Thread: Why doesn't Africa move forward?

Is it because of the awkward territorial boundaries? Is it because of the power structures that were set up under colonialism? Is it because the first world wants to exploit them, and deliberately keeps them disorganized so they can't stand up for themselves? Is it because they entered the industrial revolution so late in the game?

I'm curious what makes old cultures so resistant to modern education. Do you think it's just vanity? (Don't want to have to admit someone else discovered it first.) Is it because it conflicts with their superstitions? (Maybe the reason Europe managed to keep its superstitions is because European education generally avoided conflicting with them when it didn't need to.) Is it because they vainly hope that modern technology will just go away and leave them alone? (Until their kids start wanting to drive cars.)

Now, I know a few countries, like Botswana, are not doing too poorly these days. You don't hear as much about the success stories, I guess, and I don't think we should count South Africa, since its (surviving) culture is basically European in origin, and always has been (at least since it became the country of South Africa.)

National boundaries set by colonial powers with no regard for tribal sensitivities.
Exploitation by the colonial powers of the resources and the peoples.
Insufficient effort by the colonial powers to leave an informed, educated class who could govern effectively without being beholden to tribal obligations.
Energy sapping climate.
Indigenous diseases such as malaria and sleeping sickness that wreak havoc with social and economic well being.
Ongoing commercial exploitation that is not deliberate in the sense you mean, but an outcome of delivering sharholder return for the exploiters.
Thirty eight other reasons I am not well educated enought to know or understand.

If you were devising a strategy to change it, which particular demon would you target first? They can't all be equally important. Something appears to be holding these countries in the state they're in, so they can't recover. Normally, wounds heal after a while.

Why doesn't Europe not move forward?

Originally Posted by kojax

If you were devising a strategy to change it, which particular demon would you target first?

Education and increased connectivity with the world beyond African borders (aka internet) would certainly be a good start.

Originally Posted by inow

Originally Posted by kojax

If you were devising a strategy to change it, which particular demon would you target first?

Education and increased connectivity with the world beyond African borders (aka internet) would certainly be a good start.

Six years ago, I was driving down a dusty street in Port Gentil, in Gabon. The road was crowded with pedestrians, beat up cars from the 70s, Japanese motorcycles, goats and the occassional cow. The roadside shops were selling vegetables, poultry, and meat; hardware, tools and building supplies; clothing and colourful materials; and in the space of half a mile I spotted at least three "Internet Cafe's". The connectivity is already there through much of the continent. Yes, it can be improved, but don't underestimate the revolution brought by that and the mobile phone to sub-Saharan Africa.

kojax; Don't you think, education may be the driver to progress or the possibility the lack of it. Dominance still rules in many places, the rule of some monarchy (heritage), religious order or the combination. Though many African Countries are forms of Democracy, you still have a large Muslim influence, some saying (documentation incomplete) near 50% of the total African Population where education remains limited. I wouldn't blame it on British Imperialism, maybe even blame the Independence movements and resulting chaos....

Ophiolite; I have noted your return and with the new addition to the forum, have decided to return myself. I didn't like the way you were treated, leaving myself, but do note I didn't care for the way YOU treated Megabrain. It's been awhile since I've heard fro MG, but if he is still active or alive, I feel sure he checks by this forum from time to time.

On the thread; Including South Africa, most those involved in Street vending or the old culture, while blocks from the newer culture may be generations from participation.

inow; This is going to be interesting. You and Ophie are very similar in character, attitudes and methods for discussing (not always on the same side of an issue), yet both adversaries of mine for many years. Their are many folks from Europe on this forum, as well. Anyway if any two people can bring back a forum, it should be you two and this has always been one of my favorites. Welcome...

Originally Posted by jackson33

kojax; Don't you think, education may be the driver to progress or the possibility the lack of it. Dominance still rules in many places, the rule of some monarchy (heritage), religious order or the combination. Though many African Countries are forms of Democracy, you still have a large Muslim influence, some saying (documentation incomplete) near 50% of the total African Population where education remains limited. I wouldn't blame it on British Imperialism, maybe even blame the Independence movements and resulting chaos....

I understand that a lot of South American countries have decided to focus large amounts of funding on their education programs. I heard that from an econ professor out of Mexico. Apparently they agree with you down there that it's the keystone of their problems. It will be interesting to see how it pans out for them. If I were Africa, I'd wait and see how it turns out before trying it myself, if only to learn from whatever pitfalls they encounter in the process.

And, if it is the main problem, I wonder what the best way to approach it would be? Should it be sort of a grass roots movement, or a series of government programs, or private charities sending aid workers? Is classical education more important, or vocational education?

I understand that a lot of South American countries have decided to focus large amounts of funding on their education programs. I heard that from an econ professor out of Mexico. Apparently they agree with you down there that it's the keystone of their problems. It will be interesting to see how it pans out for them. If I were Africa, I'd wait and see how it turns out before trying it myself, if only to learn from whatever pitfalls they encounter in the process.

kojax;
South American Countries have for the most part democratized. Chavez is trying to turn this around, but in all honesty, I think he will fail the old fashion way or the guillotine. Furthermore, Brazil, with the addition of the 2016 Summer Olympics, their current oil discoveries and over all general Capitalized Economical System are setting a good example for the rest of SA and Central America. I would suggest Central and South America are already doing a better job of educating their folks.

In Mexico, for instance;

In 2004, the literacy rate was at 97%[181] for youth under the age of 14 and 91% for people over 15,[182] placing Mexico at the 24th place in the world rank accordingly to UNESCO.[183] Primary and secondary education (9 years) is free and mandatory. Even though different bilingual education programs have existed since the 1960s for the indigenous communities, after a constitutional reform in the late 1990s, these programs have had a new thrust, and free text books are produced in more than a dozen indigenous languages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico
However Mexico and several others are having trouble developing a middle class population, most either very poor or wealthy. Crime and/or enforcement are additional problems (Drug Lords are a very powerful influence).

And, if it is the main problem, I wonder what the best way to approach it would be? Should it be sort of a grass roots movement, or a series of government programs, or private charities sending aid workers? Is classical education more important, or vocational education?

A good share of Africa, have very short life expectancies (late 30's to 40's), created by variety of problems, including the well known malnutrition and AID's. Depending on the Countries your talking about, most desires for the people are going to have to come from the people of both Africa and world organizations. All it would take is for a couple examples of success to pop up, like Brazil, Argentina and Mexico, to start the ball rolling, IMO. The Catholic Church could play a big roll in this, but are being hindered by the majority Muslim population and cleric, not to mention the intimidation, by government dead set on corruption over cooperation. Russia is also an big influence in Africa, in the same manner many American and Chinese Corporations/Interest are in trying to develop their resources. Water is another big problem, and here I believe the United Nations, could help. They have by far the highest degree of rainfall going right back into the oceans. The US retains about 65%, while Africa is some where around 10-15% (with out looking it up). Maybe the UN and the International Bank, could finance a few dams/canals in the right places to encourage agriculture and more livable areas. This would lead to the rest including education or the DESIRE to become something.

jackson33, it is great to see you back, welcome. Indeed, it is great to have Ophiolite back as well and your vouching for inow as a new member makes for some interesting times to come!

I agree with you, education is the major hindrance to progress. I would say the fact that most people in Africa have to really struggle to make a living makes them more edgy and more prone to exaggerated emotional states. When social competition is so strong, the edgier, more forceful and standoffish a person is, the more likely they'll be able to succeed by their standards of success. It is like the trees in forests that try to outgrow each other in order to catch as much sunlight as possible.

Kojax, South Africa is very much still a third world country. While we are the largest (or second largest?) economy in Africa, there is still a very large portion of the population that live in poverty. What mostly has happened in post-apartheid South Africa, as far as average income is concerned, is that the gap between the rich and poor has widened even further. I think the major reasons for this are rampant corruption and an ill conceived approach to black economic empowerment. Black people are routinely given jobs over previously advantaged racial groups despite often totally lacking relevant qualifications. While one can understand the impatience of people, this has certainly not been the best approach. Political parties position themselves so they will appeal to the masses. They know exactly how to illicit an emotional response in their followers and in so doing can do whatever they want as long as they play the game well.

I am sure that you all have followed the debacle during the 2009 World Athletics Championships where a person of questionable gender (Caster Semenya) won the woman’s 800m. The president of Athletics South Africa knew that his/her gender would be brought into question and even refused to accept the strong advice of the team doctor to not let her compete. He then lied to the media about it afterwards, fervently and repeatedly. He still has his job.

The leader of the ANC youth league is one of the biggest idiots I have ever seen. He has made an astounding number of asinine comments before, but during this fiasco he said that there is no word for hermaphrodite in their language and that the west should not try to impose such a concept on "them" (meaning black people).

Our President has admitted to knowingly having sex with an under-aged, HIV infected minor and to taking a shower afterwards to stop himself from getting AIDS. One of his closest friends was jailed for fraud and corruption, only to be released afterwards on the premise that he is nearing the end of a terminal illness and was seen driving to the shops a few months later. Our previous president claimed that poverty causes AIDS and our previous health minister advocated the use of herbs and garlic as a counter-measure to contracting AIDS. In the province I live in only 5 out of the 31 hospital managers have the necessary qualifications. These are only a few examples out of the putrid heap of absurdities that plague arguably the best country in Africa.

Education is definitely by far the biggest factor in Africa's sorry state of affairs and there is, very sadly indeed, no end in sight.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

The connectivity is already there through much of the continent. Yes, it can be improved, but don't underestimate the revolution brought by that and the mobile phone to sub-Saharan Africa.

A very fair point, indeed. Education is still the key. I only intended that it could be well supplemented by connecting with others and new ideas around the world. I'm glad to hear it's already farther along than I thought.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

and your vouching for inow as a new member makes for some interesting times to come!

I hope it won't be held against me. 8)

Originally Posted by jackson33

And, if it is the main problem, I wonder what the best way to approach it would be? Should it be sort of a grass roots movement, or a series of government programs, or private charities sending aid workers? Is classical education more important, or vocational education?

A good share of Africa, have very short life expectancies (late 30's to 40's), created by variety of problems, including the well known malnutrition and AID's. Depending on the Countries your talking about, most desires for the people are going to have to come from the people of both Africa and world organizations. All it would take is for a couple examples of success to pop up, like Brazil, Argentina and Mexico, to start the ball rolling, IMO.

Maybe that's where our efforts should be focused then: creating a few examples of success. Like, maybe focusing all of our efforts on a few countries instead of spreading it out over all of them? If it works, then we'd have a road map we could use for the others.

Water is another big problem, and here I believe the United Nations, could help. They have by far the highest degree of rainfall going right back into the oceans. The US retains about 65%, while Africa is some where around 10-15% (with out looking it up). Maybe the UN and the International Bank, could finance a few dams/canals in the right places to encourage agriculture and more livable areas. This would lead to the rest including education or the DESIRE to become something.

It's too bad we don't have the hydrogen economy going. I figure hydro electric dams would be big money if they could export the electricity to the first world somehow. That would probably motivate some investors. Maybe they could start doing some very electricity-intensive manufacturing in the area, and that would make the dams (and irrigation) more economically viable?

Originally Posted by inow

Originally Posted by KALSTER

and your vouching for inow as a new member makes for some interesting times to come!

I hope it won't be held against me. 8)

Not at all, quite the contrary. :wink:

Originally Posted by kojax

Maybe that's where our efforts should be focused then: creating a few examples of success. Like, maybe focusing all of our efforts on a few countries instead of spreading it out over all of them? If it works, then we'd have a road map we could use for the others.

It's too bad we don't have the hydrogen economy going. I figure hydro electric dams would be big money if they could export the electricity to the first world somehow. That would probably motivate some investors. Maybe they could start doing some very electricity-intensive manufacturing in the area, and that would make the dams (and irrigation) more economically viable?

Hydro Electric Dams, would be a viable investment in Africa and by African's or industry around the world. Contractors, think would jump all over this, with any International Interest shown. General Electric and think Haliburton are involved with China's infrastructure today and I invest in both. It also does not take that much a push to get this started, but the stabilizing of a or several societies. In dollars reward, I have no idea what the Hoover Dam as meant to Nevada, Arizona and California, alone but the cost to build would be dwarfed by any figure.

Electricity does suffer some loss (efficiency) with long transport (over wires), but can be interconnected, with all sorts of producers. That is in solving the water and agriculture problems with hydro, a Nuclear power plant or any alternative power source can easily be Incorporated. In the same menu, hygiene is a major problem with many premature deaths from food or water contamination, where a simple treatment facility could clear the entire problem for millions, yet producing clean water for agricultural purposes, if not drinking water (working fine on the Space Lab today).

It's all up to those that live in Africa, their attitude and to the thread educating folks to what could be....

Is it not because Africa has no great wealth of energy resources that would make the developed countries invest more money bringing jobs and prosperity?
Is this not evident in the developed nations' apparent indifference to the humanitarian disasters and injustices we see on the news? I don't know.

I'd say a notable problem is tribalism.

I can't say that there is a monolithic African identity. Africa is one of, if not the most ethnically, culturally, and linguistically diverse place on the planet. From what I've read, Nigeria alone has about 250 ethnic groups and over 500 languages within its borders.

While this continental diversity could be viewed as a blessing, it has also been a curse with ethnic divisions and the violence that can occur as a result, and said conflict wasn't helped by the European powers.

Originally Posted by Lucius Cornelius Sulla

I'd say a notable problem is tribalism.

I can't say that there is a monolithic African identity. Africa is one of, if not the most ethnically, culturally, and linguistically diverse place on the planet. From what I've read, Nigeria alone has about 250 ethnic groups and over 500 languages within its borders.

While this continental diversity could be viewed as a blessing, it has also been a curse with ethnic divisions and the violence that can occur as a result, and said conflict wasn't helped by the European powers.

Lucius; As an occasional poster myself to this forum, welcome to the discussion.

I don't think you could blame British Imperialism or the influences of European Nations, up to the time of most African National Independence status, were gained. I often think if England had tried to influence more, the benefits of education and a Democratic Society, they could have achieved a great deal more than were the results. However you are correct and the tribalism mentality or territorial dominance, certainly played a roll, continues today in various societies.

Diversity is not always a blessing, in my opinion and leads back to social superiority, opposed to possible tolerance of each other. I would think, the objective of a society should be accepting segments of peoples with differences, into a common welfare of the total. Said another way, what good is it to that total, if the a minority keeps on interfering with the the majority for other than the good of the total. I call that total anarchy

Originally Posted by Lucius Cornelius Sulla

I'd say a notable problem is tribalism.

I can't say that there is a monolithic African identity. Africa is one of, if not the most ethnically, culturally, and linguistically diverse place on the planet. From what I've read, Nigeria alone has about 250 ethnic groups and over 500 languages within its borders.

While this continental diversity could be viewed as a blessing, it has also been a curse with ethnic divisions and the violence that can occur as a result, and said conflict wasn't helped by the European powers.

I personally think that linguistic diversity is always a curse and never a blessing. It prevents communication. It might be the leading reason why the world is so un-united. The USA never has tense military relations with Canada, Australia, or England. It's easier for us to trade with them than it is to battle.

Originally Posted by quantumintel

Is it not because Africa has no great wealth of energy resources that would make the developed countries invest more money bringing jobs and prosperity?
Is this not evident in the developed nations' apparent indifference to the humanitarian disasters and injustices we see on the news? I don't know.

I think it's hard not to be indifferent when we know we can't do anything to fix it.
I mean, sure we can try, but the odds of it genuinely changing anything are virtually zero. Our resources would be better directed toward a problem that would actually benefit someone.

Foreign influence cannot touch tribes equally. So it supports one faction over another, promoting conflict. Then the conflict often does more harm than the original good gesture. That's quite obvious in massive interventions like Iraq or Afghanistan, but also true of micro-scale charity efforts.

My son's school has been doing this Water Project to raise money for a well in Africa since he was in grade one. Apparently there's this village, and they have nothing. Not even a well. The solution seems obvious. But you look into it, consider the context. Exactly who are these people, and are they native to that area? They appear to be squatters, or refugees, subsisting in a landscape that has always been the province of herds-people. Well, good on the herds-people to let refugees stay there. Now the villagers wish to dig in, with a well for starters. I suppose they'll wish to grow crops. Erect fences to keep animals out. Break the land, and so forth.

What happens to those other people adapted to the open country as it is? I reckon they are cowboy types... you know, like men with guns on horseback. I have a sinking feeling but I'll support the elementary students in their sweet intention, all the way.

You can't blame every problem that plagues the continent now on the Europeans, true.

However, the Europeans did play a significant role in Africa's path of development.

I would argue that colonialism has played less of a role in Africa's current situation than what most people would assume. Look at the one country in Africa that neither colonialism nor foreign influence has touched - Ethiopia. Are they any better off than the rest of Sub-Saharan Africa? Colonialism and foreign exploitation are the classic rationales of the old dependency theorists but there are endless examples of countries that seen substantial success post colonial rule (China, India, the US). Colonialism may have played some minor part in setting off a chain of events throughout Africa but it is definitely not the primary cause.

I would also argue that one of the reasons for Africa's situation is their dependency on foreign relief from countries like the US as well non-governmental organizations. Farmers no longer rely on a monthly crop to come in but instead they rely on the weekly ration of rice. We are giving them the proverbial fish so that they can eat for a day instead of teaching them to fish. Foreign relief cannot deliver what Africa needs. Africa has the resources and the potential to economically competitive but they need things like education and political liberties in order to do so.

Bootsy1661; Welcome to this forum....

Think we had pretty well lined up on a lack of education, in Africa, but I'd take that argument on Ethiopia. They have had serious problems in the past 50-60 years.

I would also argue that one of the reasons for Africa's situation is their dependency on foreign relief from countries like the US as well non-governmental organizations. Farmers no longer rely on a monthly crop to come in but instead they rely on the weekly ration of rice. We are giving them the proverbial fish so that they can eat for a day instead of teaching them to fish. Foreign relief cannot deliver what Africa needs. Africa has the resources and the potential to economically competitive but they need things like education and political liberties in order to do so.

Here is where, in my opinion, your correct. In pondering the problems seen in Haiti today, I've felt, all the good going on will solve nothing and when this impulsive good will has been exhausted, everything will back to what was, until the next disaster.

What, I'd like to see would be commercial investments, funded by investors possibly working with a major 'Charitable Fund', Gates 160B$ project comes to mind. One of the best investments today are investments in what's called the developing countries, through the markets (not organized). I'm not sure of the legal components, but if Gates, Warren Buffett or some recognized financial wizard starting a fund for commercial ventures only, there would probably be millions who would join in, seeing the potential down the road. Agricultural ventures would be on line, with additional benefits and there is literally a gold mine of potential in Africa, where irrigation is currently unheard of.

I would definitely agree that Africa is in need of some good ol' capitalist stimulation through commercial investment. But the only thing in the way of that is the severe lack of political freedom.

I think there was a misunderstanding with Ethiopia. I'm saying that although they have never been colonized they are still in the same boat with the rest of Africa. They are even worse off than some of the other countries in Africa that were colonized. And therefore colonization cannot be used as the primary excuse for Africa's problems.

I would say that Africa's problems have their headwaters within Africa itself and therefore i believe that change cannot come from outside countries like the US or organizations like the UN. Reform has to come from inside states like Sierra Leone, Sudan, and Ethiopia and once the desire for reform has been initiated the country will be able to profit more from the aid given to them from outside Africa. But giving money to countries with political leaders like Mugabe and Omar al-Bashir will provide nothing for the advancement of Africa.

Originally Posted by jackson33

Agricultural ventures would be on line, with additional benefits and there is literally a gold mine of potential in Africa, where irrigation is currently unheard of.

Confirming this point and discussing opportunities is this article here.

Originally Posted by Bootsy1661

I would definitely agree that Africa is in need of some good ol' capitalist stimulation through commercial investment. But the only thing in the way of that is the severe lack of political freedom.

I think there was a misunderstanding with Ethiopia. I'm saying that although they have never been colonized they are still in the same boat with the rest of Africa. They are even worse off than some of the other countries in Africa that were colonized. And therefore colonization cannot be used as the primary excuse for Africa's problems.

I would say that Africa's problems have their headwaters within Africa itself and therefore i believe that change cannot come from outside countries like the US or organizations like the UN. Reform has to come from inside states like Sierra Leone, Sudan, and Ethiopia and once the desire for reform has been initiated the country will be able to profit more from the aid given to them from outside Africa. But giving money to countries with political leaders like Mugabe and Omar al-Bashir will provide nothing for the advancement of Africa.

It's not just the political freedom. The government has to be stable and have some limits on corruption, or else investors are faced with the very real possibility that a corrupt government official will arbitrarily seize their investment, or start demanding large bribes in lieu of their ability to disrupt trade.

You just can't do business if there is no property ethic in place. No investor anywhere can afford to enter into situations where they are likely to not only fail at getting a return on their investments, but also likely to lose the investment itself. If you loan a developer a million dollars at 10% annual interest, you'll probably make about $500,000 by the end. (You'd think it would be a full million, but remember they're paying down the principal as they go.) If their whole project is seized by the government, then it's likely that you lose the full million, because the guy you loaned it to isn't going to be able to pay anything back.

The other rule that has to be remembered about investors is that it's not enough just to earn returns. There's also inflation. Your wealth has to increase faster than it depreciates. If you had a million dollars in the year 2000, and you haven't earned at least $280,000 off of it since, then you've gotten poorer.

http://inflationdata.com/inflation/i...or.asp#results

In any question like this one, there are two kinds of 'correct' answer.

1. That which is politically correct. For example : the reason why Africa gets nowhere is the legacy of colonialism. Politically correct, but otherwise a load of horse faeces!

2. Actually correct. The true reasons are often politically distasteful, and so get less of a hearing.

As has already been said, the real reason is endogenous to Africa. It has to be a common property of all sub Saharan African nations. The common factor is culture.

Compare Africa to Singapore, for example. After WWII, when the Japanese left Singapore, the place was an economic disaster. Poverty, disease, and extreme lack of natural resources to assist. A tiny island with too many people, and no clear way to go forward. Yet today, Singapore has a higher standard of living and more wealth per capita than most European nations. And that did NOT come from foreign aid! The driving force was the culture of the Singaporese. The wealth they tapped into was people. Singapore has a population of hard working and innovative people. The other factor was government. Their government was oppressive, but non corrupt, and did what it could to push the country ahead.

So what is the 'actually correct' answer why Africa is backward? It is culture. Tribalism is one cultural factor. When one tribe dominates in a country and treats other tribes in a way that would be criminal outside Africa, that is a highly destructive force. Nepotism is another factor. African culture rates family loyalty as the highest, even before loyalty to tribe. As a result, anyone who gets into power then uses that power to assist his family. Thus we get brothers and sisters of presidents who are government ministers, or heads of government corporations. They are incompetent and corrupt and suck the economic life out of that country.

Overall, the biggest problems in Africa is corrupt people in power, at all levels. Money that should be used to develop the countries is used instead to line the pockets of the powerful. The acceptance of corruption is another aspect of the cultural sickness that afflicts Africa.

Don't think I am being racist. All of these problems were endemic in Europe not too many centuries back. For Africa, the wrong culture and the wrong attitudes are a result of technologically backward, and tribal populations being thrust into the 21st century. It takes time to adapt.

So what is the answer? It is good leadership. Sadly, this is something that is rare in Africa. African nations need Nelson Mandela, Mohatma Gandhi, Winston Churchill, or their African equivalents. Sadly, for every Mandela, there are ten Robert Mugabe's. Until better leadership merges, Africa will remain backward.

Originally Posted by skeptic

It is culture. Tribalism is one cultural factor. When one tribe dominates in a country and treats other tribes in a way that would be criminal outside Africa, that is a highly destructive force. Nepotism is another factor. African culture rates family loyalty as the highest, even before loyalty to tribe. As a result, anyone who gets into power then uses that power to assist his family. Thus we get brothers and sisters of presidents who are government ministers, or heads of government corporations. They are incompetent and corrupt and suck the economic life out of that country.

I kinda agree. Africa's economy is ever threatened by kinship and family values. Skeptic's saying Africans should value economy more, family less. Skeptic makes his own values plain.

Just look at those African women carrying spoilt brats on their backs. Better do like the English: put the babies in cribs with bottled milk, send the children to school and day-care. Dispatch the old folks to care homes. Distance from needy relatives. Step over the beggars, though they be your childhood friends. Focus on oneself, one's own personal development. Be cold or ruthless if necessary to pursue career and climb the ladder. Oh yeah and if you see Robin Hood inform the proper authorities.

This will make the world better, will it? I think that's a question of values. Maybe some cultures go backwards and don't even know it.

Pong

Family values are fine. I have not said put the economy first. What I say is that a leader must put the people he leads first. However, if national leaders put their family's wealth ahead of the good of the nation, then the nation suffers.

This happens right across Africa. In fact, typically, an African national leader will put his own welfare first - meaning the chance to steal billions of dollars - and then deliver this opportunity next to his family, and then thirdly give his tribe the chance to win power and wealth at the expense of his nation.

The typical African leader, who should be dedicated to the welfare of his country, actually puts the country last. And the country suffers.

The thing Africa need more than anything else is good government. All the aid money in the world just goes to pad out the Swiss bank account of the president. Africa needs more Nelson Mandela's. Leaders who care, and put their people first.

Leadership varies across Africa, ranging from saintly leaders like Mandela to utterly evil and corrupt men like Mugabe. Those countries with the least evil leaders are the ones that develop the best. Zimbabwe was once quite wealthy by African standards, and even exported food. Today, under the 'leadership' of its evil despot, it is a hotbed of crime, misery, famine, disease and death. The United Nations judged Harare as the most dangerous city in the world to live in. Everything comes down from leadership, and corrupt government means misery to the African people.

Originally Posted by Pong

Originally Posted by skeptic

It is culture. Tribalism is one cultural factor. When one tribe dominates in a country and treats other tribes in a way that would be criminal outside Africa, that is a highly destructive force. Nepotism is another factor. African culture rates family loyalty as the highest, even before loyalty to tribe. As a result, anyone who gets into power then uses that power to assist his family. Thus we get brothers and sisters of presidents who are government ministers, or heads of government corporations. They are incompetent and corrupt and suck the economic life out of that country.

I kinda agree. Africa's economy is ever threatened by kinship and family values. Skeptic's saying Africans should value economy more, family less. Skeptic makes his own values plain.

Just look at those African women carrying spoilt brats on their backs. Better do like the English: put the babies in cribs with bottled milk, send the children to school and day-care. Dispatch the old folks to care homes. Distance from needy relatives. Step over the beggars, though they be your childhood friends. Focus on oneself, one's own personal development. Be cold or ruthless if necessary to pursue career and climb the ladder. Oh yeah and if you see Robin Hood inform the proper authorities.

Yes. They should do exactly like the English. They might start by having fewer children/smaller families. If you focus all your attention on family, you'll start wanting more kids, because they can pay attention to each other, and that takes effort off of the parent. Sending them to daycare is just a way for a parent to retain their sanity if they only plan to have 1 or 2 kids, and that way the kid has other kids to play with.

In a society like the USA, where a Mexican immigrant who arrives with only the clothes on their back can get a job, work, buy a home, and send money back to Mexico, only lazy and/or mentally unstable people can possibly end up homeless for any long length of time. (And I do feel bad for the crazy ones.)

This will make the world better, will it? I think that's a question of values. Maybe some cultures go backwards and don't even know it.

The reason mental illness/instability is the only major cause of homelessness in most of the USA, is exactly because of the values we set.

The cultural values you're describing focus on how to use tools if you have them available. American/English cultural values focus on acquiring as many tools as possible, and then it doesn't really matter how you use them. After a while, you accumulate so many resources that you don't even have to set priorities. Everything you want to include in your "to do" list fits.

kojax; Frankly, I have no idea, where your going here, but will offer an opinion;


If an investor or group of, decide to start up a business in another country, even in the US, they are held to the laws of that Government. If you are acceptable to that government, you then start your project accordingly. If Africa, this may take 100.00 US$, where in the US, it could be up to 100,000 US$ (same business model), pending on permits (local/State/Federal), laws suits from any of the 100 major environmental groups and so on, which more often than not could be millions....Since any project, will employ locals and benefit the government (authority), and if the final product, food/clothing/shelter or other would be beneficial to the population, other than in the US or some industrialized Nation, your not likely to be taken over or regulated out of business. Other trade off's, are labor availability, those cost, taxes, regulations, markets/transportation, cost of utilities, insurance and a host of cost that in the US are going to be incomparable. I would guess, somewhat knowledgeable with feasibility reports, there would be a 10/20-1 differential in the final cost of a product, produced in Africa opposed to in the US, yet pay four/five times the prevailing labor cost.

Government, corrupt or not are concerned with stability in their country, IMO. If force is NOT required in some areas, I believe they will accept a business community. Even if over time, the Government steps in (I think not likely), it should be a net pay off to whatever that point is. Long ago, think in the 50's, before South Africa stabilized, Mining Investors were paid dividends equal to the value of the investment, almost every year, knowing it could end the next day.

I'm not thinking 'International Harvester', though related, could go in, build an assembly plant to produce tractors, but Con Agra, or some of the US West Coast Corporate Farming Groups, along with major buyers of certain agricultural products, feed lots, Green House Farming, or the many fresh or salt water fish farming industries, would have a field day for themselves, as well as many of the individuals countries in Africa. If nothing else, the US and Egypt, do get along and they could go through them, if necessary.

It's been my belief, for 50 years, that both South America and Africa, should at least consider uniting their Countries, similar to the intend of the US, in the late 18th century or later as what was done as the European Union. This issue, may be the chicken or the egg scenario, I don't know, but waiting for most of the African Continent to settle under one ideology, may not work. They are fast becoming Muslim, then many extremist or Catholic, both promoting unfettered breeding, discourage education for the most part and dependency on one false idea or another. It doesn't need to be another form of 'Imperialism' either, if the intent and actions are directed at both profit and the people of the community. It worked in the US, most the industrialized world and IMO could work there....

People are underestimating the effect of Western influence on damaging Africa. First of all, Africa has made huge progress through the African union and is one of the few regions in the world still dedicated to really maintaining the UN as a platform for international conflict resolution.

Some countries have only had 20-30 years without direct European influence. Besides the fact that France still maintains a presence in the Ivory Coast. It's difficult to discount the influence of Europeans when you can track things like the Rwandan genocide right back to the feet of the Belgians. Moreover, a country like the Congo doesn't walk away from millions of people, including it's elite class, being slaughtered during 50 years of colonial occupation.

Moreover, the West is hardly hands off these days. The Sudan's famine is largely a product of the UN forcing them to stop producing a surplus of grain so that they could produce cash crops to pay back debt, but then when drought hits uh oh, look at those starving Sudanese. Then when people are starving everything goes to shit and you get ethnic cleansing. You also have Europe's unwillingness to pick up any slack to take care of conflicts before they break out. When the Balkans explodes into conflict they're right on it, but God forbid someone put a stop to the Liberian civil war.

Then you have Japanese fishing ships trawling the East Coast of Africa and starving local fishermen. Should we be surprised when Somali fishermen turn into Somali pirates?

Oh and those great Chinese dumping money into corrupt governments to buy land for grain production so that they can cause massive inflation in food cost within Africa.

Originally Posted by skeptic

Compare Africa to Singapore, for example. After WWII, when the Japanese left Singapore, the place was an economic disaster. Poverty, disease, and extreme lack of natural resources to assist. A tiny island with too many people, and no clear way to go forward. Yet today, Singapore has a higher standard of living and more wealth per capita than most European nations. And that did NOT come from foreign aid! The driving force was the culture of the Singaporese. The wealth they tapped into was people. Singapore has a population of hard working and innovative people. The other factor was government. Their government was oppressive, but non corrupt, and did what it could to push the country ahead.

Singapore also had access to ready made infrastructure in roads, airports, and communications technology left behind by the Japanese. Add to this the possibility for mercantilist economic policy and, as you said, totalitarian control of economic development. This simply isn't an option for Africa. For one, the World Bank would never allow such extreme mercantilism. Secondly, they don't have the resources to implement it. Thirdly, no African nation is centralized enough for such a totalitarian and powerful government to take form.

To tired and sleepy

Sorry, you cannot write off the difference between Africa and Singapore that easily. Many African nations have had enormous sums of money injected through aid, and World Bank loans, which has 'mysteriously' disappeared. Many African nations have had totalitarian government even more oppressive than that of Lee Kwan Yu in Singapore, and their poverty simply increases.

The difference between Singapore and, say, Zimbabwe, is corrupt government stealing from the people, plus corruption at lower levels of the bureaucracy. These did not happen in Singapore and the nation thrived. If you had looked at Singapore in 1946, you would have voted it nation least likely to succeed. Overpopulated. Tiny land area. No natural resources. Infrastructure in ruins after Japanese occupation.

If you looked at Nigeria, with its massive oil and mineral resources, what would you have said back then? Yet today, Singapore is wealthy, and Nigeria is in financial ruins, despite the massive outflow of oil. The difference is government and leadership.

Originally Posted by jackson33

kojax; Frankly, I have no idea, where your going here, but will offer an opinion;


If an investor or group of, decide to start up a business in another country, even in the US, they are held to the laws of that Government. If you are acceptable to that government, you then start your project accordingly. If Africa, this may take 100.00 US$, where in the US, it could be up to 100,000 US$ (same business model), pending on permits (local/State/Federal), laws suits from any of the 100 major environmental groups and so on, which more often than not could be millions....Since any project, will employ locals and benefit the government (authority), and if the final product, food/clothing/shelter or other would be beneficial to the population, other than in the US or some industrialized Nation, your not likely to be taken over or regulated out of business. Other trade off's, are labor availability, those cost, taxes, regulations, markets/transportation, cost of utilities, insurance and a host of cost that in the US are going to be incomparable. I would guess, somewhat knowledgeable with feasibility reports, there would be a 10/20-1 differential in the final cost of a product, produced in Africa opposed to in the US, yet pay four/five times the prevailing labor cost.

The ability to think about the common welfare, like what you're describing, is a cultural trait. Not all cultures have it. In a highly tribalist culture, you're going to see more individual oriented behavior than group oriented behavior.

The government as a whole might care about the overall economy, but the government as a collection of self interested individuals only cares about lining their own pockets. No individual rain drop believes it is responsible for the flood. Everyone in the government is expecting someone else to do the right thing, and fix their country, before they'll bother. As long as there is someone worse for them to point their finger at, they can feel free to commit as many crimes as they want.

Government, corrupt or not are concerned with stability in their country, IMO. If force is NOT required in some areas, I believe they will accept a business community. Even if over time, the Government steps in (I think not likely), it should be a net pay off to whatever that point is. Long ago, think in the 50's, before South Africa stabilized, Mining Investors were paid dividends equal to the value of the investment, almost every year, knowing it could end the next day.

This is not true of corrupt governments, or not fully true. Apathy towards the bigger picture is exactly what's wrong with corruption. A government official who takes a bribe or diverts money from public funds is thinking only of themselves, and not the bigger picture.

The way it goes down in a 3rd world country is usually going to be for some government leader to embezzle millions of dollars out of the government's treasury, and then simply skip town with the money, and move to an industrialized country to spend it. You can bet that guy isn't too worried about what will happen to his country after he's gone. In situations like that, the government is all too happy to seize your assets. The more they seize, the more they can embezzle, and the easier their embezzlements are to hide.