Why are the 10 Poorest Cities in the World all From Black Africa???

[Pogo]

That's a ridiculous comment. All cities under control of a Communist government conform to the leaders and policies of that government.
1 + 1 = 2

Reading is a lost art.

The original comment to which that response was attached:

Detroit is another story. It's called Liberalism Gone Wild. What happens when Democrats get everything they want. Obama is about to do the same to the US.

Is "Detroit" a country?

But you responded to my post that states that a city CAN be "Communist" if it's subject to a Communist regime. You chose to negate that point. So, apparently, reading IS a lost art.

Horseshit. I responded to Roudy, and you jumped in.

A city government is simply not capable of engaging in political philosophy, which was the point of the randbot bent on his eliminationist fantasy -- trying to equate a city (Detroit in this case) with "liberalism". That's impossible There's nothing "liberal" or "conservative" about negotiating a contract with Waste Management. Does not apply.

What country a city is in is irrelevant. Cities DO NOT and CAN NOT set their own political philosophy agendas. Period.

 

[Pogo]

[

I stand by my earlier post that they simply aren't interested in being a force to be reckoned with or a massive civilization. They simply prefer living the simple life and just want to be left alone. If they truly had the motivation or ambition or inspiration to move in that direction then they would have by now. There's nothing necessarily wrong with that. Who says that a nation or a people need to battle to the top of the economic or military heap?

uranidiot. It's not about motivation or ambition. It's about ability and blacks don't have it. They are mentally inferior and cannot make a world with cell phones and computers. Blacks don't want to live in mud huts and eat bugs, but without the white man, that's the only life they can manage. THINK

 

[DriftingSand]

Pogo: Horseshit. I responded to Roudy, and you jumped in.

A city government is simply not capable of engaging in political philosophy, which was the point of the randbot bent on his eliminationist fantasy -- trying to equate a city (Detroit in this case) with "liberalism". That's impossible There's nothing "liberal" or "conservative" about negotiating a contract with Waste Management. Does not apply.

What country a city is in is irrelevant. Cities DO NOT and CAN NOT set their own political philosophy agendas. Period.

First ... let's take one more look at the exchange:

DriftingSand: What? Have you ever heard of the cities of Communist Russia or Communist China or Communist Cuba or Communist North Korea? They all conform to political ideology.

__________________

Pogo: A city isn't a big enough scale to exercise political ideology. You don't have an economy to run other than simply managing a budget. You don't have a constitution, you don't have a foreign policy. Basically you get to declare when the trash gets picked up and present a big fake key when some movie star passes through. That's hardly the stuff of Locke and Voltaire.

Just as all of your examples had to be qualified with not only the country they belong to but the country with an adjective in front of it. The city by itself... not so much.

So your response was a DIRECT response to my post whether I "jumped in" or not. As for cities enacting policies they most certainly CAN propose Socialist rules and regulations. I could give you a few examples from the city of Denver but I'm sure you've already made up your mind.

 

[DriftingSand]

HAHAHA. So why don't blacks in america live in the wilderness and take care of themselves.? Fact is blacks want the good life same as everyone else. But they don't have the intelligence to build a first world country.

One doesn't have to live in the wilderness to maintain a tribal (gang) mentality and to be hunter/gatherers. There may not be any wildebeests to hunt but one can hunt in other ways and gather what they deem helpful (dumpster diving, scraping, etc.).

 

[Nutz]

1. Why is a thread about Africa in the Europe forum?

2. Perhaps the answer to the OP question is culture. Who says the Africans want development as compared to their European counterparts. I would get deeper, but as usual, this thread is nothing more than a pussy trying to spread his hatred and nonsense on this forum.

 

[westwall]

I don't believe Blacks are less intelligent than whites, just as I don't believe that Asians are smarted than whites. I have know enough intelligent blacks and unintelligent whites to lead me to believe that it's not genetic.

Call me racist if you want, but I see the never ending failure on the continent of Africa as a huge issue. Regardless of the excuse the leftist give, their continued failure has NOTHING to do with the white man and even less to do with colonialism of the past century. So the question remains, why are all TEN from Africa?

I think the reason why Africa is so backward is based on a LOT of reasons, including white imperialism. There are cultural reasons that started millennia ago. There are nutritional reasons that started millennia ago. There are religious reasons that started millennia ago. Add to those reasons the continuous attacks for slaves that began at least 5,000 years ago and then the imperialistic conquests and their impact and you have the beginnings of the reasons for the problem.

So long as people claim it is one thing or the other, and scream "racist" whenever they can't articulate an argument then nothing will change except the names of the victims.

Nice post, westwall, though I'd like to counter it somewhat. Like I stated earlier, I don't know much about African history, but I know a little of it as it pertained to the American slave trade. African traders and chiefs did not tolerate Europeans bypassing them to seize slaves on their own, and in fact had the power to defeat Europeans who failed to cooperate. They, too, you see, were somewhat successful at imperialism, charging premiums for the people they sold for guns, which they used to raid their poorly armed neighbors. Europeans paid more for black slaves than they did for white slaves, as white slaves were free at the end of their indentures while black slaves were slaves for life. The Ashanti and Dahomey, for example, acquired considerable wealth and power by way of their European trading partners.

Imperialism runs through the human vein. From children bullying each other on the playground to upstarts jockeying for promotions at work to nations and clans exploiting other nations and clans, imperialism has always been a way to determine hierarchies.

Not merely imposing power or influence on others, many Asian societies were highly successful at imperialism, creating powerful empires and dynasties largely at the expense of subject peoples and their lands. By far, though, the most successful at it were the Europeans (whites?), and so they are vilified for it, for the same behavior that cultures throughout history and the world have practiced.

Imperialism is not an invention of the Europeans nor a monopoly owned by them. As imperialistic creatures, they have not been any different than anyone else; just more successful.

Besides that, Europeans built large and powerful centers of commerce in Africa. Really, westwall, imperialism is a hard case to make for the progress of some people and the relative lack thereof of others. Or so is my opinion.

I don't know how significant the role nutrition played - possibly some role in mental acuity - but religion is certainly a reasonable case to make. Animistic and polytheistic religions elevated the spiritual essences of non-humans, discouraging human distinctions and therefore advancements, while the anthropocentrism of Christianity placed human beings at the pinnacle of creation, encouraging exploration, and indeed Europeans felt themselves superior to others during their colonial era because they were Christians.

Other cultural reasons that you can list might be interesting to contemplate or debate. As might physical differences be. Whites are more susceptible to skin cancer while blacks are more susceptible to sickle cell, for example.

Eh?

Imperial powers play one tribe off against the other. This was most famously done by the Jurched empire and how they played the Mongol, vs the Uighurs, vs the Tatars, vs the Merkid etc. Every year they would ally with the weaker groups to make war on the larger. This had been going on for hundreds of years.

Genghis Khan emerged and broke that cycle. He united all the Steppe nomads (among which the Mongols were among the weakest) and crushed the Jurched empire. He then defeated the Sung and continued on. By the time he was done the formerly weak and fragmented steppe nomads had conquered more than the known world. That empire is the greatest the world has ever seen.

Africa never had a Genghis so the imperialistic bridgeheads could play one tribe off against the other and keep them all weak. I never stated that outsiders ruled the slave game. It is well known that was an African dominated market, but once again inter tribal warfare led to an overall weakening of the native Africans allowing a much smaller group of outsiders to dictate what went on in the continent.

 

[westwall]

African students place a high value on education, probably because so few of them have access to a good edcuation. Those who have the chance, with much family support, are very motivated to do well.

So what? Fact remains they can't learn, at least not important things like math and engineering. It's true in africa just like in america.

And this has been demonstrably proven false over, and over and over again. Anyone who believes that to be true is an ignorant stupid fool. Yes, I am looking at you speedo.

 

[westwall]

1. Why is a thread about Africa in the Europe forum?

2. Perhaps the answer to the OP question is culture. Who says the Africans want development as compared to their European counterparts. I would get deeper, but as usual, this thread is nothing more than a pussy trying to spread his hatred and nonsense on this forum.

Please do. Don't let a twit like speedo interfere.

 

[Roudy]

It means that they generally did better work. They were better prepared. They were more disciplined and more mature.

African students place a high value on education, probably because so few of them have access to a good edcuation. Those who have the chance, with much family support, are very motivated to do well.

Blacks are generally dumber than other races, like seriously, compared to whites and asians, what have black people invented of worth? And crack doesn't count.

I don't agree with that. Background, upbringing, education, opportunities, and environment are the cause.

 

[MrMax]

African students place a high value on education, probably because so few of them have access to a good edcuation. Those who have the chance, with much family support, are very motivated to do well.

Blacks are generally dumber than other races, like seriously, compared to whites and asians, what have black people invented of worth? And crack doesn't count.

I don't agree with that. Background, upbringing, education, opportunities, and environment are the cause.

Most blacks in the US still have a slave mentality where whitey will provide for them. And after so many generations, their genes are possibly moving away from being able to provide for themselves, meaning learning, inventing...
Africans, on the other hand, aren't too far removed yet from living in straw huts, and education is still relatively a new concept to them.

 

[Roudy]

I found this in another thread on the internet asking the same question:

Seems like a fair answer:

Link

Some Africans and others say that the Africans did have some sort of great civilisation in the past. However the evidence is scanty.

Various reasons have been suggested for the undeveloped state of the continent despite the fertile climate of much of it, the presence of enormous mineral wealth etc. Much the same sort of paradox is evident with the indigenous peoples of N. America where the civilisations of Central America never seemed to spread to the north, just as Egyptian civilisation never caught on to the south.

I list, without implying agreement or disagreement with any of them, some of the suggested reasons.

1)...Making a living was just too easy. Where hunting & gathering or subsistence agriculture easily supply year-round food, there is no obvious incentive to change things.

2)...The local culture was hostile to the idea of living in large agglomerations - much as the European Celts preferred to live in loosely organised small settlements and resisted the Roman habit of city-dwelling. The Celts, though not primitive (their woodwork and metalwork were in some ways better than that of the Romans), were also, by comparison, economically underdeveloped.

3)...Recurrent local conflict between tribes, resulting in periodic genocide which made it hard to consolidate advances in knowledge and technique. This is possible, but why it should have this effect in Africa and not in the equally tribal societies of primitive Europe and Asia is hard to explain.

4)...Linguistic problems. I am not a specialist in African studies, but I am told that some parts of Africa have a large number of local languages, making sharing knowledge between communities awkward. Again, the lack of any written language might have made it hard to preserve knowledge or transmit it over distances.

5)...Communities were locally based and travel rare. If this is true (again, I appeal to any specialists to supply accurate information) it would limit cross-fertilisation of ideas. This explanation begs the question of why long-distance trade, analogous to the tin trade in Europe or the silk route from China, did not develop in Africa.

6)...Disease. The same conditions which make it easy for humans to make a living also provide ideal conditions for various pathogens and for the insects, snails etc. which carry them. If their vitality were reduced by debilitating endemic diseases, the locals may have had reduced intellectual as well as physical energy, making it harder for them to advance.

This is getting to the heart of the matter. Most of these points are factual, and have a direct bearing on the African culture now.

Yes this is getting to the heart of the matter. The only fact missing is that Blacks, world wide, have IQ's about fifteen points lower than other races.
Mix that fact into the pot and the aforementioned points start making more sense. Take a million humans with an average IQ of 80. Then take a million humans with an average IQ of 100. Which group is more likely to develop a civil society? Got it in one!
Someone explain why the LIBs will never acknowledge the IQ gap between Blacks and other races.
"Oh no! We couldn't do that! Don't you know everyone is the same? Everyone deserves a trophy right?"
Want to watch a LIB break out in a 'flop sweat'? Just say: "Social Darwinism". LIBs believe in 'Darwinism'/evolution. Except when it comes to looking at the human animal. Pretty funny.

Take a million whites and a million blacks and give them everything the white kids have, environment, education, financial ability, upbringing etc. and you will see the blacks doing just as good as the whites.

The reason Chinese / Asians for example excel academically even more than the whites and others, is because they go to tougher schools, and from early childhood their parents and extended families nurture and indoctrinate them such that there no other acceptable result.

 

[DriftingSand]

1. Why is a thread about Africa in the Europe forum?

2. Perhaps the answer to the OP question is culture. Who says the Africans want development as compared to their European counterparts. I would get deeper, but as usual, this thread is nothing more than a pussy trying to spread his hatred and nonsense on this forum.

That's the point I've tried to make at least twice. Folks would rather "blame" someone for African's approach to life so my conclusion has been swept under the rug without any real consideration. I'm saying that perhaps there's nobody to "blame" at all. Not everyone wants a huge, over-sized, over-regulated, mega-culture.

 

[Nutz]

1. Why is a thread about Africa in the Europe forum?

2. Perhaps the answer to the OP question is culture. Who says the Africans want development as compared to their European counterparts. I would get deeper, but as usual, this thread is nothing more than a pussy trying to spread his hatred and nonsense on this forum.

That's the point I've tried to make at least twice. Folks would rather "blame" someone for African's approach to life so my conclusion has been swept under the rug without any real consideration. I'm saying that perhaps there's nobody to "blame" at all. Not everyone wants a huge, over-sized, over-regulated, mega-culture.

Yeah, I was hoping to reinforce that truth. Nonetheless, until the racist pussies are recognized for what they are on this forum and as long as they continue to be allowed to derail every thread and create countless race baiting threads, I will only participate in a limited manner.

I still want to know why a thread about AFRICA is in the European sub-forum. Makes no sense.

 

[DriftingSand]

1. Why is a thread about Africa in the Europe forum?

2. Perhaps the answer to the OP question is culture. Who says the Africans want development as compared to their European counterparts. I would get deeper, but as usual, this thread is nothing more than a pussy trying to spread his hatred and nonsense on this forum.

That's the point I've tried to make at least twice. Folks would rather "blame" someone for African's approach to life so my conclusion has been swept under the rug without any real consideration. I'm saying that perhaps there's nobody to "blame" at all. Not everyone wants a huge, over-sized, over-regulated, mega-culture.

Yeah, I was hoping to reinforce that truth. Nonetheless, until the racist pussies are recognized for what they are on this forum and as long as they continue to be allowed to derail every thread and create countless race baiting threads, I will only participate in a limited manner.

I still want to know why a thread about AFRICA is in the European sub-forum. Makes no sense.

Not everyone has a grasp of geography. Perhaps we can start a thread on Sweden and put it in the Asia forum. But it looks like it has been moved to the proper forum.

 

[Roudy]

Take a million whites and a million blacks and give them everything the white kids have, environment, education, financial ability, upbringing etc. and you will see the blacks doing just as good as the whites.

The reason Chinese / Asians for example excel academically even more than the whites and others, is because they go to tougher schools, and from early childhood their parents and extended families nurture and indoctrinate them such that there no other acceptable result.

More talk. You don't have a shred of evidence for any of it. Why not employ occam's razor and accept the simplest and most obvious explanation for black failure? They are mentally inferior.

There is no obvious reason for black failure. There are plenty of blacks that come from good families, go to good schools, do well in SAT's, and thrive in colleges. What do you think your president Obama is, as much as I detest him.

 

[HenryBHough]

What do you think your president Obama is, as much as I detest him.

Half black at best.

Sadly, He got the worst half from each side.

 

[westwall]

Take a million whites and a million blacks and give them everything the white kids have, environment, education, financial ability, upbringing etc. and you will see the blacks doing just as good as the whites.

The reason Chinese / Asians for example excel academically even more than the whites and others, is because they go to tougher schools, and from early childhood their parents and extended families nurture and indoctrinate them such that there no other acceptable result.

More talk. You don't have a shred of evidence for any of it. Why not employ occam's razor and accept the simplest and most obvious explanation for black failure? They are mentally inferior.

Probably because that has never been shown to be true. Occam's razor says you're an imbecile, yet you can still breathe. But that's because you live in a country that protects morons. Had you been born in Africa you would have failed to leave puberty due to your lack of intellectual capacity.

The only reason why you can spout the BS you do, is because you live in a country that protects the mentally challenged, and the weak. Both of which describe you.

 

[GHook93]

1. Monrovia, Liberia - TheRichest

Has to be the white man! Or the JJJOOOOSSS. Never taking responsibility for their situation!

it IS based in imperialism.

but that isn't what you want to discuss.

If you are inferring that I believe African countries, African populated western countries (Jamaica, Haiti etc) and after African America communities are failures because they have a lower IQ then you are wrong. I don't think it is genetic. I have seen blacks, esp black women, show their intellect beyond most people around. That doesn't change the question, why are they all so bad off and never making a rebound. Even African countries that weren't colonized have never advanced. Then a country like South Africa that was give a HUGE head start (first world infrastructure, society, rule of law etc) has become a crime ridden basket-case hopelessly spiraling into poverty and decay.

Call me a racist if you please, but the question remains, African countries are always toward the bottom and they never seem to go in the right direction!

 

[Smilebong]

This has the potential to be interesting if you all can address the OP and stop bickering like 3rd graders.

It does? Addressing the OP would be interesting? In what way? How about showing us the path?

The OP does not make an attempt to answer his own question....would you like to try?

The OP was a sarcastic statement, not meant to garner serious interaction.

 

[MrMax]

Africa is China's problem now.