The poster argued that it was deemed middle eastern due to the fertile crescent. That is not why it is called the middle east. It is due to the British and it is not because of the fertile crescent. Stop moving the goal post.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Why isn't there a first world African nation and what can be done to make one?
- Thread starter T'Zariah
- Start date
- Status
The poster argued that it was deemed middle eastern due to the fertile crescent. That is not why it is called the middle east. It is due to the British and it is not because of the fertile crescent. Stop moving the goal post.
Who is arguing this?
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I'm going to respond to this because it reads like another "pop-culture rebuttal" of GGS that doesn't even bother to take the arguments made on properly. I'm not going to defend factual errors like how Diamond wasn't fully informed on, e.g., the Spanish conquest of Mexico. I am going to focus on the key underlying arguments.
Yes. When we talk about 'modernity' here, I think most people mean 'living standards, defined in terms of access to certain goods: education (particularly literacy), health, necessities", and so on. Regardless of which hunter-gatherer society you pick, you are unlikely to find one which is superior on many of these accounts in comparison to non-agricultural societies. I think your argument will run something along the lines of a) hunter-gatherer societies actually do provide necessities better, hence the absence of mass starvation prior to the adoption of agriculture, or b) choosing these particular things as present in living standards is a normative thing to discuss.
In response to a), I think that is probably at least partially true; the worst level of hunter-gatherer society probably does have better quality of life in material terms than the worst level of agricultural society. This is, however, to ignore the main thrust of the argument, which is that the highest level of 'development', defined here in terms of living standards, is not found in hunter-gatherer societies; and only agricultural ones.
b) is a different argument, which says something like "you're defining living standards wrong", or "you're defining modernity wrong". People in different societies to our own can obviously have equal living standards in terms of things like 'happiness', given that how happy someone is and the constraints on their happiness are normally contextually and culturally defined anyway. This is, quite obviously, true. However, you're now having a go at Diamond for poor choice of words, or not even that, your own decision to read into his words incorrectly. If you replace where he says "more modern", or words along those lines, to "higher living standards, with living standards defined purely in material terms"; you suddenly have no argument. We can still have normative discussions about whether we need to be materially better in order to have a 'better' society; about what it is that makes a better society, but that becomes an actual meaningful argument and not taking potshots at someone else's argument when you know what else they might want to say.
I agree you probably can't say any polity is objectively more advanced *in all areas*. I think you can say that some polities are crucially advanced in particular areas, or, and this is the more important part, are more advanced when it comes to having the capability to subjugate other areas. We can presume that indigenous American peoples did not want to experience European colonialism for the most part, and indeed there is a long historical record of just that. Given that, if each had equal capacity *in being able to resist the other*, then there would have been no European colonialism.
Now, the precise reason that one culture was less able to resist the other requires a difficult and multi-causal explanation. I'd certainly not put forward a One True Reason, but Diamond sets out in GGS a very plausible set of reasons: germ immunity, for example, was absolutely critical to the Spanish conquest of Mexico. Large-scale warfare typically requires stable political structure to be administer it, stable political structure is difficult when the Emperor Huayna has just died because of a highly infectious series of diseases to which natives had absolutely no immunity which had recently swept through land killing millions.
This is Diamond's biggest failing; I won't dispute it. However, I will say that even if Diamond doesn't set out to explain why more advanced polities have a tendency to exploit others, it is such a given constant in human history (it's very difficult to find a non-expansionary society on kind of scale larger than a few thousand people), the rest of his book *still works* if you take exploitation as the given mode of interaction between one society that has the capacity to exploit the other.
Nonsense. It neither focuses on a Great Men story - in fact, revolving around geographical constraints, it is *entirely free* of Great Men - nor does it, in any way, imply some kind of necessary teleological progression towards liberty and enlightenment. It's an argument about living standards. This is what I mean by "pop-culture rebuttal". You don't actually have an argument, you're just content to throw out shitty rejoinders like accusing him of whig history without explaining why.
No. It doesn't in the *slightest*, and if you think it does you clearly haven't actually read either GGS or some of the earlier works in environmental determinism. The earliest works focused on how environmental determinism encouraged particular traits in people - being in hot climates made you lazy or stupid, for example. In the words of Semple, "leading geographers to feel confident on pronouncing on the racial characteristics of given populations". This was obviously a thin racist cover for justifying European superiority over non-European people: your environment determined who *you, as a person, are* and could make you innately inferior *as a person*.
GGS argument relies on the *exact opposite* explanation. He explicitly says that people's capabilities are the same everywhere, regardless. The entire prologue to the book is based on this principle. GGS then asks; "well, given that people have the same capabilities everywhere, why do we see divergences in *living standards* (again, defined materially)* even very early in human history?" - for example, the Greeks having calorific content in their diets around twice as high as contemporary meso-American peoples. The answer is that people make do with what they have available to them - and some people have much less available to them. In other words: your environment places certain constraints on *what you can do*, and not *who you are*.
If your attempt to discredit GGS therefore relies on linking him to early racist anthropological works, you're not going to succeed on two accounts. Firstly, because that's frankly just a shitty way to rebut someone, akin to saying vegetarians are wrong because they're sort of like Hitler, and secondly, because that link *doesn't even exist in the first place*.
Diamond's book is Eurocentric in parts. The last third of the book, which deals with human divergence after c.1200, is quite poorly written and I don't think presents a very compelling argument for why, e.g., Europe diverged from China. However, it does a good job at explaining differences in material wealth that emerged before this point. To an extent, any question that is attempting to answer a comparative "why does X area have higher living standards than Y area?" will involve focusing on X and Y. Diamond's biggest failing is being Eurocentric rather than Eurasiancentric.
Bullshit. Pop-culture rebuttal at its worst. The book merely explains why Western societies *could* do this; had the capacity to do so. It certainly doesn't explain why they *did*, which is where the guilt lies. You are straight up making stuff up or reading into what isn't there now.
No. As said above, Diamond doesn't attempt to explain why it is that some societies feel it necessary to exploit others. That's why it rests as an incomplete explanation. However, the fact his explanation is incomplete doesn't mean it is wrong, and you're being intellectually lazy to assume this is the case. Suppose that we look at the question *starting* from the perspective you want to begin with. Even when we have a sociological explanation for why some societies (or as I suspect, effectively all sufficiently large non-isolated societies) feel it necessary to exploit other societies, that doesn't explain why particular areas of the world ended up with higher living standards than others.
Even supposing that European societies developed this 'exploitation' instinct and others did not (which I think is a laughable hypothesis in and of itself; the Nahua peoples didn't become the dominant society of Mexico valley without a long and bloody series of wars in which they replaced or pushed out the Toltecs and the Tepanecs), you need to explain why they were capable of doing this to begin with. After all, if each society had equal capacity to resist (or more accurately, if non-European capacity to resist was greater than European capacity to subjugate), colonialism could not have happened. This therefore requires some sort of explanation for why particular societies had diverged *prior even to contact*. I wonder what possible work could provide some sort of explanation for this...
[I've ignored some parts of your original comment here as they seem directed at Opiate, not Diamond. Do let me know if I've misread the intent, I'll correct ASAP]
Wrong. You can only draw this conclusion if you're absolutely determined to shit on the guy no matter what. Diamond isn't saying "this was predestined". Obviously, if Europeans had turned up on American shores, gone "We come in peace", and shared their knowledge in return for the knowledge of the indigenous Americans, history would have gone very differently. As it was, they turned up on American shores with the intent of conquest and subjugation. He doesn't provide an explanation for this, no. However, it's relatively safe to take this as a constant of modes of interaction between sufficiently large societies capable of doing this to one another. That still needs an explanation in itself, of why humans do such monstrous things, but even if you provided that explanation, you then need an argument for why Europeans were capable of enforcing this conquest and subjugation. This is the argument Diamond provides.
They're obviously related questions. If sub-Saharan African was capable of resisting European colonialists, then they wouldn't have been exploited. As it was, they were not capable of resisting. Obviously, imperialism inflicted massive damage on these countries; but it's 'problematically reductive' to just say "imperialism", and end there. What happens if you reverse the question? Why didn't Europe suffer at the hands of sub-Saharan imperialism? There were particular reasons *why* Europe was capable of imperialism, these reasons are what Diamond seeks to explain.
GTP_Daverytimes
Member
Every tom, dick and harry is in Lagos, every bloody industry, every happening. The city is overpopulated (20 million damn people), with little to no planning, There are many cities in Nigeria (11 cities with over a million people) which can host those businesses but everyone and their mother decides to set up their businesses in an already overcrowded city. its irritating to watch, though things are slowly changing.
What a not-colonized Africa might look like in terms of borders. Circa 1844.
Anyway, I think we've reached the obvious topic of European colonization and the effects that had on Africa, and continues to have today. Africa is definitely rising, one way or another. It still has serious problems, but is getting better in a lot of places. I think it is however worth looking at just what affected sub-Saharan Africa's development in all the thousands of years prior to Europeans getting there, thus allowing Europe to colonize the continent in the first place.
Honestly, I don't know much about pre-colonial African history at all. I'm aware that some kingdoms, states, and Empires did exist in East coast and West coast Africa around the same time as Europe's Late Middle Ages. I don't know about much before that though, like when sub-saharan Africa developed sedentary agriculture or metallurgy or whatnot.
If you look at civilized history as a big picture, the Middle East, Northern Africa, Europe, India, and China were at similar levels of development most of the time because they had access to a lot of the same important resources. As far as I understand, three were really important for the cradles of civilization to emerge: 1) "founder crops" that could transition a society from hunter-gathering to sedentary agriculture, 2) the existence of large pack animals like horses or camels (this is a big thing North America lacked), and 3) metals like bronze and iron (not sure about the absolute importance of this one). I have no idea how much of these things sub-Saharan Africa did or did not have. You also have to look at the various cultures and climate in relation to this.
Western Europe dominated because of its expansionism and a variety of other factors. One thing that really set back the Middle East and Eastern Europe however were the Mongol invasions, which western Europe mostly dodged. I know that's a gross simplification, but on the world stage India and the Far East are basically catching up with the west and it looks like things are equalizing. The Middle East is still fucked up from the chain reaction that largely started with western colonialism.
Anyway, I think we've reached the obvious topic of European colonization and the effects that had on Africa, and continues to have today. Africa is definitely rising, one way or another. It still has serious problems, but is getting better in a lot of places. I think it is however worth looking at just what affected sub-Saharan Africa's development in all the thousands of years prior to Europeans getting there, thus allowing Europe to colonize the continent in the first place.
Honestly, I don't know much about pre-colonial African history at all. I'm aware that some kingdoms, states, and Empires did exist in East coast and West coast Africa around the same time as Europe's Late Middle Ages. I don't know about much before that though, like when sub-saharan Africa developed sedentary agriculture or metallurgy or whatnot.
If you look at civilized history as a big picture, the Middle East, Northern Africa, Europe, India, and China were at similar levels of development most of the time because they had access to a lot of the same important resources. As far as I understand, three were really important for the cradles of civilization to emerge: 1) "founder crops" that could transition a society from hunter-gathering to sedentary agriculture, 2) the existence of large pack animals like horses or camels (this is a big thing North America lacked), and 3) metals like bronze and iron (not sure about the absolute importance of this one). I have no idea how much of these things sub-Saharan Africa did or did not have. You also have to look at the various cultures and climate in relation to this.
Western Europe dominated because of its expansionism and a variety of other factors. One thing that really set back the Middle East and Eastern Europe however were the Mongol invasions, which western Europe mostly dodged. I know that's a gross simplification, but on the world stage India and the Far East are basically catching up with the west and it looks like things are equalizing. The Middle East is still fucked up from the chain reaction that largely started with western colonialism.
NJDEN
Member
I mean, first world would be considered a Westernized African state while a second world African state would be under the influence of an Eastern nation like Russia or China.
3rd world simply means they were never really aligned during the Cold War. Incidentally, since most 3rd world countries never picked a side most suffered from not being connected to a super power, but not all.
With the United States involved in the Middle East some could argue they are trying to Westernize that region (without much success), making them first world. I have also heard China attempting to spread influence in Africa which would align those states with the East or second world.
3rd world simply means they were never really aligned during the Cold War. Incidentally, since most 3rd world countries never picked a side most suffered from not being connected to a super power, but not all.
With the United States involved in the Middle East some could argue they are trying to Westernize that region (without much success), making them first world. I have also heard China attempting to spread influence in Africa which would align those states with the East or second world.
arnoldocastillo2003
Member
Umm I think that this map its a little outdated because I think that Brazil and South Africa should be a second world country because its considered part as the BRICS right?
User 73706
Banned
The part that I'm always curious about is whether this has to do with Africa's predominantly equatorial location or if it's something else. Granted, it represents a huge amount of land, but I don't think any major developing areas outside of India, Central America and the Middle East are so completely affected by it. Honestly, it makes sense to me that the Americas and Eurasia would have a somewhat easier time because having locations not as deadlocked to the center of the equator would allow for more middling climates, thus allowing less hardy (read: less crops required to withstand such harsh conditions) crops and livestock to flourish, etc.
NJDEN
Member
Yeah, the map is a little silly since it identifies Cuba as a third world nation when I would have classified it as a second world. It gives a general gist of the two spheres of influence, plus the third world countries, but not totally accurate.
Plus BRICS is a global economic union. I'd consider economic unions the post Cold War variant of the military alliances we saw during the Cold War. I wouldn't really toss India and South Africa in with China and Russia in terms of spheres of influence.
The whole notion of first world and third world is wrong, it has absolutely nothing to do with development but with political alignment. It also makes the countries marked as "third world" look bad because of the use of the term "third" when second world is something that doesn't exist in this particular notion.
The proper way to categorise countries should be Developed (Western Europe, USA, Australia), Developing (Brazil, Nigeria, India, China), Underdeveloped (Liberia, Congo).
Lol !!
The proper way to categorise countries should be Developed (Western Europe, USA, Australia), Developing (Brazil, Nigeria, India, China), Underdeveloped (Liberia, Congo).
Lol !!
According to that map Reconquista never happened. Must be some alternate history if Spain is still under control of the Moors in 1884.
titiklabingapat
Member
This deserves to be quoted, bravo. To many of you picking up the Guns, Germs and Steel, Crab's post should be required reading as well. I actually stopped reading in the last quarter of the book because I thought it was Jared Diamond's weakest argument too, but it in no way invalidate his hypothesis in the first two thirds of the book.
Very outdated
South African is considered 2nd World, in some areas of the country even 1st world
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
It's a terrible map in more ways than that, Songhai collapsed largely without European help anyway and should definitely not be covering half of West Africa. Pretty art, though.
Holy shit I didn't notice that.
DXLelouch153
Banned
we need to make Wakanda a real place
Excellent thread.
I'm currently on vacation in Africa so I'm posting this from my phone. Apologies in advance for any spelling mistakes.
A little bit of context. I've lived in Africa, worked in Africa, and have a number of family members who have held very high-ranking positions here (i.e. Positions that have regular meetings with presidents). I'm going to try to keep this as short as possible. The short answer as to why there isn't a first world African country (and why there may never be one within our lifetime) is corrupt governance.
Africa is corruption central. You can get anything and everything accomplished if you know the right person and have enough dollars. That might be disheartening to hear, but it's the reality. If you're rich, you'll prosper and live well. If you're not, well, good luck.
Now, how does corrupt governance hold back a nation in a continent? Allow me to give you an example. Let's say the education department of, oh, Kenya's government has a budget of $60 millon dollars for the year. The $60 million will go towards building and providing new schools, libraries, teachers, and research technology (e.g. Laptops, tablets) for primary and secondary education.
Let's say there are 12 people in charge of making sure that $60 million goes into education. Let's say out of those 12 people, 11 of them are corrupt. 11 people then abuse their power and end up pocketing $49 million dollars. Now you have $11 million dollars for education for the year.
Here's the real problem. Those same 11 people who are destroying what is perhaps the most important arm of an under-developed nation are going to remain in power for 5 years. $60 million x 5 years = $300 million. $11 million x 5 years = $55 million. For 5 years, the actual money going towards education will be less than the amount allocated for a single year. For 5 years, millions of primary and secondary students are provided with poor education, poor education facilities, and poor technological competency.
Those millions of kids are going to grow into poorly educated adults who work in different sectors of the country. Due to the actions of 11 people, an entire nation suffers for decades on end. That's why corruption in governance is the biggest problem in Africa. It affects everything that happens in a country for a long, long time.
There are a number of other things that are holding back Africa from seeing significant strides towards being a first-world continent. Language barriers, energy insufficiencies, extremely poor tech infrastructures and connectivity resources (Smartphones are really helping in solving this), overly-conservative cultures, horrific treatment of women and children, lack of foreign interest in a lot of countries, horrific health and environmental regulations, abysmal transportation infrastructures, the list goes on and on and on.
How do you fix dozens of nations that have a stack of problems with the biggest one being their government? I don't know the answer to this, but what I do know is it's going to be a while before we look at Africa as a developed part of the world.
I'm currently on vacation in Africa so I'm posting this from my phone. Apologies in advance for any spelling mistakes.
A little bit of context. I've lived in Africa, worked in Africa, and have a number of family members who have held very high-ranking positions here (i.e. Positions that have regular meetings with presidents). I'm going to try to keep this as short as possible. The short answer as to why there isn't a first world African country (and why there may never be one within our lifetime) is corrupt governance.
Africa is corruption central. You can get anything and everything accomplished if you know the right person and have enough dollars. That might be disheartening to hear, but it's the reality. If you're rich, you'll prosper and live well. If you're not, well, good luck.
Now, how does corrupt governance hold back a nation in a continent? Allow me to give you an example. Let's say the education department of, oh, Kenya's government has a budget of $60 millon dollars for the year. The $60 million will go towards building and providing new schools, libraries, teachers, and research technology (e.g. Laptops, tablets) for primary and secondary education.
Let's say there are 12 people in charge of making sure that $60 million goes into education. Let's say out of those 12 people, 11 of them are corrupt. 11 people then abuse their power and end up pocketing $49 million dollars. Now you have $11 million dollars for education for the year.
Here's the real problem. Those same 11 people who are destroying what is perhaps the most important arm of an under-developed nation are going to remain in power for 5 years. $60 million x 5 years = $300 million. $11 million x 5 years = $55 million. For 5 years, the actual money going towards education will be less than the amount allocated for a single year. For 5 years, millions of primary and secondary students are provided with poor education, poor education facilities, and poor technological competency.
Those millions of kids are going to grow into poorly educated adults who work in different sectors of the country. Due to the actions of 11 people, an entire nation suffers for decades on end. That's why corruption in governance is the biggest problem in Africa. It affects everything that happens in a country for a long, long time.
There are a number of other things that are holding back Africa from seeing significant strides towards being a first-world continent. Language barriers, energy insufficiencies, extremely poor tech infrastructures and connectivity resources (Smartphones are really helping in solving this), overly-conservative cultures, horrific treatment of women and children, lack of foreign interest in a lot of countries, horrific health and environmental regulations, abysmal transportation infrastructures, the list goes on and on and on.
How do you fix dozens of nations that have a stack of problems with the biggest one being their government? I don't know the answer to this, but what I do know is it's going to be a while before we look at Africa as a developed part of the world.
Myke Greywolf
Ambassador of Goodwill
If I was to bet on one african country to be able to swiftly climb up in regards to the development standards you mention, it would be Cape Verde.
Cape Verde has the paradoxical advantage of having almost no coveted natural resources, which makes it less vulnerable to being overrun by the combination of a corrupt ruling class and multinationals looking to take advantage of it. As so, it has to bet on a a service-based economy (presently mainly tourism, but with current strong bets on education to change that) with high value added exports. As an archipelago, it is also pretty isolated from the rest of the continent, safeguarding it from conflicts and manipulations from more powerful neighboring countries. It has a good and modern constitution, a relatively stable and serious government, and good relations with its former colonizer. There are actually lobbies in place to allow the country to join the European Union one day, in which case I guess the Union would have to change its name.
All these factors, allied with a small population, may contribute to turn Cape Verde into a modest but bright example in the African panorama along the next decade or two.
Cape Verde has the paradoxical advantage of having almost no coveted natural resources, which makes it less vulnerable to being overrun by the combination of a corrupt ruling class and multinationals looking to take advantage of it. As so, it has to bet on a a service-based economy (presently mainly tourism, but with current strong bets on education to change that) with high value added exports. As an archipelago, it is also pretty isolated from the rest of the continent, safeguarding it from conflicts and manipulations from more powerful neighboring countries. It has a good and modern constitution, a relatively stable and serious government, and good relations with its former colonizer. There are actually lobbies in place to allow the country to join the European Union one day, in which case I guess the Union would have to change its name.
All these factors, allied with a small population, may contribute to turn Cape Verde into a modest but bright example in the African panorama along the next decade or two.
Wellington
BAAAALLLINNN'
Nice discussion on here.
It will be interesting to see what happens over the next decade with the growth in countries like Nigeria and Rwanda versus the continued economic turmoil in countries like Greece and Spain.
It will be interesting to see what happens over the next decade with the growth in countries like Nigeria and Rwanda versus the continued economic turmoil in countries like Greece and Spain.
Very different changes are occurring. The rise in certain African countries is happening much quicker than the decline of certain European countries, and the former's change is much more permanent: new infrastructure, industries, and even cities are being built, changing the economy in ways that Europe has not seen for over a century.
I grew up in Guinea, and I know it isn't representative of every african nation I think it is a good example of how a single country can be divided 7 times over, never mind shitty infrastructure and corruption.
These are ethnic groups, which have been used as voting lines for presidential elections. Every time there was an election, we had to have luggage ready in case we had to be evacuated. This kind of lack of basic security and ethnic distrust between people leads to disfunction on a basic level. Pile on absolute corruption and you have a fucking mess.
But there are countries on the rise, like Nigeria.
There is a lot of realistic hope for Africa, and it is coming from tech and mobile services. The republic democracy of Congo doesn't even have a postal service, but cellphones can bridge gaps, and help people organize on a basic level.
You have no idea how big and plentiful Africa is. Colonial rule took away a drop in the bucket compared to the modern industrial pillaging that is going on.
My father was a director in a gold mine and to appease the local government, he had to provide super basic things like well lids. In turn, they make millions of dollars in gold.
These are ethnic groups, which have been used as voting lines for presidential elections. Every time there was an election, we had to have luggage ready in case we had to be evacuated. This kind of lack of basic security and ethnic distrust between people leads to disfunction on a basic level. Pile on absolute corruption and you have a fucking mess.
But there are countries on the rise, like Nigeria.
There is a lot of realistic hope for Africa, and it is coming from tech and mobile services. The republic democracy of Congo doesn't even have a postal service, but cellphones can bridge gaps, and help people organize on a basic level.
You have no idea how big and plentiful Africa is. Colonial rule took away a drop in the bucket compared to the modern industrial pillaging that is going on.
My father was a director in a gold mine and to appease the local government, he had to provide super basic things like well lids. In turn, they make millions of dollars in gold.
Megalosaro
Banned
All those Nigerian princes are bleeding it dry.
Jeevesmeister
Banned
First of all, you posted wikipedia definitions of terms and listed countries that you claim fall under that, so to say "thanks for doing your research" and trying to dismiss everyone is giving yourself a bit of undue credit.
Secondly, it's really easy to take some choice photos of some moderately small metropolis areas that foreign wealth has concentrated into a very small area and pretend like there aren't massive structural and infrastructure issues that plague the continent on a massive scale. Trying to act condescending and you're somehow smarter than everyone, including people like me who have actually lived there and worked with local government and corporate entities to try and build solutions to these problems is a hilariously destructive and counter-productive attempt to shut down a rather enlightening discussion going on.
Also you picked 3 photos of South Africa, a country most people consider exempt from this discussion for a number of reasons, mainly the fact apartheid ended in 1994. There's colossal issues with corruption, corporate exploitation, and so on, and acting like they aren't there or there isn't a great deal of work to be done is a rather destructive notion.
Wellington
BAAAALLLINNN'
Not saying that it will be a direct or proportional correlation, just that it will be interesting to measure the rise of these new economic players versus the fall of some of the old guard.
Greece isn't any kind of an "old guard". A century ago its standard of living was probably equal to most African countries.
The region hasn't matched the standard of living of Western Europe since since some time in the Late Middle Ages, from 1204 until the 1920s, most of the country was under foreign rule. Its introduction into the European Union allowed the Greek people to live like Western Europeans for the first time in centuries, as this brought much higher wages and new tourism revenue.
Not that i don't agree with you in that Africa's perception in the west is very inaccurate, but:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...Development_Index#Very_high_human_development
The 'Very High' category is what's generally referred as ""First world"", and there isn't a single African country in it.
'High' is what's generally referred as the ""Second World"", or Developing Countries, like the BRICs (Except India).
It's also to be noted that going by HDI, there's no reasonable way to present South Africa (0.658) as a first world country. (Not that there aren't very reasonable arguments that it is, but HDI isn't one of them)
Also, if you're going to do the "Look at this ignorant who doesn't know a lick of what he's talking about" shtick, at least have your facts airtight.
I'm no expert on African current affairs, but I highly doubt that. Today there is modern medicine, advanced farming techniques and a massive array of modern technology that makes life easier for EVERYONE in the world, not just the developed nations.
I watched a documentary on Netflix (forgot what it was called) about everyday life of trappers in Siberia and it showed that they may have less goods and are comparatively poorer to most Americans, but their way of life is significantly easier than it was even just 100 years ago because modern technology makes their hunting livelihood so much easier.
As far as the OP's question goes, I don't know the answer and I have spent many years thinking about it and have read a couple books analyzing the situation such as 'Guns, Germs, and Steel', and another book called 'Why Nations Fail'. I think that many of you are talking about things of the 19th century, while extremely relevant, fails to answer the question 'what do we do about it now'? Obviously colonialism completely effed these countries. But what should we do about it now is the more important question.
I don't have an answer. And I don't think many people do. If the solution was simple then, it would have been executed already. My best advice to leaders of African countries is to look at India for a good strategy. India was a heavily colonized place at one time, and while is by no means as rich as the US is yet. It's economy is slowly turning into something quite remarkable. It has many flaws yes (you don't have to list them). But with the right leadership and organization, then I really believe many African countries will be as wealthy as India is now in about 15 years.
Don't yall be negative nancys. Let's try to be optimistic and find realistic solutions.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll