Why are the Ten (10) Poorist Countries in Non-Arab Africa or African Lead Countries

[yidnar]

I honestly don't know how to answer your question.

don't worry ..thanks to affirmative action you don't have to get the answer right !!

 

[ScienceRocks]

My answer is the truth. One that is cold, but right.

Blacks can't compete with whites or east asians. Not even close.

 

[Aristotle]

My answer is the truth. One that is cold, but right.

Blacks can't compete with whites or east asians. Not even close.

Really? Prove using current research (peer reviewed) that studies have demonstrated that African-Americans cannot compete (depending on what competition you're referring about.

 

[Aristotle]

Sigh*

The question in context almost sounds like "blacks have opportunity why are their still blacks in poverty?" My friend its called social dynamics. Do you honestly think since post-dynasty times Africa was purely inhabited by just black africans? You had portugese, french, spanish, romans, greeks british and others who capitalized on the indigenous people's resources. Not to mention the plague of warring factions, genocide, and HIV/AIDS and you ask this question?

****SPOILER****

Did you think Alexandria was an African name?

And the Arabs ruled over Spain at one point, Europe had musical chairs of tribal leaders during the middle ages. Some parts in Africa were inhabited by non-Blacks! What is your point?

And warring engulfed most parts of the world at one point. Europe has been destroyed time and time again. The US had a costly and bloody civil war to which we came out of (yet there was a period of reconstruction, but we overcame it rather quickly).

Russia had a TOTAL collaspe of it's economic and political system and now they are an emerging market.

India has all the items you mentioned and they are an emerging super-power.

Japan was hit with the atomic bomb and became the 2nd largest economy in the world within decades.

South Korea had one of the most devastating civil wars in history and managed to become an industrialized 1st world nation.

Not sure what your thesis is?

I'm not writing a thesis nor are the countries you mentioned are relevant. There are still portugese, french, british, Danish, and Europeans still inhabiting Africa after centuries. You're talking about various ethnic groups who descend from their relatives who occupied those lands for centuries. Unfortunately due to the technological age the indigenous Africans lived in, there was no expulsion of these foreigners so yes the various European inhabitants are still there taking resources. Who primarily owns the diamond mines in Central and Southern Africa? The Danish do. Who mostly occupies Southern Africa? Danish do. Who has monopolized African oil? Not the indigenous people. So please spare me the comparison model cause it doesn't work in a debate. we are talking about Europeans still occupying lands to which they were not born in.

 

[Unkotare]

Great Zimbabwe: An African empire | The Zimbabwe Situation - Zimbabwe News updated daily

 

[Ariux]

Liberals blame White people for Afros being worthless animals.

It shows you how pathetic those worthless animals are when the best example of Afros not being worthless animals is a shithole they call Great Zimbabwe a thousand years ago. "Lookie, they stacked some stones! How awesome is that!" Stupid, racist, ugly apes.

 

[Saigon]

I have to say - I think it is very difficult to get a handle on this if you have never been to black Africa.

It is not one place - it is an entire continent of vastly different cultures. There are 51 countrie in Africa - many of them have no more in common than Bolivia and the US do.

Most were colonised, but some were not.

Some represent a single tribe - most do not.

Mot inherited random borders drawn by the British & French - but some did not.

Most have poor soils and climates - but many do not.

Many have no resources - but some have plenty.

And yet all of those factors have been crucial in the cycle of poverty.

What is perhaps more interesting is to look at those countries which are succesful, and consider how they succeeded.

Ghana, Senegal, Botswana and Rwanda are all doing well - but why?

 

[Unkotare]

I have to say - I think it is very difficult to get a handle on this if you have never been to black Africa.

....................................................

 

[rightwinger]

Oil is the only resource out there ya know! Most European countries don't have oil. Most of the countries of African have many other resources. Like Madacasgar has the largest reserves of bourbon vanilla in the world. In fact most of the vanilla in the world comes from Madacasgar. The Congo is LUSH in diamonds, other precious metals and a ton of materials required for medicines.

Some countries have oil, such as Nigeria (OPEC nation) and Southern Sudan!

Sounds like there is not much "Trickle Down" in those countries and the available wealth is being monopolized by the wealthy few

That is because they don't practice trickle down!

Does anyone?

 

[GHook93]

I have to say - I think it is very difficult to get a handle on this if you have never been to black Africa.

That is a little of a red herring response. Just going to a country doesn't refute the point that these countries are dirt poor, plagued with violence, genocide and AIDS and there seems no hope of that changing!

It is not one place - it is an entire continent of vastly different cultures. There are 51 countrie in Africa -

Again red herring. Asia has many different cultures, backgrounds, religions and countries, yet MANY are thriving. Same with Europe and even Latin America is seeing some countries emerge (Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Costa Rica, Colombia even Mexico).

many of them have no more in common than Bolivia and the US do.

Again another Red Herring. Bolivia does have much in common to other Latin American countries and some differences, just as African countries have much in common with out another and some differences.

Most were colonised, but some were not.

Not as much as an excuse anymore. Much of Europe, mother Russia, China, Japan and Korea (Korean War) were destroyed in war. Yet they emerged. Believe it or not colonization, such as in South Africa, provided some infrastructure that the natives squandered when they took over. Zimbabwae and South Africa are by far the best examples of this! South Africa actually was the first industrialize country in Africa, once the Black South Africans took over, it slowly by surely resorted back to a 3rd world country, AIDS, murder, rape and baby rape capital of the world!

All of Latin America was colonized, yet many of those countries are emerging. The good old USA was a colony that fought for it's independence. Canada was a colony that received independence without a fight. Yet the 2nd country in the Western Hemisphere to receive independence - Haita- is the poorest in the world!!!

The colonization arguement is an excuse for failure not a barrier to success it's made out to be!!! Much as the slavery and Jim Crow argument that African American race hustlers use today.

Many have no resources - but some have plenty.

That is a fallacy and you know it. Most are FLOODED in resources (such as the materials for medicine) and some have less resources. Sub0-Saharra-Africa (which black Africa is in) is flooded in natural resources.

And yet all of those factors have been crucial in the cycle of poverty.

Incorrect and apologetic. All those are obstacles for success that can be obtained. However, every country, INCLUDING Europe and the USA have major obstacles in their way to success. Overcoming those obstacles makes the country stronger not weaker! Using those obstacles as an excuse for the failed society makes them weaker not stronger.

Mexico is a great example. They are a country plagued by cartel violence and corruption. The last administration decided to combat these ruthless thugs. It's a bloody war, but one has to be blind not to see it's becoming a success. Incomes are increasing, they have a 5% Unemployment rate, less people are leaving for the States etc. Their struggle is tough, but if they keep it up, in the end they will have a stronger first world nation!

Ghana, Senegal, Botswana and Rwanda are all doing well - but why?

Not one of those countries are successful or even close to it!

 

[GHook93]

Sounds like there is not much "Trickle Down" in those countries and the available wealth is being monopolized by the wealthy few

That is because they don't practice trickle down!

Does anyone?

I will make the argument that CHINA DOES!!! How so you ask. First, they have much much lower regulations on business, small and large. Second, they make less demands in the way of health insurance and other requirements. Third, they tax them less (a TON LESS). Fourth they make the cost of doing business VERY LOW. Fifth they make the EASY of DOING BUSINESS extremely low also. Sixth, they don't allow UNIONS to strong arm industries in non-competitiveness!

The result = wealth has trickled down to the workers, the largest growing middle class in the world and the RISING SUN going to new levels!

They have the most rapidly growing middle class in the world.
The powerful middle class in China - Apr. 25, 2012
Q. What is the future of the Chinese middle class?

A. The Chinese middle class may grow to 700 to 800 million (currently at 300-400 mil), which is 50% to 60% of China's entire population.

 

[High_Gravity]

I honestly don't know how to answer your question.

don't worry ..thanks to affirmative action you don't have to get the answer right !!

Jealous.

 

[Saigon]

Just going to a country doesn't refute the point that these countries are dirt poor, plagued with violence, genocide and AIDS and there seems no hope of that changing!

Seeing thing first hand does matter - because anything is simply a presumption.

And we know this, because I listed 4 successful countries that I have been to recently, and you - who have been to none of them - respond:

Not one of those countries are successful or even close to it!

Get back to me if you are willing to discuss the topic sensibly.

 

[Unkotare]

Just going to a country doesn't refute the point that these countries are dirt poor, plagued with violence, genocide and AIDS and there seems no hope of that changing!

Seeing thing first hand does matter - because anything is simply a presumption.

And we know this, because I listed 4 successful countries that I have been to recently.

Miss Saigon is still stuck in 'Pretentious Douche' mode.

 

[Toro]

Sigh*

The question in context almost sounds like "blacks have opportunity why are their still blacks in poverty?" My friend its called social dynamics. Do you honestly think since post-dynasty times Africa was purely inhabited by just black africans? You had portugese, french, spanish, romans, greeks british and others who capitalized on the indigenous people's resources. Not to mention the plague of warring factions, genocide, and HIV/AIDS and you ask this question?

****SPOILER****

Did you think Alexandria was an African name?

And the Arabs ruled over Spain at one point, Europe had musical chairs of tribal leaders during the middle ages. Some parts in Africa were inhabited by non-Blacks! What is your point?

And warring engulfed most parts of the world at one point. Europe has been destroyed time and time again. The US had a costly and bloody civil war to which we came out of (yet there was a period of reconstruction, but we overcame it rather quickly).

Russia had a TOTAL collaspe of it's economic and political system and now they are an emerging market.

India has all the items you mentioned and they are an emerging super-power.

Japan was hit with the atomic bomb and became the 2nd largest economy in the world within decades.

South Korea had one of the most devastating civil wars in history and managed to become an industrialized 1st world nation.

Not sure what your thesis is?

I'm not writing a thesis nor are the countries you mentioned are relevant. There are still portugese, french, british, Danish, and Europeans still inhabiting Africa after centuries. You're talking about various ethnic groups who descend from their relatives who occupied those lands for centuries. Unfortunately due to the technological age the indigenous Africans lived in, there was no expulsion of these foreigners so yes the various European inhabitants are still there taking resources. Who primarily owns the diamond mines in Central and Southern Africa? The Danish do. Who mostly occupies Southern Africa? Danish do. Who has monopolized African oil? Not the indigenous people. So please spare me the comparison model cause it doesn't work in a debate. we are talking about Europeans still occupying lands to which they were not born in.

Danish?

 

[Toro]

- the drawing of national boundaries with no regard to nationalities

- war

- climate

- lack of rule of law

- corrupt and venal leadership

- bad policies

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The 10 Poorest Countries in the World | Fox Business

9 out of 10 are in non-Arab Africa (meaning Black Africa)! The leader is Haiti. Haiti is a country founded by France in which they imported slaves from Africa. More slaves then slave owners equates to a bad situation. The slaves revolted and massacred every white man, women and children in the island. Hence the country is of African descendents. They were the 2nd country to gain independence in the western world, yet they remain the poorest country in the world.

But I digress, why are all of the top 10 the poorest and worst off? Why are they plagued with genocide, war, famine, AIDS, rape and misery indexes off the charts! Yet most of these countries are lush in resources and have plush farm land.

I will get the racist card tossed at me, so the question will never be answered, but is it about time this question gets answered?

Why has non-Arab Africa NEVER had a civilized, rich and successful society or country?

Primarily because they aren't really "countries" at all, their boundaries were drawn by occupation forces. And their governments are for the most part in the pockets of big western corporate interest.

 

[Toro]

The 10 Poorest Countries in the World | Fox Business

9 out of 10 are in non-Arab Africa (meaning Black Africa)! The leader is Haiti. Haiti is a country founded by France in which they imported slaves from Africa. More slaves then slave owners equates to a bad situation. The slaves revolted and massacred every white man, women and children in the island. Hence the country is of African descendents. They were the 2nd country to gain independence in the western world, yet they remain the poorest country in the world.

But I digress, why are all of the top 10 the poorest and worst off? Why are they plagued with genocide, war, famine, AIDS, rape and misery indexes off the charts! Yet most of these countries are lush in resources and have plush farm land.

I will get the racist card tossed at me, so the question will never be answered, but is it about time this question gets answered?

Why has non-Arab Africa NEVER had a civilized, rich and successful society or country?

Primarily because they aren't really "countries" at all, their boundaries were drawn by occupation forces. And their governments are for the most part in the pockets of big western corporate interest.

It's more the other way around. It's often pay to play for Western corporate interests as corrupt leaders demand bribes to get in.

 

[ScienceRocks]

- the drawing of national boundaries with no regard to nationalities

- war

- climate

- lack of rule of law

- corrupt and venal leadership

- bad policies

Maybe they're just stupid and violent? Having good policies and a stable democracy takes an intelligent population.

 

[GHook93]

The 10 Poorest Countries in the World | Fox Business

9 out of 10 are in non-Arab Africa (meaning Black Africa)! The leader is Haiti. Haiti is a country founded by France in which they imported slaves from Africa. More slaves then slave owners equates to a bad situation. The slaves revolted and massacred every white man, women and children in the island. Hence the country is of African descendents. They were the 2nd country to gain independence in the western world, yet they remain the poorest country in the world.

But I digress, why are all of the top 10 the poorest and worst off? Why are they plagued with genocide, war, famine, AIDS, rape and misery indexes off the charts! Yet most of these countries are lush in resources and have plush farm land.

I will get the racist card tossed at me, so the question will never be answered, but is it about time this question gets answered?

Why has non-Arab Africa NEVER had a civilized, rich and successful society or country?

Primarily because they aren't really "countries" at all, their boundaries were drawn by occupation forces. And their governments are for the most part in the pockets of big western corporate interest.

Europe's boundries weren't much different! They changed time and time again. Different rulers and different conquers. England was ruled by the Vikings, Pikes, Saxons, Romans, Iceni, Siluresm Ordovicesm Brigantesm Trinovantes, Catuvellaun, Normans and Anglos, but thrived despise the constant war, occupation and assaults.

Spain was a center of enlightment despite getting invaded and conquered for centuries by the Arab Caliphates/Crusaders!

Your reason is an excuse for failure. America is the greatest country in the history of the world, yet it is more diverse than any country in history!!!