Why is Africa underdeveloped today?

Discussion in 'Race Relations/Racism' started by Bass v 2.0, Jul 4, 2009.

  1. Bass v 2.0
    Offline

    Bass v 2.0 Biblical Warrior For God.

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Messages:
    10,655
    Likes Received:
    528
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Paris, France
    Ratings:
    +528 / 0 / -0
    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.
  2. HUGGY
    Offline

    HUGGY VIP Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    26,521
    Likes Received:
    2,984
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Location:
    Seattle, in a run down motel
    Ratings:
    +2,991 / 3 / -0
    There is only so much you can do with mud huts.
  3. Bass v 2.0
    Offline

    Bass v 2.0 Biblical Warrior For God.

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Messages:
    10,655
    Likes Received:
    528
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Paris, France
    Ratings:
    +528 / 0 / -0
    Stop trolling and address the facts, Africa is not a continent of mudhuts you jackass.
  4. Full-Auto
    Offline

    Full-Auto Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    Messages:
    13,555
    Likes Received:
    1,614
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +1,614 / 0 / -0


    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.
  5. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Likes Received:
    5,590
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,591 / 0 / -0
    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.
  6. Sunni Man
    Online

    Sunni Man Patriotic American Muslim

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2008
    Messages:
    30,091
    Likes Received:
    3,781
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Location:
    Dar al Harb
    Ratings:
    +3,848 / 153 / -0
    Africia is still being raped and plundered by their former european colonial masters
  7. Bass v 2.0
    Offline

    Bass v 2.0 Biblical Warrior For God.

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Messages:
    10,655
    Likes Received:
    528
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Paris, France
    Ratings:
    +528 / 0 / -0

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

    JBeukema BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    25,613
    Likes Received:
    1,702
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    everywhere and nowhere
    Ratings:
    +1,702 / 0 / -0
    -lasting droughts, corrupt governments, uneducated cowardly masses, and a lack of outside investments?


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

    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.


    You think you're special?

    Evidently they suck as business men.

    and? This is a surprise to you?

    .
    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... :rolleyes:
    Do you support ending all aid to Africa? Good to know

    You should talk to Agna


    :eusa_whistle:
  9. Bootneck
    Offline

    Bootneck Per Mare Per Terram

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2008
    Messages:
    2,576
    Likes Received:
    2,636
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    England
    Ratings:
    +2,636 / 0 / -0
    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.
    • Like Like x 1
  10. HUGGY
    Offline

    HUGGY VIP Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    26,521
    Likes Received:
    2,984
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Location:
    Seattle, in a run down motel
    Ratings:
    +2,991 / 3 / -0
    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.
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2009
  11. alan1
    Offline

    alan1 Unmaking Forever Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2008
    Messages:
    18,319
    Likes Received:
    3,283
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Location:
    Sea
    Ratings:
    +3,294 / 1 / -0
    If by just fine you mean better than the African continent,

    All of North America, and all of South America.
  12. Bootneck
    Offline

    Bootneck Per Mare Per Terram

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2008
    Messages:
    2,576
    Likes Received:
    2,636
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    England
    Ratings:
    +2,636 / 0 / -0

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

    Epsilon Delta Jedi Master

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    Messages:
    2,687
    Likes Received:
    363
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Central America
    Ratings:
    +363 / 0 / -0
    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:

    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.
  14. Bass v 2.0
    Offline

    Bass v 2.0 Biblical Warrior For God.

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Messages:
    10,655
    Likes Received:
    528
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Paris, France
    Ratings:
    +528 / 0 / -0
    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.
  15. Bass v 2.0
    Offline

    Bass v 2.0 Biblical Warrior For God.

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Messages:
    10,655
    Likes Received:
    528
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Paris, France
    Ratings:
    +528 / 0 / -0
    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.
  16. William Joyce
    Offline

    William Joyce Chemotherapy for PC

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2004
    Messages:
    9,404
    Likes Received:
    1,096
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Location:
    Caucasiastan
    Ratings:
    +1,104 / 2 / -0
    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]
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2009
  17. Epsilon Delta
    Offline

    Epsilon Delta Jedi Master

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    Messages:
    2,687
    Likes Received:
    363
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Central America
    Ratings:
    +363 / 0 / -0
    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.
  18. Toro
    Offline

    Toro Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Messages:
    33,193
    Likes Received:
    6,177
    Trophy Points:
    135
    Location:
    The Big Bend via Riderville
    Ratings:
    +6,271 / 4 / -0
    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.
  19. Toro
    Offline

    Toro Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Messages:
    33,193
    Likes Received:
    6,177
    Trophy Points:
    135
    Location:
    The Big Bend via Riderville
    Ratings:
    +6,271 / 4 / -0
    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.

    The Butcher of Congo

    Nice.
  20. WillowTree
    Offline

    WillowTree Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    62,064
    Likes Received:
    9,117
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +9,117 / 0 / -0
    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?

Share This Page