# Why is Africa underdeveloped today?



## Bass v 2.0 (Jul 4, 2009)

Well for starters, it isn't because of "African ïnferiority," so called low IQs or Africans having an inability to capitalize off of the "good" things that Europe left in Africa, its because of neocolonialism by Western countries and a select group of corrupt Africans willing to do their bidding. Not surprising, these corrupt Africans were almost always part of the elite group of Western educated Africans under European colonial control. The following link shows some insight into this subject:

Neocolonialism - Bibliography


Key points


* _ Neocolonialism can be defined as the continuation of the economic model of colonialism after a colonized territory has achieved formal political independence. This concept was applied most commonly to Africa in the latter half of the twentieth century. *European countries had colonized most of the continent in the late nineteenth century, instituting a system of economic exploitation in which African raw materials, particularly cash crops and minerals, were expropriated and exported to the sole benefit of the colonizing power.* The idea of neocolonialism, however, suggests that when European powers granted nominal political independence to colonies in the decades after World War II, they continued to control the economies of the new African countries._


* _ *According to Rodney and Amin, European countries, and increasingly the United States, dominated the economies of African countries through neocolonialism in several ways. After independence, the main revenue base for African countries continued to be the export of raw materials; this resulted in the underdevelopment of African economies, while Western industries thrived.* A good example of this process is the West African cocoa industry in the 1960s: during this time, production increased rapidly in many African countries; overproduction, however, led to a reduction in the selling price of cocoa worldwide. Neocolonial theorists therefore proclaimed that economies based on the production of cash crops such as cocoa could not hope to develop, because the world system imposes a veritable ceiling on the revenue that can be accrued from their production. *Likewise, the extraction and export of minerals could not serve to develop an African economy, because minerals taken from African soil by Western-owned corporations were shipped to Europe or America, where they were turned into manufactured goods, which were then resold to African consumers at value-added prices*.


A second method of neocolonialism, according to the theory's adherents, was foreign aid. *The inability of their economies to develop after independence soon led many African countries to enlist this aid. Believers in the effects of neocolonialism feel that accepting loans from Europe or America proved the link between independent African governments and the exploitative forces of former colonizers. They note as evidence that most foreign aid has been given in the form of loans, bearing high rates of interest; repayment of these loans contributed to the underdevelopment of African economies because the collection of interest ultimately impoverished African peoples*.

The forces of neocolonialism did not comprise former colonial powers alone, however. *Theorists also saw the United States as an increasingly dominant purveyor of neocolonialism in Africa. As the Cold War reached its highest tensions at roughly the same time that most African countries achieved independence, many theorists believed that the increasing levels of American aid and intervention in the affairs of independent African states were designed to keep African countries within the capitalist camp and prevent them from aligning with the Soviet Union*._


_ *Fanon took much of the basis for neocolonialism for granted, seeing the exploitative tendencies of Western countries as inherent to their capitalist nature. He saw no place for Africa in this system. The African petty bourgeoisie, which had received power from the exiting colonial government, was the primary cause of neocolonialism in Africa. Fanon believed that the Africans who took power at the time of independence had been favored by European powers because they were willing to effect a smooth transition from colonialism to neocolonialism. Since they were generally of the Western-educated middle class who had in many ways benefited from the colonial system, they had the most to gain from a continuation of colonial economic policies. Fanon accused them of collaborating with the colonial power to ensure that the interests of both would continue to be met after the declaration of formal political independence; this class of Africans had betrayed the masses on whose backs the various nationalist movements had been borne.* In order to achieve complete and final independence for African countries, "a rapid step must be taken from national consciousness to political and social consciousness" by the masses in order to check the power of the governing class, which had merely replaced the colonial administration as the most direct exploiters of African people. Violent revolution was the only means to drive oppressive neocolonial forces from the world. Fanon's ideology was supported by several political actors in Africa, including Amilcar Cabral of Guinea-Bissau, who warred against a deeply entrenched Portuguese colonial regime until his assassination in 1974._



There you have it, the total truth. The Bass would like to see those looney white supremacists who believe that so called low African IQ and African inferiority and inability to govern and take of self is the truth, or just white supremacist manufactured garbage used as a smoke screen for whats really going on.


----------



## HUGGY (Jul 4, 2009)

There is only so much you can do with mud huts.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Jul 4, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> There is only so much you can do with mud huts.



Stop trolling and address the facts, Africa is not a continent of mudhuts you jackass.


----------



## Full-Auto (Jul 4, 2009)

Charlie Bass said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > There is only so much you can do with mud huts.
> ...





yet they managed to give one weapon the distinction of killing the most of mankind.


And while they may not be ignorant, they have shown a love for violence beyond the everyday trivialities.


----------



## editec (Jul 4, 2009)

Africa is in the shape it is because of its history is, of course, true.  

Everyplace is in the shape it is because of its history.

Colonialism is but one part of the tragic formula which makes Africa what it is today.  

Add a number of pernicious human diseases and parsites to the mix. Add topography, and add climate, too.

Northern Africa has been a ever growing evironmental mess, for example, since Roman, times. 

So add the steady growth of the northern deserts as part of the explanation for why the place is so damned empoverished. 

Colonialism probably didn't help, but plenty of places in the world were colonialized far more explotively and are doing just fine, now, thank you very much.


----------



## Sunni Man (Jul 4, 2009)

Africia is still being raped and plundered by their former european colonial masters


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Jul 4, 2009)

editec said:


> Colonialism probably didn't help, but plenty of places in the world were colonialized far more explotively and are doing just fine, now, thank you very much.




Name these places that were far more colonized more exploitatively but are doing just fine.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 4, 2009)

Charlie Bass said:


> Well for starters, it isn't because of "African ïnferiority," so called low IQs or Africans having an inability to capitalize off of the "good" things that Europe left in Africa, its because of



-lasting droughts, corrupt governments, uneducated cowardly masses, and a lack of outside investments?




> neocolonialism by Western countries



So, basically only outsiders are smart enough to capitalize on the available resources?



> and a select group of corrupt Africans willing to do their bidding


It it's  a select few, then why do not the masses rebel? You do recall America trying to help depose such warlords, right? The masses sided with their dictator.


It seems that you're always eager to pklace the responsibility for the suffering of blacks anywhere but at the feet of the lacks. Face it, Africa only succeeded when it was of use to Europe. ON their own, the negroids are incapable of civilization.




> _*European countries had colonized most of the continent in the late nineteenth century, instituting a system of economic exploitation in which African raw materials, particularly cash crops and minerals, were expropriated and exported to the sole benefit of the colonizing power.*_


You think you're special?



> * _ *According to Rodney and Amin, European countries, and increasingly the United States, dominated the economies of African countries through neocolonialism in several ways. After independence, the main revenue base for African countries continued to be the export of raw materials; this resulted in the underdevelopment of African economies, while Western industries thrived.*_



Evidently they suck as business men.



> A good example of this process is the West African cocoa industry in the 1960s: during this time, production increased rapidly in many African countries; overproduction, however, led to a reduction in the selling price of cocoa worldwide



and? This is a surprise to you?

_._


> Neocolonial theorists therefore proclaimed that economies based on the production of cash crops such as cocoa could not hope to develop, because the world system imposes a veritable ceiling on the revenue that can be accrued from their production. *Likewise, the extraction and export of minerals could not serve to develop an African economy, because minerals taken from African soil by Western-owned corporations were shipped to Europe or America, where they were turned into manufactured goods, which were then resold to African consumers at value-added prices*.



The  Africans must learn to process the goods themselves or go without the finished product. Hell, we did the same shit to China and now they have us over a barrel. Oh wait, Mongoloids are smarter on average than Negroids... 


> A second method of neocolonialism, according to the theory's adherents, was foreign aid.



Do you support ending all aid to Africa? Good to know



> Fanon took much of the basis for neocolonialism for granted, seeing the exploitative tendencies of Western countries as inherent to their capitalist nature.



You should talk to Agna




> He saw no place for Africa in this system. The African petty bourgeoisie,


----------



## Bootneck (Jul 4, 2009)

Why is Africa underdeveloped? Because the natives are incapable of even organising a piss-up in a brewery. Look at Zimbabwe as a case in point. Zim was, until recently known as the breadbasket of Africa. Its farming industry was second to none. Now, having kicked out the white farmers, the once fertile acres are turning into arid wastelands and Zim is no longer a producer of food and the natives are starving. They are fuckwits.


----------



## HUGGY (Jul 4, 2009)

Charlie Bass said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > There is only so much you can do with mud huts.
> ...



Chuckie..please...you spend all yo damn time worrying about shit that isn't any of your business.  Unless you have questions about your own sexuality or have a queer kid gays do not impact your life.

You say ignorant crap on every thread you impose on my eyes. 

You want serious talk about serious issues? 

Then engage without the wack pregedices you revel in.

I don't believe you want to do anything more than present your wierd scew on the ways of the world.  That makes you a joke to me and fair game for joking about your threads.

You are performing a valuable service for serious folks that put themselves in stressfull situations and come to the internet to blow off steam.  Please never change.


----------



## alan1 (Jul 4, 2009)

Charlie Bass said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Colonialism probably didn't help, but plenty of places in the world were colonialized far more explotively and are doing just fine, now, thank you very much.
> ...


If by just fine you mean better than the African continent, 

All of North America, and all of South America.


----------



## Bootneck (Jul 4, 2009)

Charlie Bass said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Colonialism probably didn't help, but plenty of places in the world were colonialized far more explotively and are doing just fine, now, thank you very much.
> ...




Let's see now. Australia, Singapore, Malaysia, India, HongKong, North America............and so on and so on.


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jul 4, 2009)

Colonialism in Africa and Colonialism in Australia, Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong, or North America were completely different animals. 

Africa came at the tail-end of Imperial Conquest, the structure of oppression was far more rigid and brutal.  In effect, the Europeans had just become masters in the art of imperial rapeage. In any case, I've already expanded my thoughts on the issues on this board, so I'll just go ahead and re-post my response to William Joyce, for the rest of the racists on the board:



William Joyce said:


> "Underdeveloped" Africa?  Like it was developed to begin with, but evil Belgians took down their skyscrapers and disassembled their Macs?  I see!
> 
> Africa "underpopulated" by slavery?  My friend, Africa is the most fertile place on Earth.  A lack of population is not the problem in Africa.
> 
> ...



1) You've obviously never given colonialsim a second of your thought. Colonialism everywhere severly disrupted the natural patterns of development in those areas. However, Colonialism took on different forms pretty much everywhere, which is why different places were disrupted in different ways. Africa was the last place to be truly brought under total colonial control, and by then the Europeans were pretty damn good at it. First of all, Africa was divided totally arbitrarily, the Europeans actually made a good practice of dividing regions in such a way that they could create minorities, to which they would give more power in order to create social mistrust and racial strife, or include so many ethno-linguistic groups as to make cooperation to shake off imperial oppression harder. Racial strife isn't very conducive to good growth. Regardless of how they got to maintain power, they basically disassambled all the previous forms of political organization and replaced it with the colonial state in its entirety, which was very much different from the situation in China, India, or the Middle East, which already had vast and established empires which were easier for Europeans to control simply by coercing the ruling elite. There was no such gigantic empire in control of Africa, likely because of geographic circumstances [a gigantic desert isn't very conducive for regular trade, and neither is the thick jungle of central Africa]. Just think logically, you know how the government has deficits and then can't get shit done? Imagine if most of the tax revenues of the United States didn't go toward providing for anything for the population, but towards the development of a different state. This is what is meant by colonialism 'underdeveloping' a place- the surplus created by the resources and workforce of the colony go toward the development of the Imperial power, an outflow of wealth that prevents any meaningful development in the colony. It doesn't help that Imperial powers, with their total control over production, geared the production of goods towards primary goods to be used by protected industry in the mother country, which it could then sell back to the colonies in total imbalance of trade that continues up through today's quasi-imperial system. That's actually the major reason why India is still screwed today- in the 1820s, it had a bigger share of industrial output than Europe (especially textiles), but Britain dismantled it, geared it towards cotton production, banned independent industry, and basically forced India to buy British textiles, which eventually strengthened British industry at the expense of Indian industry. It was a similar, but more brutal case, in Africa. That's another component- forbiding the colony from industrial development for the benefit of the imperial power's industrial development. Wouldn't want them to compete. 

How did Europe manage to do all of this? Because the one thing that, by the time Imperial conquest was the order of the day, the Europeans had REALLY gotten down well, was how to murder each other in the most efficient ways. You point to Africa and how it's a mess, but you have to keep in mind that the Nation-State system has been around in Africa for about half a century on average. It took HUNDREDS of years for it to settle in Europe herself, and for those hundreds of years there was no activity that Europeans were better at than exterminating other Europeans. The only reason Europe and her offshoots aren't still doing it is because after the events of the last bloodbath (1940s) everyone pretty much knew that it'd be game over for the entire world if they kept going at it.

2) Population growth as a problem isn't determined by volume or growth rates entirely, but by distribution. Africa right now has overpopulation it its URBAN centres for a number of reasons, but it remains, as a continent, underpopulated, but the negative effects of that are better seen historically. First of all, Africa is GIGANTIC, and because of geographical factors, it has never been cohesive. West Africa had it's trade cut off from everywhere up north because the Sahara prevented anything but luxuries (easily carried), and the thick tropical jungles isolated the rest of the continent. It also has a vertical axis, which makes trade harder in general (the big difference between Africa and early America from Eurasia, because as everybody knows, moving from north-south changes the climatic circumstances severely, making goods that grow at one latitude useless on a short distance from north to south, but not from east to west, where climatic differences are minimal.). For population growth, the fact that Africa was always so vast and geographically isolated, the fact that its major export for centuries was _people_ was severe. It prevented any incentives to invest in other goods, build roads, or invest in transport (people can walk). But not only that, but the fact is that in terms of fertile land per person never became a problem in Africa, there was really more than enough farmland (the African country is even today sort of underpopulated, but much more so back in the day), so patterns of land-ownership never developed as they did elsewhere like Europe, China, or India, where there wasn't enough and people had to start doing other stuff besides farming to turn a buck. No such pressures in the farmland:farmer ratio in Africa. And THAT is what's meant by a 'population deficit', which severly weakened its early development, and a bunch of other stuff that came after.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Jul 4, 2009)

Bootneck said:


> Why is Africa underdeveloped? Because the natives are incapable of even organising a piss-up in a brewery. Look at Zimbabwe as a case in point. Zim was, until recently known as the breadbasket of Africa. Its farming industry was second to none. Now, having kicked out the white farmers, the once fertile acres are turning into arid wastelands and Zim is no longer a producer of food and the natives are starving. They are fuckwits.



This idiot is actually trying to imply that Africa was better off when the whites controlled it, what a moron, the reason Zimbabwe is bad is because Mugabe is incompetent, not because of the removal of white farmers, who really had no right to that land to begin with. Had he replaced the white farmers with competent black farmers there would have been no drop off in production, instead he gave it to his careless cronies.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Jul 4, 2009)

MountainMan said:


> Charlie Bass said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



North America has a majority population of descents of Europeans and was not conquered and divided up in such a way as Africa was. North and South America were and are permanent settlements, Africa was divided up and raped specifically for its natural resources and as a place for Europeans to push the low quality manufactured goods, all in the name of Europe enriching itself. Very few Europeans settled in Africa except for South Africa which in many ways is like the US.


----------



## William Joyce (Jul 5, 2009)

Charlie Bass said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > There is only so much you can do with mud huts.
> ...



Yes, mud huts are pretty fancy for many Africans.

Low IQ is a huge factor.  Black Africans have IQ's that are even lower than black Americans... in the sub-Sarahan region, they pretty count as retarded.

If anything, colonialism would have boosted blacks... look at what Indians did with it!  Editec and Bootneck make the point.

CLIMATE also won't work.  Africa is chock-full of bountiful natural resources and good farm land.  Meanwhile, whites in Australia and Jews in Israel managed to turn deserts into a fully functional first-world spot.

To paraphrase James Carville, "It's the IQ, stupid."  Lynn and Vanhannen have shown that IQ correlates FAST AND HARD with relative wealth for populations across the globe, no matter where found.  The higher the IQ, the richer the people:  Japanese in Japan, Germans in Germany, Swedes in Sweden (up high), Mediterraneans, Albanians, etc. a little lower, Hispanics even lower, and blacks at the bottom.

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/IQ-Wealth-Nations-Richard-Lynn/dp/027597510X[/ame]


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jul 5, 2009)

William Joyce said:


> If anything, colonialism would have boosted blacks... look at what Indians did with it!  Editec and Bootneck make the point.



This claim is absolutely false and has no basis in reality, Joyce. During British Imperial Rule India experienced some of the worst famines in world history, including Great Famine and the Indian Famine, in which upwards of 20 million people died, plus at least half a dozen other major famines. The East India Company's rule in India fucked nascent Indian Industry; whereas India was a net exporter of processed goods, by the mid-19th century it had acquired the main characteristic of underdeveloped countries: exporter of raw materials and importer of manufactured goods, the classic declining-terms-of-trade nightmare- by direct and deliberate British policy. Britain imposed it's own duty-free manufactures to India, while maintaining huge barriers to trade for goods FROM India, effectively developing British Industry at the expense of the underdevelopment of Indian industry. And these are just a couple of issue among many.

The statement that Colonialism was good for India, or for Africa, or even Latin America for that matter, is astoundingly ignorant.


----------



## Toro (Jul 5, 2009)

There is no question that the brutal colonialism of a century ago has had an effect on Africa.  However, at some point, Africans must cast aside the crutch of the past and start looking at themselves today.  

Today, Africa is hobbled by grossly incompetent, venal and corrupt leaders who insist upon stealing the wealth and whisking it out of the country.  The amount of money stolen by African leaders over the past 50 years is in the hundreds of billions.  Some, such as whatshisname, the "Emperor" of the Central African Republican were utterly insane.  Others, such as Charles Taylor, were brutal egomaniacs.  

Until the leaders stop screwing their own people, Africa will never develop.  Never.

BTW, as trendy as it is for leftist academics to blame America for all the world's problems, America has been a minor player in Africa, with the French, British and even the Dutch being more involved in the continent.


----------



## Toro (Jul 5, 2009)

William Joyce said:


> If anything, colonialism would have boosted blacks... look at what Indians did with it!  Editec and Bootneck make the point.



That's like saying the Nazis were good for Germany, though perhaps William would agree.

Here is but one example of how the blacks were "boosted" by European colonialism.



> Only 90 years ago, the agents of King Leopold II of Belgium massacred 10 million Africans in the Congo. Cutting off hands as we see in Sierra Leone today, was very much part of Leopold's repertoire. ...
> 
> "With a decade of [Leopold's] head start [in the Congo], similar forced labour systems for extracting rubber were in place in the French territories west and north of the Congo River, in Portuguese-ruled Angola, and in the nearby Cameroon under the Germans.
> 
> "In France's equatorial African territories, where the region's history is best documented, the amount of rubber-bearing land was far less than what Leopold controlled, but the rape was just as brutal. Almost all exploitable land was divided among concession companies. Forced labour, hostages, slave chains, starving porters, burned villages, paramilitary company 'sentries', and the chicotte were the order of the day. [The chicotte was a vicous whip made out of raw, sun-dried hippopotamus hide, cut into a long sharp-edged cork-screw strip. It was applied to bare buttocks, and left permanent scars. Twenty strokes of it sent victims into unconsciousness; and a 100 or more strokes were often fatal. The chicotte was freely used by both Leopold's men and the French].



The Butcher of Congo

Nice.


----------



## WillowTree (Jul 5, 2009)

Three Questions



1. how long has Africa been un-colonized?


2. How much foreign Aid has been sent to Africa in the last 50 years.


3. How has that worked out?


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 5, 2009)

Africa is a shithole because africans are a failure

The only time they've succeeded was when they were of use to White

They're too stupid to make use of the resources that the Whites once capitalized upon


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Jul 5, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Africa is a shithole because africans are a failure
> 
> The only time they've succeeded was when they were of use to White
> 
> They're too stupid to make use of the resources that the Whites once capitalized upon




Seriously, shut the hell up man, you're being ignorant as hell and making no sense and ignoring everything that Europeans have done to ravage the continent. How many times must it be stated to your dumb jackass that whites did not develop Africa when they came in, they simply exploited the region to enrich themselves as well as a place to flood their low quality cheap good into. Africans never succeeded when whites were there, they were oppressed and kept in a damn low status, pick up a damn history book and read jackass.



Before there was any known civilization in Europe and Europe proper, civilization existed in Africa first, there was no civilized France, Britain, Germany, etc, while Africa had a civilization, you ancestors were illiterate mostly, uneducated and still living in the Dark Ages for the most part before and even after the Romans swept across Europe, and if that isn't enough, the Moors of ruled Spain, who were *AFRICANS* brought Europe out of its Dark Ages. Europe was never always this so called highly civilized place you racist chimps think it to be, your own history books even say this.



After the Europeans left they are still using neocolonialism to control the countries resources in collusion with some select African sell outs who betray the masses, though not every country in Africa is doing this. Without the systematic rape of the continent by European colonists would not be underdeveloped and strangely during this period Europe became more developed.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Jul 5, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> Three Questions
> 
> 
> 
> 1. how long has Africa been un-colonized?




The last African country to be decolonized was Guinea Bissau in 1974. Don't even sit up here and pretend that 35 years or more of independence is more that enough time to offset nearly 70 years of European imposed brutality, neglect and backwardedness.




> 2. How much foreign Aid has been sent to Africa in the last 50 years.



What foreign aid, you that money they give Africans in exchange for control of their resources and economy? The IMF for example plays a big role in underdeveloping African countries:


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aY8SjSQI1Oc]YouTube - How the IMF underdevelops Africa (1/6)[/ame]


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 5, 2009)

Charlie Bass said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Africa is a shithole because africans are a failure
> ...



Now that's a fine refutation 


> you're being ignorant as hell and making no sense and ignoring everything that Europeans have done to ravage the continent



Incorrect. You're ignoring the fact that they're pretty much gone now and any continued failure is the failure of the Africans. Hell, the ones we brought here seem to be doing just fine, thanks to the White man

.





> How many times must it be stated to your dumb jackass that whites did not develop Africa when they came in



So now it' not good enough to have affirmative action in the Stares- now you expect Whites to carry the whole fucking continent of Africa? 




> , they were oppressed and kept in a damn low status, pick up a damn history book and read jackass.



How about you put down your ****** pride glasses and accept that the time has come for africans to be responsible for their own damned selves? I'm sick and fucking tired of ******* bitching about the past and expecting the White man to carry them, only to turn around and bitch that they haven't done anything for themselves





> Before there was any known civilization in Europe and Europe proper, civilization existed in Africa first,


Actually, it started in the Fertile Crescent



> before and even after the Romans swept across Europe, and if that isn't enough, the Moors of ruled Spain, who were *AFRICANS*



Incorrect. The Moores were predominantly arab muslims. The ******* in the moorish armies were those who had been defeated and were forced to march at the front of the army and be the first to die 


> brought Europe out of its Dark Ages.



Actually, that was Western scientific philosophy ad some technology we stole from the Asians 


> After the Europeans left they are still using neocolonialism to control the countries resources



So we're supposed to be inferior... yet we dominated your asses?


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Jul 5, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Incorrect. You're ignoring the fact that they're pretty much gone now and any continued failure is the failure of the Africans. Hell, the ones we brought here seem to be doing just fine, thanks to the White man



Thanks to themselves, not some white man you stupid monkey, its funny how you give the white man credit for everything blacks achieve yet was the hands of this same white man clean of the obvious oppession he has brought against blacks and the legacy after it, real grand you dumb monkey.

.



> So now it' not good enough to have affirmative action in the Stares- now you expect Whites to carry the whole fucking continent of Africa?



Who said that you dumb ape? If anything Africans need to keep the influence of the white man out of their countries and deal with these Western countries on terms favourable to themselves[the Africans that is]. Mugabe had the right idea, but he's incompetent as hell, but the opposition that opposing him are just going to be another bunch of sell out puppets which is why Mugabe would rather let the country rot as opposed to letting the white man run it de facto again.











> Actually, it started in the Fertile Crescent



no, actually in Africa first, but either civilization did not start in Europe nor amongst white men, without the influence of African and Near eastern Civilizations there would be no civilization is Europe you dumb monkey.





> Incorrect. The Moores were predominantly arab muslims. The ******* in the moorish armies were those who had been defeated and were forced to march at the front of the army and be the first to die



Wrong, they were not Arabs, they were Islamicized North Africans, not Arab Muslims, the first Moorish conquerers came from across the sea from North Africa. Stupid monkeys like you claim to be superior Caucasians yet lack the capacity to read history.


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jul 5, 2009)

Toro said:


> There is no question that the brutal colonialism of a century ago has had an effect on Africa.  However, at some point, Africans must cast aside the crutch of the past and start looking at themselves today.
> 
> Today, Africa is hobbled by grossly incompetent, venal and corrupt leaders who insist upon stealing the wealth and whisking it out of the country.  The amount of money stolen by African leaders over the past 50 years is in the hundreds of billions.  Some, such as whatshisname, the "Emperor" of the Central African Republican were utterly insane.  Others, such as Charles Taylor, were brutal egomaniacs.
> 
> ...



European Colonialism in Africa ended but a scant 60 or so years ago, in some countries even much less; that is considerably less than the amount of time many of the countries experienced the imperial yoke. All in all, it has been a very short time that Africans have actually been able to enforce their own model of development. In Latin America, the 'direct' imperial legacy _still_ is the most fundamental force of underdevelopment [patterns of enormous wealth inequalities within countries], because of the patterns introduced by the imperial power (Spain) for hundreds of years, and which have reproduced and reproduced themselves since independence in the 1830s. It isn't that colonial powers are still fucking things over per se, but the patterns and institutional structures that are established and subsequently reproduced long after independence, and this can also been seen in Africa. 

Similar things can even be seen in North America. The policy of "Salutary Neglect" and whatnot, Britain for most intents and purposes let the colonies do whatever they wanted, and the second they started to try impose more [still relatively very weak] muscular control, it was too late, and the Americans would have none of it. [Limited] Democratic rule and the rule of law, citizen initiative and actual self-development was allowed to flourish BECAUSE the imperial power simply... kept its hands off. These patterns were a virtuous cycle, as opposed to the vicious cycles that have plagued India, Latin America and now Africa among others. One could even look at Japan - it was never colonized, and as a result became the only non-Western country to fully industrialize, through its own self-development [even if undemocratically managed, of course]. 

Of course Leadership is important, but I believe leadership and leaders are a product of their society. Enlightened leaders are few and far between everywhere. It is more important to rely on the social relations that shape each society, and to keep in mind that the changes that are brought about are slow and painful. It is absolutely true that the leadership in many African countries, and also many Middle-Eastern and also Latin American, and Asian countries have failed their populations, and it should be held accountable. but these leaders are a product of their societies, and these societies have their roots more often than not in Imperial occupation and exploitation, unnatural patterns of development, the sucking of surplus from the population to the benefit of the occupying powers and the rulers. There is no longer any point in just blaming the people who occupied the country over 50, 60, 100 years ago, though. And that is why now it is the current and recent leaders who are in the spotlight and who do and continually will face more and more pressure. 




WillowTree said:


> Three Questions
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Africa's made up of many countries, they don't have a single "independence day". Most were decolonized during the 60s and 70s. A lot of foreign aid has gone to Africa, but it would be absolutely wrong to assume this says anything. Throwing money at Africa's problems won't solve them, if governments don't have the institutional capacity and checks and balances to do anything good with the money, or to prevent the very government to steal all the aid. So no, it hasn't worked out very well, but there are no simple answers. Some countries have done a lot of good with their aid and avoided widespread corruptions; some have been aid black-holes. The variation in African countries is enormous, and this is one of the huge problems with this thread and even with the international discussion on the problems of Africa - Africa is not one country. It is not a homogenous block. Africa is made up of ~50+ countries, each different from the next, with its own problems. Mauritius has a very high development index and infrastructure, GDP per capita, etc, while for example, Uganda or Zimbabwe are in the shitter. in between there is a huge spectrum, a gamut of countries with all sorts of levels of development. No one cure will fix "Africa's" problems. Even within Countries, a few have very high standards of living comparable to first world countries, some have mid-level standards of living of medium development countries, and most are dirt poor. 

Aid isn't the answer to everything unless we are specified enough about what and where and how it is being used. The problems of the top 20% income-earners in Botswana are  very different from the bottom 20% in the same place, or the top 20% in Angola. In the world of development there are no easy answers and no simple solutions to problems. Things go slowly, they rely on very slow social change and are hugely impacted by the historical perspective. This is why question in this thread is the subject of hundreds of articles and thick books. Saying "Africa is underdeveloped because blacks are an inferior race," as JBeukema does, is the answer of the ignorant, the stupid, and the intellectually challenged. It is the "easy answer."


----------



## Trigg (Jul 5, 2009)

Charlie Bass said:


> Bootneck said:
> 
> 
> > Why is Africa underdeveloped? Because the natives are incapable of even organising a piss-up in a brewery. Look at Zimbabwe as a case in point. Zim was, until recently known as the breadbasket of Africa. Its farming industry was second to none. Now, having kicked out the white farmers, the once fertile acres are turning into arid wastelands and Zim is no longer a producer of food and the natives are starving. They are fuckwits.
> ...



Why exactly did the white Zimbabweans not have a right to their own land??????? If a black moves to this country and buys land does that land not really belong to him??????

Whites have lived in Zimbabwe and South Africa for generations and have just as much a right to that land as anyone else.

Mugabe is ruining Zimbabwe, at least your right there, and population seems to be happy to let him do it. White farmers were murdered in their homes and run off their land all because Mugabe told them the whites were evil. Now the people starve and the gov. askes for food Aid.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 5, 2009)

Charlie Bass said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks to themselves, not some white man you stupid monkey, i
> ...


----------



## Paul Itical (Jul 5, 2009)

This thread was very entertaining.


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jul 5, 2009)

I thought this thread was very sad.


----------



## Paul Itical (Jul 5, 2009)

Epsilon Delta said:


> I thought this thread was very sad.



The back and forths were pretty good. I couldn't believe you could go as far as some here do with the name calling and racist comments.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 5, 2009)

Charlie Bass learns that Mugabe has stolen the homes of Whites...


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Jul 6, 2009)

Trigg said:


> Why exactly did the white Zimbabweans not have a right to their own land??????? If a black moves to this country and buys land does that land not really belong to him??????



Whites didn't exactly "move"to Zimbabwe, do you know how many Africans were forcefully removed from the best farm lands to make way for white settlers? It was not their land, they bought land from people who already stole it without even compensating the people they stole it from.



> Whites have lived in Zimbabwe and South Africa for generations and have just as much a right to that land as anyone else.



Those thieves have no right to anything, they moved there as oppressors and exploiters and Zimbabwe didn't achieve full independence under black control until the 1980s. These people have no right to Africa's resources and control of the economy.


----------



## Scotty (Jul 6, 2009)

Unlike most of the people who posted in this thread, I have actually visited Africa. The reason it is so underdeveloped is twofold. First a lack of education and secondly, slavery.


----------



## Scotty (Jul 6, 2009)

After visiting Africa, I want to put forth an idea. We need to invest more in Africa. Back some African countries finanicially, to bump up the production of oil.  Driving down the global price of gas.Africa is not reaching it's full potential. It has a lot of untapped resources.


----------



## sitarro (Jul 6, 2009)

Why don't American blacks go to Africa and help educate the people that they feel more in touch with than Americans, after all, they call themselves African-Americans. Oprah, Spike Lee, Jeremiah Wright, Barrack Osama, etc. etc. If you consider yourselves Africans first, go back to where you obviously feel you belong. You will not be missed, believe me. I work with a shitload of American blacks and actual Africans, the Africans dislike American blacks, "they are too lazy". The Africans are great, tireless workers but there is a difference between them after a few years in America, they learn the ways of the lazy ass, a shame really.


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jul 6, 2009)

Paul Itical said:


> Epsilon Delta said:
> 
> 
> > I thought this thread was very sad.
> ...



Yeah, I find it pretty unbelievable as well. It must be just SO easy, SO good for one's piece of mind to just be able to claim racial superiority and soew blatant racism, instead of having to worry about or go through the pains of having to acquire an actual grasp on an important and complex topic such as the development of nations.


----------



## Shogun (Jul 6, 2009)

The most modern nation in Africa is still... SOUTH Africa....   I'm sure once AIDS is cured by deflowing virgins and hocus pocus witchcraft bullshit that Africa will produce a stable, politically sustainable black nation.


----------



## WillowTree (Jul 6, 2009)

Charlie Bass said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Three Questions
> ...



somehow I knew you would not be honest enough to answer the questions. oh well.


----------



## WillowTree (Jul 6, 2009)

Epsilon Delta said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > There is no question that the brutal colonialism of a century ago has had an effect on Africa.  However, at some point, Africans must cast aside the crutch of the past and start looking at themselves today.
> ...



Thank you for your answer I appreciate it. and I agree. intellect is not the root of the problem. political and governmental corruption seems to be the root of the problem and throwing money at that will not fix it.


----------



## Trigg (Jul 6, 2009)

Charlie Bass said:


> Trigg said:
> 
> 
> > Why exactly did the white Zimbabweans not have a right to their own land??????? If a black moves to this country and buys land does that land not really belong to him??????
> ...




Blacks were buffalo soldiers here in the US, should black thieves here in the US also give back their land????????? Of course not because blacks of today BOUGHT THEIR LAND LEGALLY

The whites who owned the land there bought and payed for it legally the gov. stole it. You said so yourself, they bought land from other people. You can't punish someone for the sins of others. Even if they're white.

Whites have a right to live and work and anywhere they want, just like everyone else does. Blacks move to Europe and the US everyday, do they have a RIGHT to be here????? 

BTW the gov. biggest mistake has been to throw the white farmers off of their land. Zim went from an up and coming country with much to offer and has turned back into a 3rd world country that can't even feed it's people. From the breadbasket of Africa to food Aid. Mugabe doesn't care a bit for his people, he's raping the country for his own wealth. 

Feel free to keep blaiming whites though, you'r very good at it.


----------



## Bass v 2.0 (Jul 6, 2009)

Trigg said:


> Blacks were buffalo soldiers here in the US, should black thieves here in the US also give back their land????????? Of course not because blacks of today BOUGHT THEIR LAND LEGALLY



Blacks didn't steal any land here in the US and keep it for themselves, nor did they come here mostly as settlers, they were carrying out the orders of the military. The whites in Africa didn't come mostly as settlers they came as imperialists, thieves, killers, robbers and warmongers and force blacks off the most fertile lands, they didn't buy a damn thing, therefore they have no right to that land.



> The whites who owned the land there bought and payed for it legally the gov. stole it. You said so yourself, they bought land from other people. You can't punish someone for the sins of others. Even if they're white.



The white oppressors who mistreated the black indigenous people gave those whites that land, it was not bought period.



> Whites have a right to live and work and anywhere they want, just like everyone else does. Blacks move to Europe and the US everyday, do they have a RIGHT to be here?????


 Those whites didn't move there and buy that land, it was stolen land passed down to them.



> BTW the gov. biggest mistake has been to throw the white farmers off of their land. Zim went from an up and coming country with much to offer and has turned back into a 3rd world country that can't even feed it's people. From the breadbasket of Africa to food Aid. Mugabe doesn't care a bit for his people, he's raping the country for his own wealth.
> 
> Feel free to keep blaiming whites though, you'r very good at it.





No, Mugabe's mistake was not putting competent black farmers on the farm land and the loss of the white farmers is not the cause of Zimbabwe collapse, its incompetent leadership, you seem to forget all the hell whites put black Zimbabweans through.


----------



## manu1959 (Jul 6, 2009)

there is a study that seems to indicate that the reason africa fell behind europe even though it had a head start was due to poor farming ...a lack of nutrition and thus an inability to feed large groups thus specialization in mfr etc to exploit natural resources was unable to develop.....


----------



## Trigg (Jul 6, 2009)

Charlie Bass said:


> Trigg said:
> 
> 
> > Blacks were buffalo soldiers here in the US, should black thieves here in the US also give back their land????????? Of course not because blacks of today BOUGHT THEIR LAND LEGALLY
> ...




1. You Yourself said they bought it from other people. So did you lie????? They bought it off of somebody. Not everyone for generation uppon generation was given land. They bought it legally. 

2. Blacks JOINED the military. They certainly weren't forced to do so. They fought against the indians, forcing them off the land. Therefore, by your reasoning, they stole the land and have no rights to it. Even if they didn't personally steal the land they bought it from someone who did and should give it back. Again, using your reasoning.

3. Yes, incompetant leadership. Throwing legal owners off their land with NO back up plan. Causing the breadbasket of Africa to devolve into chaos. Instead of exporting food, they now have to import food Aid. How then, is throwing the white farmers off their land NOT A MISTAKE.

4. The whites living in Zim were born and raised there. Generations of people who worked for that country and deserve to live there just as anyone else does.

5.  Until you give your house and property back to the indians to make up for the injustice that the Buffalo soldiers did to them, than you have no right to demand that the whites in Zim give everything back.

6. thought this was interresting. Even Mugabe has admitted, kind of, that he screwed up.


HARARE, Zimbabwe, April 24 (UPI) -- The government of Zimbabwe is reversing course to allow white farmers who lost their land to apply for government-owned farms.

 But critics say that the change shows the total failure of Mugabe's land-reform program. The number of white farmers in Zimbabwe dropped from 4,000 to 300 between 2000 and 2006, and the *country went from an agricultural surplus to famine*.

* Mugabe has acknowledged some corruption *in the land reform program and a failure to provide guidance and training for blacks given what had been white-owned land. But he also blames European countries, accusing them of trying to sabotage Zimbabwe's economy.

Farmers who apply for land are not necessarily getting the property that was confiscated. *The government is leasing the land for 99 years.*

99 years..........99 year lease...........sounds to be like he's realized his mistake and is all but giving it back.


----------



## stf410 (Jul 6, 2009)

Africans need to take some responsibility for the underdevelopment.

Before Europeans imposed colonialism in Africa, African nations fought among each other. Because of the lack of unity among the nations (tribes), the Europeans were able to conquer the Africans. In fact Africans captured members of other tribes and sold them to the Europeans in exchange for ammunitions.  It is in Africa, Europeans learned about slavery. Since slavery was practiced by African Royalties who enslaved their enemies (other Africans). The greed of some African Kings to overpower one another, led to the sufferings of many generations. Sadly, some African nations today are still at war with each other. If they would only look at the failure of their ancestors, they will realize that they are suppressing the growth of the nations, which is contributing greatly to its underdevelopment.

Holding colonialism solely responsible for Africas underdevelopment has not resolved the problem.  The African people need to take some accountability for their actions and work together, rather than undermining each other to resolve the problem.


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 6, 2009)

Hell, Blacks in the US and Europe are only united because Whites lumped all ******* together. Whites are responsible for the united front of the blacks, who sold eachother into slavery


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jul 7, 2009)

manu1959 said:


> there is a study that seems to indicate that the reason africa fell behind europe even though it had a head start was due to poor farming ...a lack of nutrition and thus an inability to feed large groups thus specialization in mfr etc to exploit natural resources was unable to develop.....



Absolutely true; an excellent book that pursues this and other points in regards to historical paths of development is _Guns, Germs, and Steel_ by Jared Diamond. I'd recommend it to anyone who actually wants to understand why and how the differences arose among human populations in different regions. It doesn't explain everything, but it is a very good start.


----------



## DamnYankee (Jul 7, 2009)

Charlie Bass said:


> Well for starters, it isn't because of "African ïnferiority," so called low IQs or Africans having an inability to capitalize off of the "good" things that Europe left in Africa, its because of neocolonialism by Western countries and a select group of corrupt Africans willing to do their bidding. Not surprising, these corrupt Africans were almost always part of the elite group of Western educated Africans under European colonial control.
> 
> (snipped)
> 
> There you have it, the total truth. The Bass would like to see those looney white supremacists who believe that so called low African IQ and African inferiority and inability to govern and take of self is the truth, or just white supremacist manufactured garbage used as a smoke screen for whats really going on.


















Those help you out at all?


----------



## William Joyce (Jul 9, 2009)

Black Africans today rape infants to cure themselves of AIDS.

And blame drought on "angry gods":

allAfrica.com: Uganda: Climate Change Fuels Conflicts in Karamoja (Page 1 of 1)

Did the Jewish writer Jared Diamond remember to mention these tidbits?


----------



## Scotty (Jul 9, 2009)

Our country should provide them with assistance in education. As a white man who has visited africa a number of times, I see africa's potential. They just need some help.


----------



## Gungnir (Jul 9, 2009)

Charlie Bass said:


> Well for starters, it isn't because of "African ïnferiority," so called low IQs or Africans having an inability to capitalize off of the "good" things that Europe left in Africa, its because of neocolonialism by Western countries and a select group of corrupt Africans willing to do their bidding.




All other things presumed to be equal; how can anyone expect Black Africans to adapt and thrive in modern industry and economics when there was no existing domestic market for anything at the time of Colonization?

Our country was not ready for the social, industrial, or environmental  implications of mass produced cars! 

Precolonial Africa was less developed than Middle Ages Europe; remember that was when "countries" were serf worked farmlands ruled over by Germanic "nobles". 

Africa has to develop a domestic market and investment capital before it can achieve a stable economy. Consider what having foreign suppliers delivering products near 1000 years superior to your own would do to a culture. A culture that could only buy these things by disproportionately exporting the available natural resources. 

Africa must find a way of making people live past 50, of providing nationalism (American style, not tribalism), of providing education, and developing a lower upper class selfish enough to realize that a large middle class will profit them and despotism doesn't.


----------



## Gungnir (Jul 9, 2009)

Charlie Bass said:


> Trigg said:
> 
> 
> > BTW the gov. biggest mistake has been to throw the white farmers off of their land. Zim went from an up and coming country with much to offer and has turned back into a 3rd world country that can't even feed it's people. From the breadbasket of Africa to food Aid. Mugabe doesn't care a bit for his people, he's raping the country for his own wealth.
> ...



Bass is rightish. One of the ideas of nationalism is to take responsibility for yourself even if that means neglecting valuable options. If the Zimbabweans want that land for their own, they need to work it and keep the profits and products of their labor. Personally, I would have bit the bullet and kept the Whites on around for a little longer, given them contracts or some such. 

Did the Whites own that land? Not one minute after they couldn't defend their claim by force. Same goes for everyone else. Mother Nature is a harsh mistress who doesn't care about rights, just about who lives.


----------

