Africans

stewie01 · 11-12-2008 3:23pm #1

i was going to write out a well constructed post about africans and there severe lack of progress as a race of people on this planet over the thousands of years they ve been here. but seem as its boards i said fook it dont waste my time just through up rough thoughts of what grinds my gears about them.

How is Africa still full of these savages (you might think thats an extreme word to use to describe them but i dont and if you want i can give examples of why i would call them that) that have not progressed an inch as a civilisation over the years compared to europe asia and the americas (aztec and incas ect). even when the colonial powers withdrew from the likes of zimbabwe they manage to run a rich productive country into the ground. i think S africa in the next 10 20 years will go the same route. i think its in there DNA.

anyway i have the flu and am not the best at changing thoughts into writing so if some1 could articulate it better and then discuss much appreciated.

Morlar · 11-12-2008 3:25pm

stewie01 wrote: »

i was going to write out a well constructed post about africans and there severe lack of progress as a race of people on this planet over the thousands of years they ve been here. but seem as its boards i said fook it dont waste my time just through up rough thoughts of what grinds my gears about them.

How is Africa still full of these savages (you might think thats an extreme word to use to describe them but i dont and if you want i can give examples of why i would call them that) that have not progressed an inch as a civilisation over the years compared to europe asia and the americas (aztec and incas ect). even when the colonial powers withdrew from the likes of zimbabwe they manage to run a rich productive country into the ground. i think S africa in the next 10 20 years will go the same route. i think its in there DNA.

anyway i have the flu and am not the best at changing thoughts into writing so if some1 could articulate it better and then discuss much appreciated.

It is all the white mans fault. Wait now a few minutes for the excuses to start . . .

AARRRGH · 11-12-2008 3:36pm

I think it is a highly complex issue with a large number of factors, such as a "hand out" mentality, absurd levels of corruption, lack of education, lack of infrastructure, brain drain, lack of entrepreneurial skills/work ethic, AIDS, etc.

I don't know what the solution is, but perhaps if we tried to build up the continent one country at a time, we might be more successful than our current scattergun approach.

Does anyone know of a single world class company which has come out of Africa?

PS People need to be careful to differentiate between Africans and black people.

happyoutscan · 11-12-2008 3:37pm

If you are not gonna bother to write out a 'well constructed post' on your topic why should anyone answer? You're not a taxi driver in Galway now are you???

Morlar · 11-12-2008 3:41pm

AARRRGH wrote: »

I don't know what the solution is, but perhaps if we tried to build up the continent one country at a time, we might be more successful than our current scattergun approach.

Does anyone know of a single world class company which has come out of Africa?

PS People need to be careful to differentiate between Africans and black people.

I think that was tried in Rhodesia and South Africa as soon as they were no longer in white hands they have went down the toilet. That is not a racist statement its just an observation.

stewie01 · 11-12-2008 3:54pm

AARRRGH wrote: »

PS People need to be careful to differentiate between Africans and black people.

would it not be safe to say that all black people around the world are recent decendents of africans and would have the same or very similar DNA. so there isnt really a big difference.

and your answer seems to be if we help them 1 country at a time which doenst make sense to me. WHY do they need help? Did europeans?? no they evolved and civilised themselves. same with asians and americans ( not european americans but native) how come africans havent done the same

AARRRGH · 11-12-2008 4:09pm

They may have the same DNA, but they are from a different culture. Culture makes a huge difference. For example, Obama is black, but he grew up in a very different environment than the average African.

There are many reasons why Africa has problems; I would imagine very few, if any, are due to some DNA issue.

silverharp · 11-12-2008 4:41pm

There are some very interesting geographical conditions on the continent as to why Africa didnt develop in historic times. It must be a huge factor that Africans were not able to pass on a culural heritage compared to somewhere like China for instance
Who knows in the future, objectively its an amazing continent in natural resources etc. they may have their time in the sun yet (excuse the pun)

ChocolateSauce · 11-12-2008 4:44pm

Isn't it obvious? They're a bunch of gollywogs who can't even feed themselves. Things like Imperialism, culture, famine, slavery, unfair trade, guns, no education, and war have nothing to do with it.

stewie01 · 11-12-2008 5:11pm

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Isn't it obvious? They're a bunch of gollywogs who can't even feed themselves. Things like Imperialism, culture, famine, slavery, unfair trade, guns, no education, and war have nothing to do with it.

whats with the hostilaty. im just asking peoples opinions on why it hasnt developed and civilised like the rest of the world over the last thousand or so years, and no alot of them cant seem to feed themselves. whos fault is that.

they could be the richest continent in the world with all there raw material resources could have the best tourism destinations in the world with safaris etc if the got there act together.

unfair trade. heres an example for you. ivory coast (i think) produces 85% of the worlds cocoa beans for chocolate yet the get paid a pitence for it. whos fault is that. there own. they have a monopoly on the supply yet cant grasp that if dont get the money they ask for stop supply for a month then eventually someone will pay them the price they feel fit. its not like cadburys etc can get it somewhere else.

and your list of imperialism culture famine etc isnt exclusive to africa every continent went through these things and evolved exept africa. why is this

ChocolateSauce · 11-12-2008 5:18pm

The hostility is down to your post: You grouped the whole of Africa into one racial category. It drips of racism. A better way of putting it would be "Why has an entire region of the world...".

Anyway, a very very good book about this subject is Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies is a 1997 book by Jared Diamond.

It is more about Europe and why we rose to prominence than it is about why Africa didn't, but essentially he argues that our guns and germs enabled us to kill anyone we needed and thus establish vast empires with ease.

stakey · 11-12-2008 5:20pm

There's a huge list of reasons as to why Africa has struggled to develop along with the rest of humanity and certainly isn't DNA (that's a <not so> vague attempt to turn this into a race reference).

If we're to compare Africa to the most prominent civilisation on Earth, Europe and European influenced civilisations there is a huge difference in what one civilisation has had to overcome to what the other hasn't had to.

In this case, Africa though incredibly rich in resources isn't as protected from the elements of the Earth as Europe was. European civilisations expanded due to an abundance of arable farming land, very few local weather and environmental hazards and importantly for the development of human civilisations a very friendly environment to the human immune system. History has shown that when diseases (some of which are rife in Africa and other warmer regions) hit Europe massive break down in society and order has occurred, look at the black death which wiped out upwards to 60% of Europe's population.

Africa on the other hand has had to contend with difficult environmental challenges (such as desertification, frequent drought), disease friendly environments (warmth, unclean water due to environmental factors etc etc...) conquest from external powers from regions that didn't have such factors to contend with.

If you read up a little on Africa you will see despite these issues, in its early days great empires existed that had trading routes as far afield as India and Europe. These civilisations expanded with trading routes to all four corners of Africa developing metalurgy and crop rotation along side the rest of humanity at the time.

Alot of these civilisations were uprooted time and time again by natural disaster or environmental factors. The introduction of Arab and European conquests into Africa further changed those dynamics.

Pre-european expansion into the region by Arabs saw a mixture of local civilisations and the invading civilisation into often dynamic cultures such as the Moors who threatened European civilisation for years.

European exploration of course resulted in a disastrous slave trade. From the earliest days of European exploration to the withdrawal of European powers in the 20th Century Africa, it's resources and her people were exploited without any thought for the local environment/cultures/civilisations.

What frustrates me is 40-50 years after colonialism, Africa is expected to just cop on and develop into a modernised society over night. Africa still has to contend with post colonialism, ie. the resources of the continent aren't being exploited by the local population, nor the colonials any more but by private companies and powerful white populations still living within alot of the former colonies.

Africa has to contend with environmental issues, diseases, corruption, lack of education, lack of infrastructure and more all within a very protected global marketplace where European farmers and American farmers are protected by international organisations such as the WTO.

Western nations and corporations still ship hundreds of thousands of weapons and rounds of ammunition into the continent. Western nations and corporations undermine local democracies by arming local warlords and militias to undermine the governments so local resources can be exploited.

OP, your attitude and post show a great immaturity and lack of understanding toward a subject you seem so to care so much about. In a fair, just world, Africa might have had a chance, in this world, it's been exploited for everything it has.

Morlar · 11-12-2008 5:28pm

So it is all whiteys fault.

stakey · 11-12-2008 6:00pm

Didn't bother to read my post did you?

Summarised it's:

environmental factors
disease factors
poverty and food factors
war factors
outside element factors (Of which that is majorly European. Most of the problematic colonials were/are not your classic caucasian and the current colonials are from a little known region called China.)

FruitLover · 11-12-2008 6:03pm

OP, you forgot to begin your post with "I'm not racist, but..."

brianthebard · 11-12-2008 6:05pm

Morlar wrote: »

I think that was tried in Rhodesia and South Africa as soon as they were no longer in white hands they have went down the toilet. That is not a racist statement its just an observation.

Its a very poor and myopic observation.

stewie01 · 11-12-2008 6:21pm

stakey wrote: »

There's a huge list of reasons as to why Africa has struggled to develop along with the rest of humanity and certainly isn't DNA (that's a <not so> vague attempt to turn this into a race reference).

If we're to compare Africa to the most prominent civilisation on Earth, Europe and European influenced civilisations there is a huge difference in what one civilisation has had to overcome to what the other hasn't had to.

In this case, Africa though incredibly rich in resources isn't as protected from the elements of the Earth as Europe was. European civilisations expanded due to an abundance of arable farming land, very few local weather and environmental hazards and importantly for the development of human civilisations a very friendly environment to the human immune system. History has shown that when diseases (some of which are rife in Africa and other warmer regions) hit Europe massive break down in society and order has occurred, look at the black death which wiped out upwards to 60% of Europe's population.

Africa on the other hand has had to contend with difficult environmental challenges (such as desertification, frequent drought), disease friendly environments (warmth, unclean water due to environmental factors etc etc...) conquest from external powers from regions that didn't have such factors to contend with.

If you read up a little on Africa you will see despite these issues, in its early days great empires existed that had trading routes as far afield as India and Europe. These civilisations expanded with trading routes to all four corners of Africa developing metalurgy and crop rotation along side the rest of humanity at the time.

Alot of these civilisations were uprooted time and time again by natural disaster or environmental factors. The introduction of Arab and European conquests into Africa further changed those dynamics.

Pre-european expansion into the region by Arabs saw a mixture of local civilisations and the invading civilisation into often dynamic cultures such as the Moors who threatened European civilisation for years.

European exploration of course resulted in a disastrous slave trade. From the earliest days of European exploration to the withdrawal of European powers in the 20th Century Africa, it's resources and her people were exploited without any thought for the local environment/cultures/civilisations.

What frustrates me is 40-50 years after colonialism, Africa is expected to just cop on and develop into a modernised society over night. Africa still has to contend with post colonialism, ie. the resources of the continent aren't being exploited by the local population, nor the colonials any more but by private companies and powerful white populations still living within alot of the former colonies.

Africa has to contend with environmental issues, diseases, corruption, lack of education, lack of infrastructure and more all within a very protected global marketplace where European farmers and American farmers are protected by international organisations such as the WTO.

Western nations and corporations still ship hundreds of thousands of weapons and rounds of ammunition into the continent. Western nations and corporations undermine local democracies by arming local warlords and militias to undermine the governments so local resources can be exploited.

OP, your attitude and post show a great immaturity and lack of understanding toward a subject you seem so to care so much about. In a fair, just world, Africa might have had a chance, in this world, it's been exploited for everything it has.

great post. the kind of answer i was looking for. apologises for bringing dna into it. it was a bit foolish. and yes i do have a lack of understanding to the subject but dont care to much about it.
i was just thinking about it a night or 2 ago when i was watching louis theroux in south africa going around the shanty towns and the savagery that goes on in these communitys where people are burned alive over the robbery of a phone.

Morlar · 11-12-2008 6:21pm

brianthebard wrote: »

Its a very poor and myopic observation.

Accurate is the word I would have chosen.

Both Rhodesia/zimbabwe and South Africa have not exactly prospered in african control now have they ?

Crime rates throught the roof and up in the stratosphere - MASSIVE corruption and incompetence the list is a long one.

If you want to say that they are better safer more stable and efficient economies/societies now than before we can agree to differ. Of course its all because of the legacy of white control right ?

brianthebard · 11-12-2008 7:09pm

So apartheid can't be seen as corruption? How much better was the distribution of wealth and land under white rule in those countries? Yes its because of the history of colonialism.

Morlar · 11-12-2008 7:19pm

brianthebard wrote: »

So apartheid can't be seen as corruption? How much better was the distribution of wealth and land under white rule in those countries? Yes its because of the history of colonialism.

When the white farmers land was 're-distributed' at knifepoint by mugabe thugs who evicted the white farmers who farmed that land which fed the country and employed people do you think that was a positive move for zimbabwe ? Famine, cholera, Inflation recently hit so high it was theoretically in the billions.

Of course its all the fault of the whites - as far as some people are concerned it always is. Black people cant be expected to burden the responsibility for the problems in africa. Couldn't possibly be due to endemic african incompetence, stupidity, a culture of corruption and mis-management could it ? The responsibility is never placed where it correctly belongs and in my view until it is the underlying problems will never be addressed. Throwing more and more money down that well hoping that 'this time' it fixes things will not fix anything and in fact could make things worse. imo.

stakey · 11-12-2008 7:34pm

Morlar wrote: »

Couldn't possibly be due to endemic african incompetence, stupidity, a culture of corruption and mis-management could it?

A culture of corruption and mismanagement that you refer to would imply Africans have always been responsible for their own faith throughout colonialism and further back. Would you be arguing that?

Considering their was no culture of self rule and in most cases any attempt to do so was answered with bloody suppression you'd hardly believe for a second that Africans could just pick up the reigns of control when the colonists decided to vacate the place do you?

If their is a culture of mis-management and corruption it's due to colonials instigating and building that culture.

bmurphy4ireland · 11-12-2008 7:36pm

immense post stakey

brianthebard · 11-12-2008 7:38pm

Morlar wrote: »

When the white farmers land was 're-distributed' at knifepoint by mugabe thugs who evicted the white farmers who farmed that land which fed the country and employed people do you think that was a positive move for zimbabwe ? Famine, cholera, Inflation recently hit so high it was theoretically in the billions.

Just because I say what came before wasn't good, doesn't mean I have to justify what is happening now.

Of course its all the fault of the whites - as far as some people are concerned it always is. Black people cant be expected to burden the responsibility for the problems in africa. Couldn't possibly be due to endemic african incompetence, stupidity, a culture of corruption and mis-management could it ? The responsibility is never placed where it correctly belongs and in my view until it is the underlying problems will never be addressed. Throwing more and more money down that well hoping that 'this time' it fixes things will not fix anything and in fact could make things worse. imo.

You're right-its such a burden that the white man must endure. Maybe we should call it the white man's burden? You must be trolling, you posts are coming straight out of the nineteenth century. What's more you contradict yourself by saying that the underlying problems have to be addressed, but refuse to acknowledge the biggest underlying problem of them all-the legacy of colonialism and apartheid. Who is throwing money at these countries? if you mean aid, then you would have to be blind to believe that any country giving aid isn't benefiting themselves beyond a feeling of good will. Continued Western interference and neo-colonialism are the biggest problems in Africa right now.

metrovelvet · 11-12-2008 7:40pm

brianthebard wrote: »

Continued Western interference and neo-colonialism are the biggest problems in Africa right now.

Do you mean the money we give them?

Acacia · 11-12-2008 7:49pm

stewie01 wrote: »

whats with the hostilaty. im just asking peoples opinions on why it hasnt developed and civilised like the rest of the world over the last thousand or so years, and no alot of them cant seem to feed themselves. whos fault is that.

they could be the richest continent in the world with all there raw material resources could have the best tourism destinations in the world with safaris etc if the got there act together.

and your list of imperialism culture famine etc isnt exclusive to africa every continent went through these things and evolved exept africa. why is this

Africans were 'feeding themselves' for thousands of years before they were colonized. They also had their own civilization , though not in the eyes of Europeans.

They are trying to develop a tourist trade, especially in Kenya and East Africa which has the safaris you mentioned.

Just as 'imperialsim, culture and famine' aren't 'exclusive' to Africa, neither is corruption and poverty. Have a look at South America or Asia and India. Hell, even Ireland was pretty much a third world country until the latter half of the twentieth century. And the cracks are beginning to show here again.

To be honest , I find your implication that Africans are 'savages' highly offensive.

Morlar · 11-12-2008 7:51pm

stakey wrote: »

A culture of corruption and mismanagement that you refer to would imply Africans have always been responsible for their own faith throughout colonialism and further back. Would you be arguing that?

re Culture of mismanagement and corruption : I am not implying it I am stating it as my opinion. Not all african countries but many of the most problematic.

Where did I say that africans had self rule before they were granted independence ? I didnt.

stakey wrote: »

Considering their was no culture of self rule .... you'd hardly believe for a second that Africans could just pick up the reigns of control when the colonists decided to vacate the place do you?

Why exactly not ? They were handed not just an infrastructure, railways, roads etc they were also handed systems of government through which the state could function - what exactly more of a headstart do you think they could have been given in comparison to where they were to begin with ? ?

stakey wrote: »

If their is a culture of mis-management and corruption it's due to colonials instigating and building that culture.

What are you basing this on ? African mismanagement and african corruption are due to colonials instigating it ? How so ? Were those countries more mis-managed and was corruption a greater problem when they were under white control ? No they were not and no it was not. Stop trying to deflect any responsibility from african shoulders for the problems of 21st century africa. It all amounts to 'blame it on whitey'.

Morlar · 11-12-2008 7:59pm

brianthebard wrote: »

Just because I say what came before wasn't good, doesn't mean I have to justify what is happening now.

Hmm so african self governance (in the case of rhodesia/zimbabwe) has NOT been beneficial to the average zimbabwean ? If thats what your saying I would agree.

brianthebard wrote: »

You're right-its such a burden that the white man must endure. Maybe we should call it the white man's burden?

White mans burden is an imperialistic british term - meaning essentially these savages need to be governed as they are incapable of taking care of themselves. If you are saying that you support that notion I would disagree with you there.

brianthebard wrote: »

You must be trolling,

Pretty sure calling someone a troll is a bannable offence (which I am pretty sure you are already aware of too) so you might want to watch that one.

brianthebard wrote: »

What's more you contradict yourself by saying that the underlying problems have to be addressed, but refuse to acknowledge the biggest underlying problem of them all-the legacy of colonialism and apartheid. Who is throwing money at these countries?

Sorry but that is not a contradiction. It is perfectly possible and consistent to believe that the problems in africa should be addressed without accepting that its all the fault of 'whitey'. That is not what a contradiction is, nor is it inconsistent.

brianthebard wrote: »

Continued Western interference and neo-colonialism are the biggest problems in Africa right now.

So we should leave them to it ? Can you honestly (with the exception of a handful of african nations including libya) believe that africa would do better without aid/assistance from the international community ? Famine relief, peacekeeping duties, aid etc we should just pull the plug and they will be better off ? I think its debateable whethere or not we (the west) should but I am not sure it would be to their benefit as much as it would be to ours.

brianthebard · 11-12-2008 8:10pm

Morlar wrote: »

So we should leave them to it ? Can you honestly (with the exception of a handful of african nations including libya) believe that africa would do better without aid/assistance from the international community ? Famine relief, peacekeeping duties, aid etc we should just pull the plug and they will be better off ? I think its debateable whethere or not we (the west) should but I am not sure it would be to their benefit as much as it would be to ours.

Yes absolutely. Aid is used to buy resources, to keep corrupt dictators in power, to intervene in the interests of the West and not Africa. I suggest you read Kwame Nkrumah on the topic of neo-colonialism. There are many nations paying more back in interest on their loans than they are receiving in aid every year-how is that supposed to help? Meanwhile the EU and others offload food and other products they have overproduced to Third world markets, destroying indigenous industry and production. This about the effect of importing cheap goods like meat from South America has had on Irish farming, and multiply that by 10000. Why do you single out Libya? What countries would do ok without aid and why do you think that is?

peasant · 11-12-2008 9:15pm

Another important factor that must not be overlooked is that most African countries as we know them today do not equal an African nation.

Borders were drawn arbitrarily by colonial powers with total disregard for the demographics of the population. This is why so many African countries today have huge problems with one or more sizeable "minorities" in their populations.

Often enough, the ethnic majority took over the running of the country from the colonial power and all that changed for the minorities was the colour of the skin of their "rulers" and not much else.

It has been (and still is) very difficult for those countries to establish a sense of nation and without a unified country, you're going nowhere, really...which in turn suits the exploiters.

stewie01 · 12-12-2008 12:04pm

Acacia wrote: »

To be honest , I find your implication that Africans are 'savages' highly offensive.

sorry to offend you.
what would you call people who have sex with babies to cure themselves of AIDS. its common place in one country in africa cant remember which one.

mobs to burn people(1 to 2 a day) to death on an accusation of robbery of something as trivial as a mobile phone.

genocide. amputation. child soldiers. the list is endless. and isnt restricted to any one country. its rife all over the continent. its as barbaric as our middle ages and i would describe that a time of savages. what would you call it??

irish_bob · 12-12-2008 12:13pm

metrovelvet wrote: »

Do you mean the money we give them?

to offer just one example , the CAP takes more away from africa than we the west send them in aid , to protect european and north american farmers , farmers in africa are denied entry to western markets with thier produce or if they are , they are subject to very high tarriffs

Africans

Comments