Page 1 of 6 123456 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 103

Thread: Why are Sub-Saharan countries so Impoverished?

  1. #1
    Aexodus's Avatar Persuasion>Coercion
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    NI
    Posts
    8,764
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Why are Sub-Saharan countries so Impoverished?

    Despite being one of the wealthiest continents in the world where it comes to natural resources, Africa is yet the poorest continent in the world, with systemic rates of poverty.

    This particularly affects sub-Saharan Africa, as most blatantly shown through the disparity of life expectancies between North Africa and the rest of the continent.



    Is it the job of Africans to pull their countries out of poverty, or does the advanced world have a part to play as well? Should current welfare and aid packages continue to be sent to impoverished sub-Saharan countries in particular, or are they vital to these countries' economic development?



    Quote Originally Posted by Aexodus View Post
    History is the subject of the video, and African Americans HAVE ABSOLUTELY suffered due to their backwards culture of crime, and a culture of instant gratification. This goes back to before colonialism, before any white man really set foot in sub-Saharan Africa. If you want to wear ear muffs and scream racist that's your choice, but you should still be informed that you're doing so. Why, the reason they were colonised is because they weren't taking full advantage of their environment, which is what a sophisticated and advanced culture. No-one forced Africans to live in huts until the 20th century, but their own culture of instant gratification. "Why should I work towards building a house when I can have this hut for my family now"
    Quote Originally Posted by Copperknickers II View Post
    That's one of the most ridiculous videos I've ever seen.

    1. I'll start with my favourite bit at 9:29. "Many people will argue with me: 'We did build a city, but it burned down.' Well London didn't burn down." That should give you a good flavour of the level of historical knowledge of this guy, who seriously believes that London, of all cities, has 'never' burned down. I don't think there's a single surviving Medieval building in London barring stone buildings like churches and castles (most of which have been so extensively remodelled since the Medieval period they barely qualify).

    2. The Walls of Benin were the largest man-made structure of the pre-Modern period before they were destroyed by the British.

    3. The city of Ife in Nigeria, which has half a million inhabitants, dates back nearly a thousand years (arguably 1500 years) although all of its old buildings have been destroyed (you could say the same of many old cities in Europe and the Middle East).

    4. Mombasa, the second largest city in Kenya, was founded in 900AD.

    5. The city of Timbuktu famously still has buildings surviving from the 15th century.

    6. And then we have Ethiopia, one of the world's oldest civilisations. Ethiopia is full to bursting with pre-colonial buildings (probably something to do with the fact it was never really colonised by Europeans).
    Quote Originally Posted by LinusLinothorax View Post
    I am seriously wondering how people can unironically quote this shouting clown as a reference. I can literally freestyle a dozen long-lasting cities founded by black Africans in North-East Africa alone: Kerma, Meroe, Aksum, Dongola, Soba, Lalibela, Al Fashir, Uri, Ayn Farah, Sennar, Debarwa, Gondar.
    It's 2018. Time to let the 19th century prejudices rest.
    A thread for discussion on how economic and civic development in Sub-Saharan africa compares to the rest of the world, and the reasons for that. Continued from this discussion.
    Last edited by Abdülmecid I; March 14, 2018 at 03:46 PM. Reason: Additions.
    Patronised by Pontifex Maximus
    Quote Originally Posted by Himster View Post
    The trick is to never be honest. That's what this social phenomenon is engineering: publicly conform, or else.

  2. #2

    Default Re: Why are Sub-Saharan countries so Impoverished?

    I f you are going to discuss economic development you need to refer to money. You don't you refer to obsolete racist theories.T
    Here was my response to the race science spam on a thread that was supposed to be about South African Land reform.



    Quote Originally Posted by Aexodus View Post
    History has shown that when governments pursue racist policies like these they end in ruin, be they Zimbabwe, Nazi Germany, or South Africa. It has to stop, it is indefendable racial discrimination. The low IQ in the research I linked served to reflect the lack of education and academic achievement common to all black conmunities, due to culture, not an inherent 'stupid gene' as some seem to interpret it.
    We have done this to death, modern molecular science trumps quack race science.And there is no such think as a 'black culture' Africa is the most diverse place on this planet, on the cultural and biological level. And faally you haven't bothered to check out relative economic performance, either on the continent, nor globally.

    Quote Originally Posted by wyrda78 View Post
    IQ
    One does not have to have the most massive of IQs to notice the moderator warning two posts up, let alone join a losing argument unsupported.

    Now the coup de grace. It would seem the OP is not considering the real reasons behind the ANC's policy, which is Marxism, a European ideology by the way , but seems instead to be plugging obsolete eugenics and general racist bollocks for reasons beyond the understanding of Rational Man.


    Now going by the 2017 real GDP growth rates Ethiopia comes second at 8.6 %, Ivory Coast is 4th at around 7%, Djibouti, Senegal guinea all high high growth rates, Tanzania, Rwanda , Ghana at 26 .The first EU country is Iceland at 5%, the USA 2.1%the UK 152nd at 1.6%. Is this poor performance by so-called white countries down to white culture and genetics? SouthAfrica is down near the bottom 174th at 0.6%, but that according to your race theory must be down to the white genes and culture of Afrikaners and not down to the failure of communist policies (China thrives because it has a free market economy).
    Last edited by Abdülmecid I; March 12, 2018 at 01:59 PM. Reason: Continuity.
    Absolutley Barking, Mudpit Mutt Former Patron: Garbarsardar

    "Out of the crooked tree of humanity,no straight thing can be made." Immanuel Kant
    "Oh Yeah? What about a cricket bat? That's pretty straight. Just off the top of my head..." Al Murray, Pub Landlord.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Why are Sub-Saharan countries so Impoverished?

    OP updated and thread reopened.

  4. #4
    Muizer's Avatar member 3519
    Patrician Artifex Magistrate

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    11,087

    Default Re: Why are Sub-Saharan countries so Impoverished?

    I see a significant correlation!

    "Lay these words to heart, Lucilius, that you may scorn the pleasure which comes from the applause of the majority. Many men praise you; but have you any reason for being pleased with yourself, if you are a person whom the many can understand?" - Lucius Annaeus Seneca -

  5. #5

    Default Re: Why are Sub-Saharan countries so Impoverished?

    Quote Originally Posted by Muizer View Post
    I see a significant correlation!
    Within these countries Christians are wealthier than Muslims.

    https://qz.com/880933/education-leve...ims-in-africa/
    Ignore List (to save time):

    Exarch, Coughdrop addict

  6. #6

    Default Re: Why are Sub-Saharan countries so Impoverished?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Legend View Post
    Within these countries Christians are wealthier than Muslims.

    https://qz.com/880933/education-leve...ims-in-africa/
    That's true in North Africa as well, though not as pronounced (where there still are Christians anyway).

    Also, the least poor nations in sub-Saharan Africa are predominately Christian:


    Source
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  7. #7

    Default Re: Why are Sub-Saharan countries so Impoverished?

    I don't know if there is any realistic correlation between Christianity with wealth and Islam with poverty. Considering how many Muslim majority nations are much wealthier than most in Africa. Though there are clear differences in the rate of social progress and liberalization within Christian communities rather than Muslim ones which in itself is an advantage leaving out the issue of wealth.
    Heir to Noble Savage in the Imperial House of Wilpuri

  8. #8

    Default Re: Why are Sub-Saharan countries so Impoverished?

    Quote Originally Posted by Muizer View Post
    I see a significant correlation!

    Sub-Saharan countries are improvised because they're mostly Christian? How does that make sense?
    The Armenian Issue

  9. #9
    Muizer's Avatar member 3519
    Patrician Artifex Magistrate

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    11,087

    Default Re: Why are Sub-Saharan countries so Impoverished?

    Quote Originally Posted by Setekh View Post
    Sub-Saharan countries are improvised because they're mostly Christian? How does that make sense?
    I don't think it does, tbh. Interesting to see some take it seriously enough to waste words on.
    "Lay these words to heart, Lucilius, that you may scorn the pleasure which comes from the applause of the majority. Many men praise you; but have you any reason for being pleased with yourself, if you are a person whom the many can understand?" - Lucius Annaeus Seneca -

  10. #10

    Default Re: Why are Sub-Saharan countries so Impoverished?

    Quote Originally Posted by mongrel View Post
    We have done this to death, modern molecular science trumps quack race science.And there is no such think as a 'black culture' Africa is the most diverse place on this planet, on the cultural and biological level. And faally you haven't bothered to check out relative economic performance, either on the continent, nor globally.
    Maybe this would deserve a thread of its own, but what did you mean by this? Modern "molecular" science completely supports the so-called race science. Genetic clusters correspond to self-identified race with 99,86% accuracy [1]. IQ gaps between the races are well established (do I even need to provide sources for this?). Also, IQ is a good measure of intelligence. It is associated with a variety of positive life outcomes, and it is a better predictor of future success than family socio-economic status for example [2]. Heritability of IQ is well accepted (again, this is common knowledge, I assume no sources are needed?). Likewise, majority of researchers also agree that the IQ gaps between the races are also partly heritable (Rothman & Snyderman 1984; Rindermann, Coyle & Becker 2013). Furthermore, science has advanced to the point where scientists are in the process of discovering the actual genes that code for intelligence:
    Quote Originally Posted by https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28530673
    Intelligence is associated with important economic and health-related life outcomes. Despite intelligence having substantial heritability (0.54) and a confirmed polygenic nature, initial genetic studies were mostly underpowered. Here we report a meta-analysis for intelligence of 78,308 individuals. We identify 336 associated SNPs (METAL P < 5 × 10-8) in 18 genomic loci, of which 15 are new. Around half of the SNPs are located inside a gene, implicating 22 genes, of which 11 are new findings. Gene-based analyses identified an additional 30 genes (MAGMA P < 2.73 × 10-6), of which all but one had not been implicated previously. We show that the identified genes are predominantly expressed in brain tissue, and pathway analysis indicates the involvement of genes regulating cell development (MAGMA competitive P = 3.5 × 10-6). Despite the well-known difference in twin-based heritability for intelligence in childhood (0.45) and adulthood (0.80), we show substantial genetic correlation (rg = 0.89, LD score regression P = 5.4 × 10-29). These findings provide new insight into the genetic architecture of intelligence.
    We also find that these gene variants are not distributed equally among different human populations. In fact, they are distributed exactly as one would expect if the well documented differences in intelligence were genetic:
    Quote Originally Posted by http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/PifferIntelligence2015.pdf
    Published Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS), reporting the presence of alleles exhibiting significant and replicable associations with IQ, are reviewed. The average between-population frequency (polygenic score) of nine alleles positively and significantly associated with intelligence is strongly correlated to country-level IQ (r= .91). Factor analysis of allele frequencies furthermore identified a metagene with a similar correlation to country IQ (r=.86). The majority of the alleles (seven out of nine) loaded positively on this metagene. Allele frequencies varied by continent in a way that corresponds with observed population differences in average phenotypic intelligence. Average allele frequencies for intelligence GWAS hits exhibited higher inter-population variability than random SNPs matched to the GWAS hits or GWAS hits for height. This indicates stronger directional polygenic selection for intelligence relative to height. Random sets of SNPs and Fst distances were employed to deal with the issue of autocorrelation due to population structure. GWAS hits were much stronger predictors of IQ than random SNPs. Regressing IQ on Fst distances did not significantly alter the results nonetheless it demonstrated that, whilst population structure due to genetic drift and migrations is indeed related to IQ differences between populations, the GWAS hit frequencies are independent predictors of aggregate IQ differences.

  11. #11

    Default Re: Why are Sub-Saharan countries so Impoverished?

    because the nature in subsaharan africa is simply hostile to civilizations. many dangerous animals/plants, few useful domesticable animals/plants, many diseases, many jungles, mountains, and deserts which hinder transportation and isolate peoples, coastline is relatively flat with few natural harbors, rivers are full of waterfalls and can vary greatly in depth due to tides making them useless for transportation and communication. Basically, in africa nature is trying as hard as possible to make humans suffer. just imagine you're in a jungle, with no useful animals or plants around, everything wants to kill you, you need to pass a waterfall and mountain to get to nearest tribe...yeah, good luck starting a civilization. it's no wonder most of africa has been so backwards when you look at the nature there. Consequently africans have not been able to develop much in the way of human and societal capital compared to richer countries, which explains why they are still struggeling even today with access to modern technology. things like tribalism is holding them back.

  12. #12
    Mithradates's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Hungary
    Posts
    2,192

    Default Re: Why are Sub-Saharan countries so Impoverished?

    @NosPortatArma
    Mayan civilization?

  13. #13

    Default Re: Why are Sub-Saharan countries so Impoverished?

    I don't think the "nature" argument holds much water. You're right regarding problematic geography, but as far as wildlife goes - Europe and Asia used to have plenty of dangerous wildlife too. India and Central America are also home to naaty tropical diseases and venomous snakes.
    Not sure I buy the domestication argument entirely either.

  14. #14
    Vladyvid's Avatar Wizard of Turmish
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Athkatla
    Posts
    2,132

    Default Re: Why are Sub-Saharan countries so Impoverished?

    because the nature in subsaharan africa is simply hostile to civilizations. many dangerous animals/plants, few useful domesticable animals/plants, many diseases, many jungles, mountains, and deserts which hinder transportation and isolate peoples, coastline is relatively flat with few natural harbors, rivers are full of waterfalls and can vary greatly in depth due to tides making them useless for transportation and communication. Basically, in africa nature is trying as hard as possible to make humans suffer. just imagine you're in a jungle, with no useful animals or plants around, everything wants to kill you, you need to pass a waterfall and mountain to get to nearest tribe...yeah, good luck starting a civilization. it's no wonder most of africa has been so backwards when you look at the nature there. Consequently africans have not been able to develop much in the way of human and societal capital compared to richer countries, which explains why they are still struggeling even today with access to modern technology. things like tribalism is holding them back.
    Hostile environment is really not a good explanation because other continents have their own hostlie environments and people learned how to cope with that. I think best way to understand this situation would be to ask some Africans themselves. Once i heard from a Nigerian guy who came to Europe, that in his opinion, the fact that Europe has seasons (winter in particular) created different mentality in people - because planning ahead and gathering resources is necessary to survive. In contrast, in African, there is no "dead" winter season and as a result there is no need to prepare for the future etc. In words of that guy, that was one of the biggest factors shaping the mentality of africans - no reasons for planning future. You can see the same thing in the rain forests of Amazon, or New Guinea, so its not based on some ethnic predispositions. So I would say, they didnt develope because the climate makes people lazy and not wanting to do much when its hot.

  15. #15
    Aexodus's Avatar Persuasion>Coercion
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    NI
    Posts
    8,764
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Why are Sub-Saharan countries so Impoverished?

    Early Europeans had to deal with thick forests with wolves and bears, and there is a wealth of predators in Asia too.
    Patronised by Pontifex Maximus
    Quote Originally Posted by Himster View Post
    The trick is to never be honest. That's what this social phenomenon is engineering: publicly conform, or else.

  16. #16
    Vladyvid's Avatar Wizard of Turmish
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Athkatla
    Posts
    2,132

    Default Re: Why are Sub-Saharan countries so Impoverished?

    I guess you didnt read my post.

  17. #17
    Aexodus's Avatar Persuasion>Coercion
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    NI
    Posts
    8,764
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Why are Sub-Saharan countries so Impoverished?

    Well, sorry but we did post at the same time. I would have thought that we largely agree that the environment of Africa is no different to what had to be learned to cope with on other continents. I largely agree with your hypothesis that there is no winter in Africa, causing less need for future planning (hence the natural lack of delayed gratification in Africans)
    Patronised by Pontifex Maximus
    Quote Originally Posted by Himster View Post
    The trick is to never be honest. That's what this social phenomenon is engineering: publicly conform, or else.

  18. #18

    Default Re: Why are Sub-Saharan countries so Impoverished?

    Part of the reason they are impoverished, is that they were already born" wealthy" for many millenia. What does one imply with this? The abundance of food seems weird for us due to being used to hear about starvation in Africa, but truth is, africa has a bizarre amount of food and natural resources.

    Meaning that going back a few thousand years, africans in terms of food gathering and resource searching had life on easy mode, europeans life on hard mode, and tundra eskimos in nightmare mode, in terms of civilization development.

    The africans had it too easy for earliest phases of civilizational development, so there was no real use for things seen in Sumeria and Indus valley. For someone on hard mode (europeans, north africans, chinese and middle easterners for starters) it would be highly atractive.

    I could do more research in this, but I remember in colonial portugal in São Tomé, to put colonials to work Salazar ordered the cut down of trees that essentially gave a type of fruit so often that hunting wouldn't even be needed. After that colonials would be forced to work, in that artificial scarcity.

    So you can point genetics, but long term speaking in span of millenia that's a fish biting its tail, but the abundance of resources in Africa does not give enough scarcity for them to have an immediate advantage in developing.

    I'm not saying this is the first time ever, but starvation and hard life was historically the normal in Europe and Asia, not Africa. So the pressure to develop civilization is often stronger on where there is more drought and more starvation.

    Scarcity and suffering levels seen today on African continent is a relatively new phenomena. After this birth rate boom, Malthusian pressure will kick in and they will lose their world that already supplied them all the resources for a stress-free life.
    Last edited by fkizz; March 19, 2018 at 10:49 AM. Reason: changed island name
    It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.

    -George Orwell

  19. #19
    Copperknickers II's Avatar quaeri, si sapis
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    12,647

    Default Re: Why are Sub-Saharan countries so Impoverished?

    Quote Originally Posted by Admiral Piett View Post
    I don't know if there is any realistic correlation between Christianity with wealth and Islam with poverty. Considering how many Muslim majority nations are much wealthier than most in Africa. Though there are clear differences in the rate of social progress and liberalization within Christian communities rather than Muslim ones which in itself is an advantage leaving out the issue of wealth.
    Sorry but I'm afraid everyone in this thread is wrong, the real correlation is with indigenous African animism: there's a clear correlation between paganism and wealth:





    As you can see, barring a few outliers, most countries with a high level of traditional religion are quite wealthy, except the ones that aren't. All you have to do is look at the evidence which supports my argument and ignore anything that doesn't fit it, and you'll see that I am right.
    A new mobile phone tower went up in a town in the USA, and the local newspaper asked a number of people what they thought of it. Some said they noticed their cellphone reception was better. Some said they noticed the tower was affecting their health.

    A local administrator was asked to comment. He nodded sagely, and said simply: "Wow. And think about how much more pronounced these effects will be once the tower is actually operational."

  20. #20
    Mithradates's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Hungary
    Posts
    2,192

    Default Re: Why are Sub-Saharan countries so Impoverished?

    Quote Originally Posted by fkizz View Post
    I could do more research in this, but I remember in colonial portugal in Cape Verde, to put colonials to work Salazar ordered the cut down of trees that essentially gave a type of fruit so often that hunting wouldn't even be needed.
    I would be really interested in what kind of tree that is.

Page 1 of 6 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •