Reasons for so big undevelopment in Africa (discution on this isue...)

[Imran Siddiqui]

jimmytrick, stop being a racist.

The empires of Mali and Songhai were great empires who were very powerful and developed before they were conquered by Islam.

[Capt Dizle]

I think it would be more accurate to say that Mali and Songhay became more developed states because of the influence of Islam.

[Kepler]

Originally posted by Oerdin
David Lamb was a reporter who spent 25 years in Africa and summed up his experience in the book "The Africans" which was originally published in the mid 1980s. Some of the material has become dated but it never the less is a great read and it deals expertly with many of the problems facing modern African states.

I've read this book and would recommend it, as well. He also wrote a book called "The Arabs," and it's good but not nearly as good as "The Africans."

The first chapter of the book covers this precise topic. I must say that arguments about terrain and climate are pretty strong. I think it is also true arguable that even though we have now moved to a mastery of nature where these considerations are far less important, the results of the colonial pullout (it was abrupt and total, unlike the other Euro colonies) and the borders have a lot to do with why Africa is still hell in a handbasket. It also didn't help that at the birth of African nations Marxism was the flavor of the month and most countries lost decades experimenting with (and failing) at it.

[Wernazuma III]

I'm really shocked that a third!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! here says that race is one of the major factors.

I'm honestly completely disappointed, shocked, scared and have feelings I can hardly express.

What do people want to say? Blacks are dumber? Blacks are more aggressive and destructive? It's a shame that people with such a viewpoint aren't isolated freaks but a third here!

It's not that Colonialism is the only cause for underdevelopment, but surely an important one. Another reason is the unwillingness of African elites (which were strengthened in the colonial period) to make necessary measures for education for the masses.
Thus postcolonial African politicians play an active part in the problem, detached from unreversable colonialism.

The bad political situation, which again is a combined problem caused by colonial borders, ancient tribal thinking, corrupt politicians, lack of education, capitalistic interests (diamond problem) etc. of course makes investments not very likely to rise in the region.
In those areas where there is no war, only poverty, we have to ask ourselves if this is really misery. Generally "poor" peoples with intact social networks and community don't consider themselves to be poor and wouldn't change their life, so what enables us to call this "undeveloped" or "underdeveloped" - that's a rational choice - they can chose between a life in a functinoing community and being a marginalized, really miserable part of a globalized world, which isn't theirs.

Gnerally, I think Seeker presented a good analysis, so I won't bother to explain what I think of being the causes.
One thing is sure though for me: The reasons are political and cultural and not racial. There's only one smiley here which comes close to explaining what I feel about a third of the voters here to hold racial prejudices:

[King of Rasslin]

Ok, there are 3 main reasons the Africans are underdeveloped:

#1- They are stupid.
#2- They elect stupid leaders.
#3- They eat bananas.

We get 2/3 here in the US, but the third factor is definitely the most significant. If you doubt their stupidity, then you haven't heard of that beauty contest incident.

[King of Rasslin]

Seriously, a lack of natural boundaries is a major factor. There are many small countries in Europe (Estonia, Latvia, Lituania, Belgium, Switzerland,etc) that developed because of natural boundaries like mountains and rivers. Because Europe was very crowded with many different groups, competition was very strong and it fueled the growth of colonies, technology, etc.

In Africa, it's much more open. The dominant tribe doesn't have to worry about making new tools and stuff. When it gets wiped out, the next dominant tribe takes its place. They know they are #1 and they don't need technology to enforce it. In Europe, you wanted to be strong because you never knew when 100,000 invaders would cross those mountains and take over your country.

Asian countries like China developed fast and and powerful because Asians are naturally very intellegent people. Indians have absolutely sick math skills! They are also very disciplined. Martial arts, for example. If Asians aren't the strongest race, then explain how 2/3 people are Asian. They are certainly winning the real life game of Civ 3.

[Wernazuma III]

See the primitivity here?

King of Rasslin: For the sake of getting banned for personal insult for the first time since I'm here on Apolyton:
Is your penis really that small? The world should be freed from morons like you. Or do you think that's funny? That would make you simply dumb.
I wouldn't have a problem to get rid of people like you if I wouldn't fear the juridical consequences. **** you!

[Wernazuma III]

I won't change my post for the "explaining post". I just take it, that you're dumb or have a bad taste instead of having a small penis.

[Wernazuma III]

Oh wait, reading your explaining post more closely, there's still a good chance of you having a small member.

[Timexwatch]

After studying British Colonialism for a semester, I'd have to say that the reason Africa is such a basketcase now is becuase of Britan. South Africa is a notable exception to the basketcase statement, but then again the legacy of the apartheid system outweighs the degree in which it can be called an "exception"

For a little backround, there was a heavy dichotomy between "White Settler Colonies" and everything else; white colonies were Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa (partially b/c of the large number of Boers and Brits and the degree in which they subjugated the natives) and had far greater freedom to legislate and evolve politically. The "Non-White" colonies were governed largely by proxy through local princes/chiefs/etc. The Non-white colonies often received less attention than white ones although large parts of any colonies' investment was from the colony itself. South Africa's relative success can partially be attributed, IMHO, to the degree in which the South African Dominion Gov't was able to install stable governing institutions. Cecil Rhodes and the diamond mines didn't hurt either. India was a unique situation all together; its not relative to my point anyway. The fact that Britan cared far less for its African possessions than it's Indian one was part of the reason that they were left underdeveloped in the period of decolonization.

Of course this doesn't take into account that Britan control of large swaths of Africa simply for strategic interest rather than any perceived economic gain, garrisoning them and investing very little. They spent more time ruthlessly "pacifying" the natives, especially in Eastern Africa. During these pacification campaigns, it is thought that millions of African porters alone died. Such huge losses certainly hurt the development of large sections of East Africa.

Britan's near monopoly on the slave trade decimated West Africa. The British took the asiento away from the Spanish, allowing them to maintain a monopoly over Spanish slave trade. There was large importation of Slaves to the Carribean to the degree that Britan repopulated many of the islands with those of African descent (i.e. Jamaica). The sugarcane plantations of the Carribean and Africa greatly perpetuate the slave trade; the decline of the sugar trade hastened its outlawing. On a slightly different note, the British apprentice or indentured servant system is responsible for large numbers of isolated pockets of Indians and Chinese in the Carribean, Africa, Ceylon and the South Pacific.


Now, before any Brits have a knee-jerk reaction, I'm not indicting Britan as a whole, just its colonial legacy. Britan is in some degree resposible for the state of Africa today. Whether or not they want to admit that they have a responsibility today is up to them.

[Gangerolf]

bananas.

in africa they just sit under trees and wait for the fruit to fall down, in europe you have to work to keep warm.

[Sandman]

Africa has scant indigenous infrastructure. Any railways that were built were from the interior to the coast, with the aim of exporting raw materials. There was little attempt to link African countries together by railway, and in any case, the railways used different gauges, making building a continental network very difficult. The African railway network has declined since the end of colonialism, as well. The telephone network is in a similar state.

The abrupt end of colonialism left the new countries without a functioning middle class, leaving the door open for corruption and tinpot regimes. Without a middle class, there is no chance of any sort of patriotism, difficult as it already is to achieve a sense of national unity with the odd borders and broken tribes. It's nice to have an ethnic base to start a nation with, but it's not necessary. A middle class is.

And I say this: the race theorists are nuts.

[Viking Berserk]

Race. Black Africans are on median physically superior to whites but mentally inferior. Asians are mentally superior to whites but physically inferior, speaking of the median of course.

LOL!!! I've seen weak Africans and dumb Asians.
Race got nothing to do with it.

Its too many bananas in that continent


DUH! Its lack of advance and colonization.

[Dauphin]

I think it can be attributed to race - if they were white, the Europeans would not have been so cruel to them.

[Viking Berserk]

For the colonists it was not about their hate for the people who lived there before.
It was about treasure and conquest.