franks or whatever the fuck have. Now you have Africa's situation. Europe got lucky and "discovered" subsaharan Africa right as the regions were going through a major downturn period and they exploited it and prevented it from getting out of the rut. Now they still can't because those some destabilizing forces won't fuck off and leave them alone. Not that it would matter much at this point.
>>24690 Africa is rather poor in resources that were relevant in pre-20th century societies or exploitable by pre-20th century tech. It's shit for agriculture, shit for iron or copper, place is full of malaria and other diseases, and shit for safe and navigable water or land ways.
>>37408 >Impoverished crime ridden shithole. Technology and infastructure is far below any white or even latin american country. Have you ever been there? Or better yet, have you even done a simple Google search?
>>24690 Infertile land, resources aren't usually accessible. Eastern Africans developed some weird sort of defeatist culture that made it so they would estrange people who tried to develop land instead of migrating to another river. It's just a huge mess.
>>36653 >Seems like every time I give you a country, you make an excuse so that it doesn't count. That's how a debate works anon. If there are reasons why your example is invalid, he would need to point it out
Thread replies: 325 Thread images: 28
Thread DB ID: 68546
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.