Real talk why is Africa so behind in advancement and development?
Options
Comments
-
this film explores the evolution of propaganda and public relations in the United States, with an emphasis on the "elitist theory of democracy" and the relationship between war, propaganda and class.
Includes original interviews with a number of dissident scholars including Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Michael Parenti, Peter Phillips ("Project Censored"), John Stauber ("PR Watch"), Christopher Simpson ("The Science of Coercion") and others.
http://metanoia-films.org/
This is an interesting film. -
dude called Africa a nation
word.......it disturbs me when people call Africa a "nation" SMH
a basic understanding of economics and politcal science can explain why majority of the African continent stays perpetually losing
it's just like game theory, somebody has to lose for someone else to stay on top :shrugs -
blakfyahking wrote: »word.......it disturbs me when people call Africa a "nation" SMH
a basic understanding of economics and politcal science can explain why majority of the African continent stays perpetually losing
it's just like game theory, somebody has to lose for someone else to stay on top :shrugs
african countries do not have to be the losers all the time. we can be winners too. -
_Ozymandias_ wrote: »first off africa was home to one of the most powerful civilizations on the planet for almost 3000 years. western civilization is only 2000 years old, so the west still has about another 1000 years before it can even compare to the apex of african civiization.
and ftr all of africa is not poor and underdeveloped. see the real Africa:
A lot of the cities featured in this video were cities developed by whites before they were given the boot. I doubt we would see the same pictures if whites were never there. South Africa for example was a bare land of nomads before whites came and settled there. Also ever since whites have left places like south Africa, they have turned to ? .
If you want to know the cause for African's lack of development read IQ and the wealth of nations.
The common excuses of the IMF, world bank, colonialism being the cause have observable contradictions. South Korea for example was as poor as any African nation following the Korean war. To help development they also took out loans with the IMF and World Bank. The difference is they have effectively managed their country to make it into what it is today. Africa is plagued with corrupt governments and leaders. Hong Kong was a British colony until 96. Hong Kong also scores as the highest ranking country based on IQ in the world. Its miles ahead of any African nation in development. Do the math. Before whites colonized Africa, it wasn't much to begin with outside of Egypt. The small kingdoms are prett incomparable to say Rome 2000 years ago. They don't compare in the least. -
apocalyptica wrote: »A lot of the cities featured in this video were cities developed by whites before they were given the boot. I doubt we would see the same pictures if whites were never there. South Africa for example was a bare land of nomads before whites came and settled there. Also ever since whites have left places like south Africa, they have turned to ? .
If whites were never in Africa, if slavery and colonialism and neocolonialism had never existed those cities would be bigger. Africa would be trading with the rest of the world and African nations would be in charge of their own resources.
The ? hasn't even really left and now the ? victim is being blamed.If you want to know the cause for African's lack of development read IQ and the wealth of nations.
That's funny. Sit your confused BNP self down. No intelligent person would every cite that book to give authority to their argument. That book's data gathering and thesis were thoroughly torn apart by academia.The common excuses of the IMF, world bank, colonialism being the cause have observable contradictions. South Korea for example was as poor as any African nation following the Korean war. To help development they also took out loans with the IMF and World Bank. The difference is they have effectively managed their country to make it into what it is today. Africa is plagued with corrupt governments and leaders. Hong Kong was a British colony until 96. Hong Kong also scores as the highest ranking country based on IQ in the world. Its miles ahead of any African nation in development. Do the math.
Hong Kong was developed by the British as a banking, business, and manufacturing hub long before it stopped being a colony and became part of China. No African state was developed this way by its colonizers, it was all about resource removal, tribal favourtism, and keeping the local population compliant and uneducated.
The United States and, to some degree, Japan also had interest in seeing South Korea succeed in the face of the threat of North Korea.
The IQ statistics that you're pulling from that laughable book of yours are off, plus it's common sense that IQ would be higher in states with higher education and literacy rates. It has nothing to do with race, as you seem to be implying.Before whites colonized Africa, it wasn't much to begin with outside of Egypt. The small kingdoms are prett incomparable to say Rome 2000 years ago. They don't compare in the least.
So Carthage, Axum, Cush, Mali, Benin, Somalia, Nubia, , etc. and all the north African polymaths were nothing? Sad case. -
because they sold all of their best slaves to slave runners and then had no skilled workers to make the products that they lived off of trading and suddenly their economy went to ? . sent a prosperous continent back hundreds of years cuz that was in like the 16th or 17th century. Yes black people sold other black people into american slavery system. if ya thought the slaves were just caught and taken on the ship. and from what i hear, there conditions were actually better as slaves here than they were as slaves in africa
-
Colonialism/Imperialism- After exploiting Africa for resources, after Europe felt like they had no more use for them, they just straight left........ without teaching them how to take advantage of their natural resources, didn't provide any technology, didn't help them structure their government..........
They had nothing to gain after they gave up their African colonies...... -
I think we can all agree that Africa has been continuously exploited for it's vast resources by the dominant economic and military powers of the world but the governments of the countries that make up Africa are just as corrupt as the countries that are outside of it. The people of Africa aren't properly represented and that leads to and breads corruption and greed. There are a whole host of problems but the bottom line is that the people's voices are ignored by the people in power. Sure you can point out areas where Africa is improving but the level at which it is progressing is not fast enough and we must make sure that the way in which it is progressing is healthy for the people. If we really wanted to find out the problems of Africa we can't really sit here and make generalizations because that would be a disservice to the people of Africa, we would rather need to break down each individual issue and see what really is the cause.
-
im just gonna be honest with ya
its because africans are lazy
not INHERENTLY lazy tho
its just because its really hot in africa
its just hot as ? all the time
"hey dikembe, lets start a space program and launch some satellites"
"? you ? its 150 degrees out here"
tru story -
If whites were never in Africa,
honest question: if africa would be so much better today if the white man hadn't dropped by, howcome the white man was able to completely takeover the dark continent in the first place?
by your logic, africans would have been on basically equal footing (if not better) with europe right before the invasions started
so what was the problem? where was africa's defense? where were all these supposed african "polymaths" who could have said "hey, these guys intend to take all our ? "? where were africa's weapons, which supposedly were as technologically advanced as europe's? where were africa's fortified cities, built by its great "empires" over so many centuries?
real talk. if africa was so baller, why did they fall the ? off to begin with? -
KTULU IS BACK wrote: »honest question: if africa would be so much better today if the white man hadn't dropped by, howcome the white man was able to completely takeover the dark continent in the first place?
They had guns, lies and trickery. -
They had guns, lies and trickery.
africans aint have a single gun on the whole continent? why not? not enough ingenuity? africans cant do ballistics math?
and lol at being "tricked" out of a whole giant landmass. how dumb do you have to be to fall for that? -
KTULU IS BACK wrote: »africans aint have a single gun on the whole continent? why not? not enough ingenuity? africans cant do ballistics math?
and lol at being "tricked" out of a whole giant landmass. how dumb do you have to be to fall for that?
Moors had guns, where do you think Europeans got them from? You think Europe invented guns? lol no... Like everything else, they take take take.... claim for themselves and destroy. The moors had guns, but they did not mass produce them, because they did not intend them for conquering. Europeans got their hands on them and started mass producing them and building an army for the sole purpose of conquering the world. Africans did not see this coming because everyone had a so-called alliance. Europeans obviously broke that alliance when they invaded.
If a friend of yours came into your house, would you expect him to ? your family and take it over? No, you'd be caught the ? off guard too. The ? Europeans did was not obvious... just like today, you try to call them out on their ? and they got every lie trick and loophole to deny that ? ... not only deny it, but put it back onto the victim like it's their own fault. -
Turks.Moors had guns, where do you think Europeans got them from?
But Janklow can probably give you a more detailed answer.
You think Europe didn't invent any firearms at all?You think Europe invented guns?
How you ? gonna brag that the Moors conquered Spain (which they only got a third of anyway) and then say "oh they weren't about conquering."?The moors had guns, but they did not mass produce them, because they did not intend them for conquering.
lol
one armybuilding an army for the sole purpose of conquering the world.
okay
sure
oh i get itAfricans did not see this coming because everyone had a so-called alliance.
you're full of ?
lol at thinking the world was ever at peace on a grand scale
you said they marched in with an armyIf a friend of yours came into your house, would you expect him to ? your family and take it over?
if my friend showed up with an army, i would assume he mean business
lol you are really dumb -
KTULU IS BACK wrote: »honest question: if africa would be so much better today if the white man hadn't dropped by, howcome the white man was able to completely takeover the dark continent in the first place?
I'm going to break your question into two. Africa would be a better place today if the white man had not engaged in the slave trade and undertaken colonial and neo-colonial policies that exploited the African people.
The white man was able to take over Africa through superior firearms, tribal division, because the empires were declining, and because the Arab slave trade had served as a drain.by your logic, africans would have been on basically equal footing (if not better) with europe right before the invasions started
No, all I said was that they would have been better off.so what was the problem? where was africa's defense?
Africa is a continent. It was made up of numerous empires, tribes, kingdoms, and peoples who were not united in a defense of the continent. In fact, the ones who allied with the Europeans early on were better off in terms of trade and firearms and overall power.where were all these supposed african "polymaths" who could have said "hey, these guys intend to take all our ? "?
I see you were offended by the idea of African polymaths. Imhotep, Suyuti, Al-Jahiz, Abba Ibn Firnas, Ibn Rushd, and Ibn Khaldun were all polymaths of Africa.where were africa's weapons, which supposedly were as technologically advanced as europe's?
Disingenuous. I never said Africa had weapons as advanced at Europe's. At one time they did, but Europeans used Chinese gunpowder and advanced beyond anything the Africans could compete with.where were africa's fortified cities, built by its great "empires" over so many centuries?
In decline or dead.real talk. if africa was so baller, why did they fall the ? off to begin with?
Through decline and the destruction wrought by Europeans. -
ktulu is making people catch feelings lol
-
KTULU IS BACK wrote: »Turks.
But Janklow can probably give you a more detailed answer.
You think Europe didn't invent any firearms at all?
How you ? gonna brag that the Moors conquered Spain (which they only got a third of anyway) and then say "oh they weren't about conquering."?
lol
one army
okay
sure
oh i get it
you're full of ?
lol at thinking the world was ever at peace on a grand scale
you said they marched in with an army
if my friend showed up with an army, i would assume he mean business
lol you are really dumb
The turks were moors at the time....
Europe did not invent guns, they were given them, and then they mass produced them. Over the years, obviously they upgraded and made them more advanced because they had an agenda.
Moors did not use guns to slap the Romans around. The Romans were getting out of control and Hannibal had to put a stop to it.
wtf you talking about one army? You know what I meant.
An alliance does not mean peace, it just means everyone interacted with eachother and traded with eachother... just like nations do today. I never said peace.... try again. Europeans and Moors were always in conflict due to religious reasons...
They marched with an army into Moorish territory with guns. Africa is a different story. After they defeated the moors, they took over and established what they needed in order to get the ball rolling. They destroyed all moorish literature and culture and set up ports. this did not take 2 years. After that, they invaded Africa but not with armies but with false treaties and false alliances with certain tribes... and commence the fuckery. Had the Europeans never had guns, they would have never defeated the moors. -
In other words, Africa was already in trouble BEFORE the white man came along, because Africans couldn't keep it together.The white man was able to take over Africa through superior firearms, tribal division, because the empires were declining, and because the Arab slave trade had served as a drain.
Exactly my point.
I know.Africa is a continent. It was made up of numerous empires, tribes, kingdoms, and peoples who were not united in a defense of the continent.
I'm saying, howcome NONE of those various countries could defend themselves?
Imhotep is a mythical figure.I see you were offended by the idea of African polymaths. Imhotep,
Ethnicity: Arab.Suyuti,
Born and died in Iraq.Al-Jahiz,
Lived in Spain, not Africa.Abba Ibn Firnas,
Born in Spain, considered a Western European philosopher.Ibn Rushd,
Islamic education. Descended from Muhammad.and Ibn Khaldun
You listed one guy who probably never existed and a bunch of Muslims from after the Arab takeover of the north.were all polymaths of Africa.
Name an actual AFRICAN polymath who can be verified to have actually existed in real life. -
The turks were moors at the time....
ahahahahha you have no clue what you're talking about -
KTULU IS BACK wrote: »ahahahahha you have no clue what you're talking about
Are you being serious? Of course not.... -
KTULU IS BACK wrote: »In other words, Africa was already in trouble BEFORE the white man came along, because Africans couldn't keep it together.
Um, no.I know.
I'm saying, howcome NONE of those various countries could defend themselves?
I answered your question. It was made up of numerous empires, tribes, kingdoms, and peoples who were not united in a defense of the continent.Imhotep is a mythical figure.
No.Ethnicity: Arab.
Ethnicity: Egyptian.Born and died in Iraq.
He was a Zanj.Lived in Spain, not Africa.
Andalusia, when it was culturally part of North Africa. He was Berber.Born in Spain, considered a Western European philosopher.
Again, Andalusia. He was adopted by Western Europeans because he helped revive Aristotle. Doesn't change anything.Islamic education. Descended from Muhammad.
Disingenuous. He was North African.
lol, nice try. -
Yes. Deal with it.No.
Nope, he was an Arab who lived in Egypt. You could say his nationality was Egyptian, but at that time, Egypt was under the control of foreign Arab power.Ethnicity: Egyptian.
He did not live in Africa. How could he be an AFRICAN polymath?He was a Zanj.
So are all the white people that come up in Google image search for "berber"Andalusia, when it was culturally part of North Africa. He was Berber.
Again, if he didn't live on the continent of Africa, how can you call him an African polymath?Again, Andalusia. He was adopted by Western Europeans because he helped revive Aristotle. Doesn't change anything.
And he lived there waaaaaay after Arabs had taken over the northern side of the continent.Disingenuous. He was North African.
You're unable to name even a single "African polymath" who pre-dated the heavy influence of Islam. -
KTULU IS BACK wrote: »Yes. Deal with it.
Nope, just supposition on your part.Nope, he was an Arab who lived in Egypt. You could say his nationality was Egyptian, but at that time, Egypt was under the control of foreign Arab power.
They were under control of the Mamluks who were not Arab. Suyuti was Egyptian, his roots were in Egypt for generations before the Mamluk invasion.He did not live in Africa. How could he be an AFRICAN polymath?
He was Zanj, figure it out.So are all the white people that come up in Google image search for "berber"
White, tan, or black, Berbers are African.Again, if he didn't live on the continent of Africa, how can you call him an African polymath?
Andalusia was culturally part of Africa.And he lived there waaaaaay after Arabs had taken over the northern side of the continent.
And so he was African.You're unable to name even a single "African polymath" who pre-dated the heavy influence of Islam.
You want pre-Islamic polymaths?
Imhotep, Augustine, and Tertullian. -
Again, Imhotep is a legendary myth, not a real historical figure.
Augustine lived in the Roman Empire's territory.
Tertullian was from Carthage, a city that benefited from influences all over the Mediterranean.
Howcome all your polymaths are so heavily influenced by non-African cultures? Islam, Rome, Greece, etc. -
KTULU IS BACK wrote: »Again, Imhotep is a legendary myth, not a real historical figure.
Are you reading history books that were published before 1926? Because that's the only explanation for repeatedly arguing this line.Augustine lived in the Roman Empire's territory.
Where? That's right. Africa.Tertullian was from Carthage, a city that benefited from influences all over the Mediterranean.
Where? Yes, Africa.
North Africa, Egypt, and Eastern Africa did benefit from their proximities to Europe and the Middle East. Europe and the Middle East also benefited.Howcome all your polymaths are so heavily influenced by non-African cultures? Islam, Rome, Greece, etc.
Imhotep wasn't, but you're still waiting for the 1926 archaeological find that proved his existence.
The influence was mutual. That's how history works.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4Fjadh6S1g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYlZVS2uTak
