Current Events > Why is Africa so poor of a continent?

(+) Yeah! (+)

There are tons of other continents that have world super powers and great places to live. Why is Africa still so poor after so many years of assistance and aid?

wew
---

Ikr? Why didnt they advance first?
---

It was completely and utterly fucked by colonialism which didn't end until the mid 1900s.
Some of the aid given to the countries there is counterproductive and hurts industrialization.
---

LRodC posted...

There are tons of other continents that have world super powers and great places to live. Why is Africa still so poor after so many years of assistance and aid?

Obviously it's a multi-faceted problem but predatory loans by the world bank/imf keep them in a cycle of debt with the promise of increased economic growth.

More recently China has become a major lender in the region as well, which I'm sure will probably not help.

Basically imagine someone you know that can not afford to do shit because they are mired in unsustainable debts. That's a lot of African countries.
---

They got plundered by the Europeans outside of Southern Africa.
---

Kombucha posted...

LRodC posted...

There are tons of other continents that have world super powers and great places to live. Why is Africa still so poor after so many years of assistance and aid?

Obviously it's a multi-faceted problem but predatory loans by the world bank/imf keep them in a cycle of debt with the promise of increased economic growth.

More recently China has become a major lender in the region as well, which I'm sure will probably not help.

Basically imagine someone you know that can not afford to do shit because they are mired in unsustainable debts. That's a lot of African countries.

Thats understandable but how come African nations were the biggest victims of the predatory imf? Countries like India, Ecuador, Indonesia etc... were also all previously colonized(in some cases for centuries) and for the most part were able to break through the financial obstacles created by the international banking system.
---

Because "white people"
---

Foreign Exploitation
Internal corruption
War
Racism
Religious/ideological extremism
Cultural flaws
Weather/climate
Ripple effects of history
Etc.

The usual stuff. Just present in different amounts /combinations in a different environment
---

uwnim posted...

It was completely and utterly fucked by colonialism which didn't end until the mid 1900s.

I challnge the notion that it ended.
---

pikachupwnage posted...

Cultural flaws

What cultural flaws Africans have you think?
---

CrimsonRage posted...

Kazi1212 posted...

Thats understandable but how come African nations were the biggest victims of the predatory imf? Countries like India, Ecuador, Indonesia etc... were also all previously colonized(in some cases for centuries) and for the most part were able to break through the financial obstacles created by the international banking system.

ecuador, indonesia, and large parts of india are still impoverished

Sure, but I think the picture people generally have in their head is somehow Africa is much worse off than even the countries that we consider third world. But is that true you think?
---

RainblowDash posted...

Ikr? Why didnt they advance first?

They did. Egypt? Ethiopia? Nubia?
---

Everybody who isn't Black or has people descended from the continent of Africa 250 years ago needs to honestly GTFO out of Africa.

We need to adopt the Federation Policy of Non-Interference and prevent anybody else from interfering with them.

We've messed stuff up too much, we need time to let them grow on their own naturally.
---

some parts of africa arent unlivable shit holes and are actually fairly decent. i think ethiopa is doing well and progressing pretty well.

many countries there have had corruption issues and food shortages and the like but not every nation there is doing terribly
---

KamenRiderBlade posted...

Everybody who isn't Black or has people descended from the continent of Africa 250 years ago needs to honestly GTFO out of Africa.

We need to adopt the Federation Policy of Non-Interference and prevent anybody else from interfering with them.

We've messed stuff up too much, we need time to let them grow on their own naturally.

What if Africans still want to trade with the outside world?
---

You cant blame colonialism when all other countries benefited from it.
---

Kazi1212 posted...

pikachupwnage posted...

Cultural flaws

What cultural flaws Africans have you think?

Tribalism for sure.
---

uwnim posted...

It was completely and utterly fucked by colonialism which didn't end until the mid 1900s.
Some of the aid given to the countries there is counterproductive and hurts industrialization.

So were New Zealand and Australia, both of which are thriving now. Australia arguably had it worse than South Africa; the natives in SA are still the majority, and while they may have been forced to live in seperate areas, at least they weren't literally considered to just be native fauna.
---

Redacted
---

Kazi1212 posted...

What if Africans still want to trade with the outside world?

Then we trade, but nobody should have to set foot in Africa more than necessary.

We need to GTFO and leave them alone!
---

CrimsonRage posted...

Kazi1212 posted...

CrimsonRage posted...

Kazi1212 posted...

Thats understandable but how come African nations were the biggest victims of the predatory imf? Countries like India, Ecuador, Indonesia etc... were also all previously colonized(in some cases for centuries) and for the most part were able to break through the financial obstacles created by the international banking system.

ecuador, indonesia, and large parts of india are still impoverished

Sure, but I think the picture people generally have in their head is somehow Africa is much worse off than even the countries that we consider third world.

yes, it's a stereotype, but not all of africa is a wasteland. there are varying levels of development in various areas. some of the fastest growing economies are in africa.

What benchmark are you using to make assessment that its just stereotype? Im not saying there isnt any truth to what you said but according to an index like the HDI, it seems African nations on average score much lower on the index than countries from other continents. In fact, even the highest score for HDI from an African country comes in 63rd place in the world.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index
---

CrimsonRage posted...

@RE_expert44 posted...

Redacted

don't be a coward, tell us what you really think

Aliens are responsible. They used their high tech ray guns to slow civilizations down. That's all I can say before they catch on.
---

Because they could sustain a reasonable standard of life within the region without needing to change their environment to suit them? Plus much of the region was too far isolated to benefit from trade (the North African Arab nations, however, did have periods of prosperity when they were major world players). And, of course, there are cultural issues.

That said, *some* of the previously colonized areas were built up -- like South Africa -- so in theory they should be better off, but it's an absurdly dangerous country.

Kombucha posted...

More recently China has become a major lender in the region as well, which I'm sure will probably not help.

If the culture was different, it *would* help. The Chinese were investing in the region itself, trying to build up business.
---

pikachupwnage posted...

Foreign Exploitation
Internal corruption
War
Racism
Religious/ideological extremism
Cultural flaws
Weather/climate
Ripple effects of history
Etc.

The usual stuff. Just present in different amounts /combinations in a different environment

This not to mention half the continent can't read or write.
---

Kazi1212 posted...

pikachupwnage posted...

Cultural flaws

What cultural flaws Africans have you think?

Strongmen.

Let me tell you about the core and the periphery. All first world countries? The core. Africa? The periphery.

/fin
---

It's the continent of 10,001 excuses. All of which secretly boil down to "let's blame whites"
---

CrimsonRage posted...

Kazi1212 posted...

What benchmark are you using to make assessment that its just stereotype? Im not saying there isnt any truth to what you said but according to an index like the HDI, it seems African nations on average score much lower on the index than countries from other continents. In fact, even the highest score for HDI from an African country comes in 63rd place in the world.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index

yes, most are still poorer than first world countries, but many nations' economies are improving, life expectancy is rising, and education is improving. it's nowhere near developed nation status and certain countries like Zimbabwe are still doing very badly but it's not as hopeless as it once looked. especially with China investing in many of them.

Im not saying Africa is as bad as it once was or that their economy isnt expanding, Im just saying that even in relation to other nations that arent first world, African nations on average still seems to be much lower on various indexes. For instance, none of the countries in South America are considered first world, but a majority of Soth American nations rank much higher on the HDI than the average African nation.
---

Most countries in Africa are actually still quite new, only having gotten their independence in the 1960s and 1970s. Then a lot of them had dictatorships that took over right after independence (like Robert Mugabe). I think in the US we take for granted that our independence movement was led by some genuinely benevolent people like George Washington who didn't use it as an opportunity just to further enrich and empower themselves, because that is what ends up happening after a lot of revolutions throughout history.

Many African countries are making progress, and the ones that aren't are typically completely wracked with conflict and corruption. Botswana and Ethiopia are two countries that have been making huge progress, for example.
---

Kazi1212 posted...

For instance, none of the countries in South America are considered first world, but a majority of Soth American nations rank much higher on the HDI than the average African nation.

Most South American nations got their independence over 100 years before most African nations did. Prior to European contact, most were still living traditional indigenous lifestyles. Many parts of Africa were not colonized until after the 1870s as well, so basically any way you put it, African nations are simply newer and have had less time to develop.
---

DarkTransient posted...

uwnim posted...

It was completely and utterly fucked by colonialism which didn't end until the mid 1900s.
Some of the aid given to the countries there is counterproductive and hurts industrialization.

So were New Zealand and Australia, both of which are thriving now. Australia arguably had it worse than South Africa; the natives in SA are still the majority, and while they may have been forced to live in seperate areas, at least they weren't literally considered to just be native fauna.

South Africa has problems but it has a larger economy than a lot of other countries.

Largely wiping out and replacing the natives of an area is rather different from oppressing and ruling over them. Saying Australia is doing better than South Africa really isn't meaningful.
---

LRodC posted...

Why is Africa still so poor after so many years of assistance and aid?

Because there is still 10x as many years of exploitation and mistreatment by foreign powers.

Also, people tend to forget that Northern Africa is a whole different ball game.

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

It's the continent of 10,001 excuses. All of which secretly boil down to "let's blame whites"

Those "excuses" are pretty easily backed up.

But if you've got an explanation and fully believe white people had nothing to do with it, then let's hear it. Enough of this passive-aggressive crap. Why is Africa so poor? What's your answer?
---

Dash_Harber posted...

LRodC posted...

Why is Africa still so poor after so many years of assistance and aid?

Because there is still 10x as many years of exploitation and mistreatment by foreign powers.

Also, people tend to forget that Northern Africa is a whole different ball game.

Northern Africa itself is only the way it is today because of Arab colonialism. The Arabic language didn't take over on its own. There's a double standard applied to Arab colonialism and European colonialism in Africa. Take Egypt for example, no one calls modern day Egyptians a bunch of colonists or anything like that, even though if you apply the same standard they would be considers as such.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_of_Egypt

The Dutch first came to South Africa in the 1600s. The Arabs first made it into Egypt in the 600s. Is it the extra thousand years that makes the difference? Or the fact that in the case of Egypt, the minority groups are so tiny that they can't really cause any trouble? I say it's the latter. The implications of that, however, are to say that the Boer population of South Africa would have been more accepted if they had they only created a country in which they were the vast majority rather than a minority.
---

s0nicfan posted...

Because "white people"

---

hard to say exactly what the reasons are but i wish they could get their shit together. africans are breeding like rabbits and this world is already overpopulated with enough dirt poor with no quality of life.
---

dey do not no de wae
---

Sativa_Rose posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

LRodC posted...

Why is Africa still so poor after so many years of assistance and aid?

Because there is still 10x as many years of exploitation and mistreatment by foreign powers.

Also, people tend to forget that Northern Africa is a whole different ball game.

Northern Africa itself is only the way it is today because of Arab colonialism. The Arabic language didn't take over on its own. There's a double standard applied to Arab colonialism and European colonialism in Africa. Take Egypt for example, no one calls modern day Egyptians a bunch of colonists or anything like that, even though if you apply the same standard they would be considers as such.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_of_Egypt

The Dutch first came to South Africa in the 1600s. The Arabs first made it into Egypt in the 600s. Is it the extra thousand years that makes the difference? Or the fact that in the case of Egypt, the minority groups are so tiny that they can't really cause any trouble? I say it's the latter. The implications of that, however, are to say that the Boer population of South Africa would have been more accepted if they had they only created a country in which they were the vast majority rather than a minority.

I didn't disqualify colonialism in Northern Africa. I simply stated it was a different situation because huge differences in economics, religion, politics, and history. People tend to lump all of Africa together when there are two very different regions. You seem to be arguing against a point I never made.

CrimsonRage posted...

that's not exclusive to africa.

No, but it's excessive in Africa.

CrimsonRage posted...

Sativa_Rose posted...

Northern Africa itself is only the way it is today because of Arab colonialism. The Arabic language didn't take over on its own. There's a double standard applied to Arab colonialism and European colonialism in Africa. Take Egypt for example, no one calls modern day Egyptians a bunch of colonists or anything like that, even though if you apply the same standard they would be considers as such.

the north african countries did get colonised by europeans tho. any previous arab colonialism was canceled out. :p

Briefly, depending on the country. The Arab colonialism had a much bigger impact on countries like Egypt and Libya than European colonialism did. Just look at the language and religion of those countries today, for example.
---

Dash_Harber posted...

I didn't disqualify colonialism in Northern Africa. I simply stated it was a different situation because huge differences in economics, religion, politics, and history. People tend to lump all of Africa together when there are two very different regions. You seem to be arguing against a point I never made.

I was just pointing out the difference. I think it's important to understand how North Africa got to the way it is today.
---

Sativa_Rose posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

I didn't disqualify colonialism in Northern Africa. I simply stated it was a different situation because huge differences in economics, religion, politics, and history. People tend to lump all of Africa together when there are two very different regions. You seem to be arguing against a point I never made.

I was just pointing out the difference. I think it's important to understand how North Africa got to the way it is today.

Sure, but when someone says, 'Africa is messed up, why?' it's important to not lump them all together and to look at the effects of colonialism and modern proxy wars on the more southern states, and that the colonialism of 600 looks a helluva lot different than the colonialism of 1600.

CrimsonRage posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

CrimsonRage posted...

that's not exclusive to africa.

No, but it's excessive in Africa.

i dunno. asia has strongmen culture too. japan is kind of an exception and even south korea was a dictatorship until the 80's. latin america just recently grew out of strongmen culture too.

and with trump and far right gaining ground in europe, it even looks like europeans miss their strongmen culture.

Well, that is how some little Austrian dickhole got started, back in the 30s.