Tweet
Why do you think countries in Africa are not developing? It seems it was like that in most of history, except Northern (Carthage, Egypt, Ethiopia, current states there aren't also so bad) and Southern (RSA, Zululand) parts of the continent. However, even these parts always lacked of powerful states if compared them to Europe, Mid East or Asia of a time (and ancient Egypt we could also consider part of mid east, not Africa). So, what is your opinion about the troubles in Africa: why they have risen and how they could be solved. These are the most popular theories about reasons of undevelopment:
1.Climate
Supporters of this theory says that "great" countries only evolved under certain climate, like European or mediteranean and they didn't evolved in very hot (like Africa) or cold climates. This is because of bad conditions for people to live, etc.
Detractors of this theory says that many countries evolved in about the same proximity from equator, like SE Asia countries, also that countries in current South America aren't that bad.
2.Terrain
Supporters of this theory says that Africa is undeveloped because it's mainly desert terrain isn't prepared for good living - agriculture is almost impossible on such a terrain. They also uses this to explain why Southern and Northern Africa's are better developed - this is because conditions there are better in their opinion.
Detractors of this theory says that in many more places of Africa there is no deserts and countries are still undeveloped there. Also that there are many rich countries based in plains/deserts, like Saudi Arabia, and they are now able to irrigate deserts to maintain agricultre.
3.Colonialism
Supporters of this theory says that Africa is poor because European colonial powers over-exploited it and now it is very hard to rebuild it.
Detractors says that there is still enough resources left, also that former colonies elsewhere (SE Asia, Australia, America) currently are in much better shape. They also claim that Africa was not so bad under therule of colonial powers and that colonial powers invested much to infrastructure - roads and railways.
4.Size
Supporters of this theory says that Africa is so poor because the continent is big, much bigger than Europe, and that means there are many places (and countries) very far from water. They also says places far from water never developed and gives USA as an example, where the coasts as the most developed cities, etc. In their opinion in bigger continents, like America or Asia, countries are bigger and that means most of countries has a coastline - that means they could use money received from coastal regions to improve infrastructure and social life in other regions.
Detractors of this theory says that coastal countries in Africa are as well undeveloped as landlocked countries. They also gives examples of successful landlocked countries and empires - like Mongol Empire in middle ages or the current days Switzerland.
5.Race
Supporters of this theory claims that Africa is so undeveloped because of it's race (blacks). As an example they says that no black-ruled country ever was "great" and also says that South Africa once had good economy (when ruled by whites) and now is detariorating. In their opinion this also explains why North Africa is evolving - because people are whiter there (however it doesn't evolves as greatly as Europe, Australia and North America because people (the leading race) are not so white; same goes for South America in their opinion; these people considers Asians and whites to be "clever races"). Other example by supporters of these theory are blacks in America - they mostly lives in run-down neighborhoods.
Detractors claims this theory is a racistic one and that everybody is equal (and that it is biologically proven that all races are part of one "type", homo sapiens, human, thus they all can think the same). Thus, in the opinion of detractors of this theory, it is inhumane to think that race could be a problem for ruling state.
6.Religion
Supporters of this theory says that Africa is so undeveloped because they have keeped their polytheistic animist religions for so long time - each tribe had it's own religion thus it was hard to contact and do diplomacy and people became warlike. Supporters also gives examples of Aborigenoes and Native Americans - people, who also didn't had common monotheistic religion and thus their tribes/nations were undeveloped. The other examples they gives are Asia, Europe and Mid East - places, which had common monotheistic religions and thrived.
Detractors says that it is impossible religion can actually change that much, they also says that Roman Empire, Greece and Egypt all also had old polytheistic religions and yet they thrived. Also that in Mongol empire no state religion was used, and Khans in each conquered state supported it's (that state's) own religion, yet the empire without common religion still was huge.
7.Borders
Supporters says the major trouble of Africa is nonsensional borders, set also mostly by Europeans, which are not marking the true borders of nations and that means civil wars are ussual. They says that it is not so in North Africa because the nation there is only one - Arabs - and that it is (was) not so in South Africa because of apartheid system, which cruelly bashed any attempts for other athnical groups than AFrikaners to gain any control to politics.
Detractors says that many countries with more than one nation are very successful and gives current American countries as an example, especially USA - where people of many religions, nations, origins lives together and except for some supremacists (Black Panthers, KKK, etc.) the country didn't had civil way for one and half a century.
8.Lack of advance
Supporters claim that everything was because that there weren't any technologically powerful countries for other countries to obtain that technology from in Africa. They claims that in other continents there was always at least one powerful country, which later given it's advances to other nearby countries (Roman Empire in Europe, China in Asia, etc.) and that it was not so in Africa. Also these people says North Africa, most of time controlled by powerful European/Mid Eastern states (Roman Empire, Arab Caliphate), was always a great buffer zone protecting Africans to go to more advanced countries.
Detractors says this explains troubles only in old Africa, not the current one. Also that Egypt was once powerful country near Africa and that this theory explains nothing, because it says "lack of advanced countries is the reason why there are no advanced countries in Africa".
9.Bananas
Supporters says that there are too much bananas in Africa and that this (eating them) made minds of African people too small to understand anything, especially politics and contraception [sorry if this offended someone].
Detractors says that bananas are the best meal in all the world and they says they are eating about 20 bananas per day and are still clever to do mathematical formulas as hard as this one:
2+2
Well, now you can discuss...
1.Climate
Supporters of this theory says that "great" countries only evolved under certain climate, like European or mediteranean and they didn't evolved in very hot (like Africa) or cold climates. This is because of bad conditions for people to live, etc.
Detractors of this theory says that many countries evolved in about the same proximity from equator, like SE Asia countries, also that countries in current South America aren't that bad.
2.Terrain
Supporters of this theory says that Africa is undeveloped because it's mainly desert terrain isn't prepared for good living - agriculture is almost impossible on such a terrain. They also uses this to explain why Southern and Northern Africa's are better developed - this is because conditions there are better in their opinion.
Detractors of this theory says that in many more places of Africa there is no deserts and countries are still undeveloped there. Also that there are many rich countries based in plains/deserts, like Saudi Arabia, and they are now able to irrigate deserts to maintain agricultre.
3.Colonialism
Supporters of this theory says that Africa is poor because European colonial powers over-exploited it and now it is very hard to rebuild it.
Detractors says that there is still enough resources left, also that former colonies elsewhere (SE Asia, Australia, America) currently are in much better shape. They also claim that Africa was not so bad under therule of colonial powers and that colonial powers invested much to infrastructure - roads and railways.
4.Size
Supporters of this theory says that Africa is so poor because the continent is big, much bigger than Europe, and that means there are many places (and countries) very far from water. They also says places far from water never developed and gives USA as an example, where the coasts as the most developed cities, etc. In their opinion in bigger continents, like America or Asia, countries are bigger and that means most of countries has a coastline - that means they could use money received from coastal regions to improve infrastructure and social life in other regions.
Detractors of this theory says that coastal countries in Africa are as well undeveloped as landlocked countries. They also gives examples of successful landlocked countries and empires - like Mongol Empire in middle ages or the current days Switzerland.
5.Race
Supporters of this theory claims that Africa is so undeveloped because of it's race (blacks). As an example they says that no black-ruled country ever was "great" and also says that South Africa once had good economy (when ruled by whites) and now is detariorating. In their opinion this also explains why North Africa is evolving - because people are whiter there (however it doesn't evolves as greatly as Europe, Australia and North America because people (the leading race) are not so white; same goes for South America in their opinion; these people considers Asians and whites to be "clever races"). Other example by supporters of these theory are blacks in America - they mostly lives in run-down neighborhoods.
Detractors claims this theory is a racistic one and that everybody is equal (and that it is biologically proven that all races are part of one "type", homo sapiens, human, thus they all can think the same). Thus, in the opinion of detractors of this theory, it is inhumane to think that race could be a problem for ruling state.
6.Religion
Supporters of this theory says that Africa is so undeveloped because they have keeped their polytheistic animist religions for so long time - each tribe had it's own religion thus it was hard to contact and do diplomacy and people became warlike. Supporters also gives examples of Aborigenoes and Native Americans - people, who also didn't had common monotheistic religion and thus their tribes/nations were undeveloped. The other examples they gives are Asia, Europe and Mid East - places, which had common monotheistic religions and thrived.
Detractors says that it is impossible religion can actually change that much, they also says that Roman Empire, Greece and Egypt all also had old polytheistic religions and yet they thrived. Also that in Mongol empire no state religion was used, and Khans in each conquered state supported it's (that state's) own religion, yet the empire without common religion still was huge.
7.Borders
Supporters says the major trouble of Africa is nonsensional borders, set also mostly by Europeans, which are not marking the true borders of nations and that means civil wars are ussual. They says that it is not so in North Africa because the nation there is only one - Arabs - and that it is (was) not so in South Africa because of apartheid system, which cruelly bashed any attempts for other athnical groups than AFrikaners to gain any control to politics.
Detractors says that many countries with more than one nation are very successful and gives current American countries as an example, especially USA - where people of many religions, nations, origins lives together and except for some supremacists (Black Panthers, KKK, etc.) the country didn't had civil way for one and half a century.
8.Lack of advance
Supporters claim that everything was because that there weren't any technologically powerful countries for other countries to obtain that technology from in Africa. They claims that in other continents there was always at least one powerful country, which later given it's advances to other nearby countries (Roman Empire in Europe, China in Asia, etc.) and that it was not so in Africa. Also these people says North Africa, most of time controlled by powerful European/Mid Eastern states (Roman Empire, Arab Caliphate), was always a great buffer zone protecting Africans to go to more advanced countries.
Detractors says this explains troubles only in old Africa, not the current one. Also that Egypt was once powerful country near Africa and that this theory explains nothing, because it says "lack of advanced countries is the reason why there are no advanced countries in Africa".
9.Bananas
Supporters says that there are too much bananas in Africa and that this (eating them) made minds of African people too small to understand anything, especially politics and contraception [sorry if this offended someone].
Detractors says that bananas are the best meal in all the world and they says they are eating about 20 bananas per day and are still clever to do mathematical formulas as hard as this one:
2+2
Well, now you can discuss...
Comment