Africa, still no continental power grid.?

[longly]

Its such a depessing exercise reading this thread. It looks like its been imported from stormfront. The actual subtext is that black people are stupid and not as good as whites.
Frigidwierdo has made a valid suggestion as to the problem but the yahoos have introduced the concept of "bushmeat" from the University of white Supremacy. This from a country where squirrel is the national dish.
Of course the real reason that Africa is playing catch up is colonialism.
If I was mocking you I would suggest that you read a book. The State of Africa is a long read and covers the history of individual african nations from the death of colonialism.
There arent many pictures in it for maga to enjoy.
Colonialism was an extractive process where africas assets were taken at gunpoint by european nations and nothing was put back.

Africa missed out on centuries of development. I think it might have been Tanzania. When the british flag was lowered there was just 1 trained engineer in the whole country. Senior civil service jobs all held by whitey.
So europe got richer and africa got poorer.
But Africa is catching up. Apartheid is dead.

https://ar.inspiredpencil.com/pictures-2023/modern-cities-in-africa

When I was young, the environment I grew up in suggested that Black people couldn't achieve the same things as white people. However, it didn’t take me long to realize that wasn’t true. People from different countries and races may not reach the same level of development as others, but this disparity is not due to race. It’s often influenced by cultural factors like corruption, tradition, or inertia.


Someone once referred to squirrels as disgusting as food, but I disagree—I find them quite tasty. The idea of eating certain foods is deeply cultural. If we grew up in a society where eating monkeys was acceptable, we wouldn’t think twice about it. Personally, though, I couldn’t eat a monkey—it looks too much like a human.


When I was in Korea, I noticed that Koreans ate dogs, and they probably still do secretly since it’s now against the law. I see this as a form of cultural imperialism. We have no right to tell Koreans they can’t eat dogs, just as Indians might see us as savages for eating beef, which they consider sacred.


Ultimately, no one has the right to criticize another culture’s practices. That said, I do believe some cultures are inherently superior to others in certain aspects, which I think is an undeniable fact.





As far as colonialism in Africa is concerned, consider this: the reason colonialism existed in Africa in the 1800s was due to certain African leaders and nations refusing to give up slavery, as demanded by the anti-slavery leagues. This refusal prompted the leagues to call for an international conference, which ultimately decided to invade Africa, impose colonialism, and eliminate slavery. Of course, there were those whose true interests lay in exploiting Africa's resources rather than ending slavery—but that is often the case.


If African countries had given up slavery, it is likely that no such conference would have been called, and they might have continued to develop their economies based on the wealth from the slave trade and the use of slaves to mine precious metals. However, consider this: all the vast wealth accumulated by Africans from selling slaves and mining precious metals was not used to improve Africa’s economy. They continued to import goods such as fabrics and glassware from Europe instead of producing these items themselves.


Why, when they had the opportunity, did they not develop their economy? Why did they resist and hold on to slavery? An objective observer might argue that they simply lacked the military strength to stand up to late 18th-century European military technology.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

When I was young, the environment I grew up in suggested that Black people couldn't achieve the same things as white people. However, it didn’t take me long to realize that wasn’t true. People from different countries and races may not reach the same level of development as others, but this disparity is not due to race. It’s often influenced by cultural factors like corruption, tradition, or inertia.


Someone once referred to squirrels as disgusting as food, but I disagree—I find them quite tasty. The idea of eating certain foods is deeply cultural. If we grew up in a society where eating monkeys was acceptable, we wouldn’t think twice about it. Personally, though, I couldn’t eat a monkey—it looks too much like a human.


When I was in Korea, I noticed that Koreans ate dogs, and they probably still do secretly since it’s now against the law. I see this as a form of cultural imperialism. We have no right to tell Koreans they can’t eat dogs, just as Indians might see us as savages for eating beef, which they consider sacred.


Ultimately, no one has the right to criticize another culture’s practices. That said, I do believe some cultures are inherently superior to others in certain aspects, which I think is an undeniable fact.





As far as colonialism in Africa is concerned, consider this: the reason colonialism existed in Africa in the 1800s was due to certain African leaders and nations refusing to give up slavery, as demanded by the anti-slavery leagues. This refusal prompted the leagues to call for an international conference, which ultimately decided to invade Africa, impose colonialism, and eliminate slavery. Of course, there were those whose true interests lay in exploiting Africa's resources rather than ending slavery—but that is often the case.


If African countries had given up slavery, it is likely that no such conference would have been called, and they might have continued to develop their economies based on the wealth from the slave trade and the use of slaves to mine precious metals. However, consider this: all the vast wealth accumulated by Africans from selling slaves and mining precious metals was not used to improve Africa’s economy. They continued to import goods such as fabrics and glassware from Europe instead of producing these items themselves.


Why, when they had the opportunity, did they not develop their economy? Why did they resist and hold on to slavery? An objective observer might argue that they simply lacked the military strength to stand up to late 18th-century European military technology.

The idea that colonialism was some sort of christian paternalism in action is delusional.

 

[longly]

The idea that colonialism was some sort of christian paternalism in action is delusional.

Look it up yourself, Christian paternalism was the motivation at least for the anti-slavery league. If the Africans had given up slavery history could have been totally different, but they resisted; it's understandable, the Elites were getting incredibly rich from selling slaves and using slaves to mine precious metals.



By the way, I made an error my previous post: I said by the late 18th century, and I should have said by the late 19th century. When the Europeans first arrived in sub–Saharan Africa there was no way they could defeat an African army, but by the late 19th century they had machine guns and breach loading artillery the byproducts of science and technology. Why didn't the people of sub-Saharan Africa know that they couldn't win?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/a ... e_01.shtml

One of the chief justifications for this so-called 'scramble for Africa' was a desire to stamp out slavery once and for all. Shortly before his death in May 1873 at Ilala in central Africa, the celebrated missionary-explorer David Livingstone had called for a worldwide crusade to defeat the slave trade controlled by Arabs in East Africa, that was laying waste the heart of the continent.