Africa has so much potential, but why is the continent doing bad

[Robertclive]

correct me if I'm wrong

[Delta228]

Well we (Europeans) ed it up pretty bad

[Phalanx300]

Well we (Europeans) ed it up pretty bad

Actually it ed up bad when we were forced to give our colonies away. Just compare pre and after colony.

Even apratheid states were better than some of the crap they have now. Look at South Africa. Yes, it was racist etc, and yes that's a bad thing. But at least the country was stable. Look at Zimbabwe. How ed up does a government have to be, when black people begin to miss Ian Smith's apartheid regime?

I agree, also with the Apartheid the idea was to devide the country and give its peoples a part. Also during Apartheid several black acadamies were created. And just look at criminal numbers etc. If Apartheid had continued then South Africa would be a better place for both blacks and white now living there.

[Lysimachus]

Actually it ed up bad when we were forced to give our colonies away. Just compare pre and after colony.



I agree, also with the Apartheid the idea was to devide the country and give its peoples a part. Also during Apartheid several black acadamies were created. And just look at criminal numbers etc. If Apartheid had continued then South Africa would be a better place for both blacks and white now living there.

No, the Europeans made it bad and then it was only made worse when they left. I think Africa was the biggest disaster by the Western powers ever, they never should have gone there.

[Phalanx300]

No, the Europeans made it bad and then it was only made worse when they left. I think Africa was the biggest disaster by the Western powers ever, they never should have gone there.

I agree, every human should be living as hunter-gatherers and drop all that we've achieved, that way there would be no bad things happening ever again.

History is History, occupying Africa was understandable, however they were rather forced to leave with the blacks not being able to fully take care of themselves.

[Lysimachus]

I agree, every human should be living as hunter-gatherers and drop all that we've achieved, that way there would be no bad things happening ever again.

History is History, occupying Africa was understandable, however they were rather forced to leave with the blacks not being able to fully take care of themselves.

It was a far better fate then the rampant disease-fest they have now.

That's what I don't understand. Why don't the authority figures learn how to rule appropriately by enlisting the help of the whites (I think Westerners would be a better, non-racial term here). Western society is light years ahead of African society and so they'd be learning how to learn much more than a tribal village.

[Barry Goldwater]

@thread title Colonialism and the utter incompetence of the people who got into power after the Europeans left. There's your very brief answer.

I mean really, compared to what Zimbabwe is today, Rhodesia must look like the Garden of Eden.

[SonOfAlexander]

Well we (Europeans) ed it up pretty bad

Hit the nail on the head there .

Seriously though, the main reason is W - A - R.
Look at this list: and this isn't anywhere near comprehensve. I just listed the first few that popped into my head:

Boer War
Apartheid (not a war, but pretty bloody limiting to society)
Abyssinia
Egypt - Been fought over practically since the beginning of time
Rwanda '94
Ethiopia/Eritrea
Somalia - warlords of Mogadishu
Not to mention that throughout history Africa has been made up of tribes (e.g., Zulu, Masai) which have spent thousands of years knocking 2 bells out of each other.
Every single colonial war. That's A LOT.

[smithy17]

Hit the nail on the head there .

Seriously though, the main reason is W - A - R.
Look at this list: and this isn't anywhere near comprehensve. I just listed the first few that popped into my head:

As opposed to all the other continents which haven't experienced war?

[Del Valle]

Europeans left the place in a hurry, leaving behind the machinery needed to run a country, but nobody trained in their use. Thus corruption and dictatorships closely followed the European departure. Combine this with massive population growth that is out stripping scarce food and water, made scarcer by war, corruption, and infrastructure problems.

[hellheaven1987]

Europeans left the place in a hurry, leaving behind the machinery needed to run a country, but nobody trained in their use. Thus corruption and dictatorships closely followed the European departure. Combine this with massive population growth that is out stripping scarce food and water, made scarcer by war, corruption, and infrastructure problems.

That does not explain other places like South America and South-East Asia.

[Del Valle]

That does not explain other places like South America and South-East Asia.

South America and South East Asia are different stories. In South America, Spain was kicked out early and oligarchies of planters were made in the new nations. Most citizens never had any experience with democratic systems, so their attempts failed until the populists of the twentieth century who abused it. South East Asia is essentially Vietnam and company, right? Well, the French mismanaged the region badly, imposing restrictions on Buddhists and making roman catholics the upper stata of society. Rampant corruption and brutality toward local uprisings sealed their fate.

[hellheaven1987]

South America and South East Asia are different stories. In South America, Spain was kicked out early and oligarchies of planters were made in the new nations. Most citizens never had any experience with democratic systems, so their attempts failed until the populists of the twentieth century who abused it. South East Asia is essentially Vietnam and company, right? Well, the French mismanaged the region badly, imposing restrictions on Buddhists and making roman catholics the upper stata of society. Rampant corruption and brutality toward local uprisings sealed their fate.

I am not expert on South America history so I would not comment it, but your view on South-East Asia history is completely wrong, especially think South-East Asia only has Vietnam (there are Malaysia, Indonnesia, Burma and Phillippine).

In fact, Vietnam and Indonnesia were the only two "won" their independance by war; Malaysia got independance peacefully, which same applies on Philippine and Burma; yet, besides Burma, all of them did not turn into a degraded society after independance.

Your assumtion also does not apply on nations such as Algeria; sure, French left Algeria to a terrorist government, who was the top enemy of Europe until 90s; however, today Algeria is stable and respectful country.

[Del Valle]

I am not expert on South America history so I would not comment it, but your view on South-East Asia history is completely wrong, especially think South-East Asia only has Vietnam (there are Malaysia, Indonnesia, Burma and Phillippine).

In fact, Vietnam and Indonnesia were the only two "won" their independance by war; Malaysia got independance peacefully, which same applies on Philippine and Burma; yet, besides Burma, all of them did not turn into a degraded society after independance.

Your assumtion also does not apply on nations such as Algeria; sure, French left Algeria to a terrorist government, who was the top enemy of Europe until 90s; however, today Algeria is stable and respectful country.

My bad, South East Asia has always been for me the countries on the mainland (Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand and Malaysia).

I suppose Algeria is different because the French had a significant amount of colonists there and has very close proximity to the countries of Europe. Also, it's North African, which is a world apart from Sub-Saharan Africa, which was the main area of colonization.

Another thing I forgot are tribal boundaries, which were torn to shreds by the borders of the new nations, causing much of the war that plagued and still afflicts Africa.

[Frederich Barbarossa]

That does not explain other places like South America and South-East Asia.

:I Thats because South east asia was always in contact or general contact with Europe... Also south america was full of Europeans and was colonized by them for a couple of Hundred years.

[ML101]

old african cultural tensions. Colonial borders didnt reflect the ethnic borders, so you get a bunch of people who are of different cultures who hate each other and struggle for power amongst themselves since the europeans left

[Tiberius Tosi]

Tribal conflict still. Plus once they all got their independence from being European colonies, they really didn't know how to effectively run themselves. Such a thing a nation could have gotten away with it maybe 100 or 200 or more years ago, but nowadays it is very difficult to be left alone and told "make your own government and run yourselves". Power was easy for the pickin', so anyone with money and or power tried to take control of their states.

[bushbush]

colonials definiately retarded africa's economic growth and political progression, combining that with africa's own already complicated history of ethic and tribal divsions u have a huge fest of ups.

[★Bandiera Rossa☭]

Perhaps if people had supported Che Guevara in his aim to secure a Communist state in Africa then there would be a bit less trouble there... I am of course talking about the theory of permanent revolution.. which would have strengthened all Communist nations..

[Del Valle]

Perhaps if people had supported Che Guevara in his aim to secure a Communist state in Africa then there would be a bit less trouble there... I am of course talking about the theory of permanent revolution.. which would have strengthened all Communist nations..

You support that theiving murderer who did revolution and war for its own sake?