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

[Roudy]

Yes, I have and yes the thread could be interesting. The reason why has nothing to do with color, or intellect. It runs far deeper than that, and has everything to do with the human condition and human nature.

I find it amazing, and amusing that the liberals here resort to accusations of racism in an effort to shut down a legitimate question. Idiots like shootspeeders and tank are one dimensional creatures. They only have a single thought and you guys pound on them as if they mean anything.

They are buffoons and no one in their right mind pays them the slightest attention. Instead address the OP. It IS an interesting question, and it's root cause go's back centuries.

Look at the OP again.

Where does that fall on your spectrum? That was not a legitimate question. Are you unaware that Ghook93 is at home among Shootspeeders and Tank?

This is a troll thread. Period.

Good for him. Once again ignore the messenger and look at the message. Ask yourself a question, is the claim true? If the answer is yes, then does it matter if the OP is a silly person? Africa is one of the wealthiest continents on the planet, it has more mineral wealth than any place but Siberia. With all of that wealth, why then is the entire continent so backward?

All fault can't be laid at the feet of the white imperialists (though a great deal certainly should) and after the 1960's when tremendous amounts of money were invested why did that have so little effect?

These are serious questions and until liberals are willing to ask them, and answer them truthfully, Africa will remain a backward continent. It's as simple as that.

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.

 

[Toro]

You should get out more.

I don't know, should I believe you and your little story or the facts?

You sounded like Truthmatters there.

"Tankmatters."

lol

Edit - Here some more "facts" for you, Tankmatters.

Racists have lower intelligence

 

[westwall]

Look at the OP again.

Where does that fall on your spectrum? That was not a legitimate question. Are you unaware that Ghook93 is at home among Shootspeeders and Tank?

This is a troll thread. Period.

Good for him. Once again ignore the messenger and look at the message. Ask yourself a question, is the claim true? If the answer is yes, then does it matter if the OP is a silly person? Africa is one of the wealthiest continents on the planet, it has more mineral wealth than any place but Siberia. With all of that wealth, why then is the entire continent so backward?

All fault can't be laid at the feet of the white imperialists (though a great deal certainly should) and after the 1960's when tremendous amounts of money were invested why did that have so little effect?

These are serious questions and until liberals are willing to ask them, and answer them truthfully, Africa will remain a backward continent. It's as simple as that.

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.

 

[tyroneweaver]

Oh look, another racist troll thread!

Would you like to talk about your racism towards Indians, is that a better subject?


Sent from my iPad using an Android.

you think the Indians ar bad that other Ohio team the Reds suck to

 

[LoneLaugher]

Look at the OP again.

Where does that fall on your spectrum? That was not a legitimate question. Are you unaware that Ghook93 is at home among Shootspeeders and Tank?

This is a troll thread. Period.

Good for him. Once again ignore the messenger and look at the message. Ask yourself a question, is the claim true? If the answer is yes, then does it matter if the OP is a silly person? Africa is one of the wealthiest continents on the planet, it has more mineral wealth than any place but Siberia. With all of that wealth, why then is the entire continent so backward?

All fault can't be laid at the feet of the white imperialists (though a great deal certainly should) and after the 1960's when tremendous amounts of money were invested why did that have so little effect?

These are serious questions and until liberals are willing to ask them, and answer them truthfully, Africa will remain a backward continent. It's as simple as that.

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.

Just a note on #1

Making a living was not so much easy as it was time consuming and labor intensive. Hunter/gatherers need to spend a huge portion of their lives actually hunting and gathering. There was no time for much else.

Where agriculture takes hold, there is free time. That free time is applied to pursuits other than subsistence. Science, art, commerce.

 

[Esmeralda]

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.

Yes, it is based in imperialism. European imperialsim destroyed most of the African cultures. In the same way Europeans destroyed the Native American cultures. We will never know what might have been if they'd all been left alone to evolve on their own.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

That's what we're always told but that's not the real reason. Africans have 70ish IQs and even honest officials can not overcome that. Africa is doomed to third world status unless a massive eugenics program is implemented.

Margaret Sanger ring a bell? Margaret Sanger was a Leftist Democrat Progressive who wanted to do just that, not only in Africa, but also in America to purify and improve the black race. She was honored recently at a Democratic forum.

And they call republicans racists.

Ayn Rand was a nazi. So was Charles Lindbergh. But both are heroes to the right.

For all her faults, Sanger did enormous good for the poor. You can't say that for any rw hero.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Yes, it is based in imperialism. European imperialsim destroyed most of the African cultures. In the same way Europeans destroyed the Native American cultures. We will never know what might have been if they'd all been left alone to evolve on their own.

^^ that right there.

Where did Uganda get the idea of persecuting gays? That shit ain't home grown.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

Yes, it is based in imperialism. European imperialsim destroyed most of the African cultures. In the same way Europeans destroyed the Native American cultures. We will never know what might have been if they'd all been left alone to evolve on their own.

Same is true of Mexico and every other culture that was trampled on by imperialism. And now we're seeing rear it's ugly head AGAIN here.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

it IS based in imperialism.

but that isn't what you want to discuss.

Yes, it is based in imperialism. European imperialsim destroyed most of the African cultures. In the same way Europeans destroyed the Native American cultures. We will never know what might have been if they'd all been left alone to evolve on their own.

^^ that right there.

Where did Uganda get the idea of persecuting gays? That shit ain't home grown.

And the catholics and fundies saw an opportunity to commit the worst atrocities - just because they don't like gays.

 

[Tank]

Yes, it is based in imperialism. European imperialsim destroyed most of the African cultures. In the same way Europeans destroyed the Native American cultures. We will never know what might have been if they'd all been left alone to evolve on their own.

They would be the same as the day Europeans first found them.

 

[westwall]

Good for him. Once again ignore the messenger and look at the message. Ask yourself a question, is the claim true? If the answer is yes, then does it matter if the OP is a silly person? Africa is one of the wealthiest continents on the planet, it has more mineral wealth than any place but Siberia. With all of that wealth, why then is the entire continent so backward?

All fault can't be laid at the feet of the white imperialists (though a great deal certainly should) and after the 1960's when tremendous amounts of money were invested why did that have so little effect?

These are serious questions and until liberals are willing to ask them, and answer them truthfully, Africa will remain a backward continent. It's as simple as that.

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.

Just a note on #1

Making a living was not so much easy as it was time consuming and labor intensive. Hunter/gatherers need to spend a huge portion of their lives actually hunting and gathering. There was no time for much else.

Where agriculture takes hold, there is free time. That free time is applied to pursuits other than subsistence. Science, art, commerce.

It's the same issue as in Polynesia, hunter/gatherer societies in certain areas actually have it very easy. It really is as easy as walking along and eating as you go, year round.
Thus, there is no pressure. Pressure drives innovation.

Look at evolutionary biology as a guide. 90+% of all evolution occurs in the temperate zones, the Arctic and equatorial see virtually none because there is no climactic stress.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Yes, it is based in imperialism. European imperialsim destroyed most of the African cultures. In the same way Europeans destroyed the Native American cultures. We will never know what might have been if they'd all been left alone to evolve on their own.

Native American culture was filled with nomadic subsistence living involving warfare, cruelty, and chattel slavery. The attempts to romanticize it are laughable.
Nor does your post answer the question why Africa basically sucks, while other countries, some even more enmeshed in imperialism, thrived.

 

[LoneLaugher]

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.

Just a note on #1

Making a living was not so much easy as it was time consuming and labor intensive. Hunter/gatherers need to spend a huge portion of their lives actually hunting and gathering. There was no time for much else.

Where agriculture takes hold, there is free time. That free time is applied to pursuits other than subsistence. Science, art, commerce.

It's the same issue as in Polynesia, hunter/gatherer societies in certain areas actually have it very easy. It really is as easy as walking along and eating as you go, year round.
Thus, there is no pressure. Pressure drives innovation.

Look at evolutionary biology as a guide. 90+% of all evolution occurs in the temperate zones, the Arctic and equatorial see virtually none because there is no climactic stress.

Why would you claim that societies which "have it easy" would not be innovative? It makes very little sense. When hands (and minds) are freed of the need to labor for subsistence, they are put to use in other ways. What, I wonder, would prevent the Polynesian cultures from experiencing an industrial revolution?

 

[The Rabbi]

Why would you claim that societies which "have it easy" would not be innovative? It makes very little sense. When hands (and minds) are freed of the need to labor for subsistence, they are put to use in other ways. What, I wonder, would prevent the Polynesian cultures from experiencing an industrial revolution?

That's like the Nancy Pelosi school of economics. IN reality necessity is the mother of invention.
The polynesians lacked metallurgical skills and probably access to cheap energy. I would wager their mathemtatics was not strong either.

 

[Pogo]

it IS based in imperialism.

but that isn't what you want to discuss.

Yes, it is based in imperialism. European imperialsim destroyed most of the African cultures. In the same way Europeans destroyed the Native American cultures. We will never know what might have been if they'd all been left alone to evolve on their own.

Native American culture was filled with nomadic subsistence living involving warfare, cruelty, and chattel slavery. The attempts to romanticize it are laughable.
Nor does your post answer the question why Africa basically sucks, while other countries, some even more enmeshed in imperialism, thrived.

Horseshit.

You can't broad brush every diverse culture that happens to fall within a chosen skin color. Some Native Americans warred, others did not; some were nomadic, others not, etc.

Not to mention, the Europeans who came here would have completely died of abject cluelessness had not the aboriginals guided them through on basic survival.

Fat lot of good it did them too.

 

[Two Thumbs]

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

C'mon. You've been here nearly four years. You should know better.

Yes, I have and yes the thread could be interesting. The reason why has nothing to do with color, or intellect. It runs far deeper than that, and has everything to do with the human condition and human nature.

I find it amazing, and amusing that the liberals here resort to accusations of racism in an effort to shut down a legitimate question. Idiots like shootspeeders and tank are one dimensional creatures. They only have a single thought and you guys pound on them as if they mean anything.

They are buffoons and no one in their right mind pays them the slightest attention. Instead address the OP. It IS an interesting question, and it's root cause go's back centuries.

no it doesn't

they are socialist, government controls everything, countries. They are what happens when progs take control

they keep their people poor, hungry and dumb to keep them in line and dependent on the government to survive.

sound familiar?

 

[Pogo]

Just a note on #1

Making a living was not so much easy as it was time consuming and labor intensive. Hunter/gatherers need to spend a huge portion of their lives actually hunting and gathering. There was no time for much else.

Where agriculture takes hold, there is free time. That free time is applied to pursuits other than subsistence. Science, art, commerce.

It's the same issue as in Polynesia, hunter/gatherer societies in certain areas actually have it very easy. It really is as easy as walking along and eating as you go, year round.
Thus, there is no pressure. Pressure drives innovation.

Look at evolutionary biology as a guide. 90+% of all evolution occurs in the temperate zones, the Arctic and equatorial see virtually none because there is no climactic stress.

Why would you claim that societies which "have it easy" would not be innovative? It makes very little sense. When hands (and minds) are freed of the need to labor for subsistence, they are put to use in other ways. What, I wonder, would prevent the Polynesian cultures from experiencing an industrial revolution?

Of course, this presupposes that industrial revolution/innovation is a desirable thing...

 

[Tank]

Why would you claim that societies which "have it easy" would not be innovative? It makes very little sense. When hands (and minds) are freed of the need to labor for subsistence, they are put to use in other ways. What, I wonder, would prevent the Polynesian cultures from experiencing an industrial revolution?

It's kind of like being on welfare

 

[LoneLaugher]

Why would you claim that societies which "have it easy" would not be innovative? It makes very little sense. When hands (and minds) are freed of the need to labor for subsistence, they are put to use in other ways. What, I wonder, would prevent the Polynesian cultures from experiencing an industrial revolution?

That's like the Nancy Pelosi school of economics. IN reality necessity is the mother of invention.
The polynesians lacked metallurgical skills and probably access to cheap energy. I would wager their mathemtatics was not strong either.

They lacked metallurgical skills? How simple of you. Did they, in fact, have any metal ore?