• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:508]Why is Africa the most backward continent in the world? Is African culture to blame?

And many were living in large cities chock full of gold, stone, and ivory.

Utter nonsense.

Where are these cities now?

Many Africans did become wealthy by selling their fellows into slavery. However, their wealth ended when Europeans outlawed slavery in Africa.

If they had had cities chock full of gold, they would have been able to finance armies easily capable of defeating small numbers of Europeans who arrived in ships to colonise Africa.

Africans in Central and Southern Africa lived mostly in mud/grass huts and wore animal skins when Europeans arrived in Africa. Those in Northern Africa which experienced Arabic influence and benefited thereon, were indeed somewhat better off, but not much.
 
They were helping the government of Angola defend itself from repeated invasions from the apartheid regime.

They were supporting a Communist Angolan regime.

Read a history book.
 
Utter nonsense.

Where are these cities now?

Some are still around, although I wouldn't go to Axum right now if I were you. Others became the cities you see today, while some were abandoned. Not a whole lot different than anywhere else in the world.

Many Africans did become wealthy by selling their fellows into slavery. However, their wealth ended when Europeans outlawed slavery in Africa.

Uh, no. African Empires, just like empires all over the world, waxed and waned with time.

If they had had cities chock full of gold, they would have been able to finance armies easily capable of defeating small numbers of Europeans who arrived in ships to colonise Africa.

How? Africa's population density is low and much of the interior of the continent is not easily accessible due to a lack of navigable rivers.

Africans in Central and Southern Africa lived mostly in mud/grass huts and wore animal skins when Europeans arrived in Africa.

So they utilized clothing and habilitation suited to the environment they were in, with the resources they had on hand?

Those in Northern Africa which experienced Arabic influence and benefited thereon, were indeed somewhat better off, but not much.

The history of North Africa goes back far before the Arabs.
 
They were supporting a Communist Angolan regime.

Read a history book.

They were defending the government of Angola against repeated cross border invasions from the apartheid regime.

You supporting the apartheid regime’s attacks doesn’t change the fact that Cuba and Russia had every right to help the Angolans defend themselves.
 
Some are still around, although I wouldn't go to Axum right now if I were you. Others became the cities you see today, while some were abandoned. Not a whole lot different than anywhere else in the world.

A quite dismal "reply" to my request for you to disclose where the cities are that you described as "large cities chock full of gold, stone, and ivory."

This is actually a whole lot different to the rest of the world where most cities are far more advanced and desirable to live in than those in "basket case" Africa.

So they utilized clothing and habilitation suited to the environment they were in, with the resources they had on hand?

So did people in Europe, Asia, the Americas etc.

The difference being that Africans, especially in Central and Southern Africa were still living a stone age existence whilst others built modern cities, ships and societies.

The history of North Africa goes back far before the Arabs.

Of course it does, but it was the Arabs, Romans and other Europeans that civilised the area......not indigenous Africans.
 
They were defending the government of Angola against repeated cross border invasions from the apartheid regime.

If you read a history book, you will discover that neither UNITA nor the FNLA, who provided the vast majority of troops who fought against the Communist MPLA/Cuban alliance were supporters of apartheid.....neither was the USA which supported the South African/FNLA/UNITA alliance and neither was Zaire which also supported the attack on the Cuban/MPLA alliance.

Why do you spew forth such nonsense?
 
If you read a history book, you will discover that neither UNITA nor the FNLA, who provided the vast majority of troops who fought against the Communist MPLA/Cuban alliance were supporters of apartheid.....neither was the USA which supported the South African/FNLA/UNITA alliance and neither was Zaire which also supported the attack on the Cuban/MPLA alliance.

Why do you spew forth such nonsense?

If you read a history book, you’d know that UNITA accepted aid from literally anyone offering, including the People’s Republic of China, which supported them for nearly a decade. The apartheid regime jumping in to help them is hardly surprising.

The Reagan administration desperately tried to block additional sanctions on apartheid South Africa but was overridden by decent human beings.

“Zaire”, meanwhile, was under a tyrannical and laughably corrupt dictatorship which, again, would support literally anyone who paid cash.

None of which, however, changes the fact that the apartheid regime repeatedly invaded Angola.

I get you don’t know anything about history, but you should try not embarrassing yourself for once.
 
A quite dismal "reply" to my request for you to disclose where the cities are that you described as "large cities chock full of gold, stone, and ivory."

This is actually a whole lot different to the rest of the world where most cities are far more advanced and desirable to live in than those in "basket case" Africa.

Mansa Musa is often regarded to have been one of the wealthiest men in the world, so this notion that African has always been a dirt poor continent is nonsensical.

So did people in Europe, Asia, the Americas etc.

And you criticize Africans for it...why?

The difference being that Africans, especially in Central and Southern Africa were still living a stone age existence whilst others built modern cities, ships and societies.

"Stone age" for a people who had been smelting iron since 1,000 BCE? The Africans built cities, such as Great Zimbabwe, with the tools and resources they had on hand.

If you're asking "why didn't sub-Sahara Africa not have big cities like Rome before the Europeans" the answer is as I have alluded to before; Africa has a low population density that in many areas would have precluded the formation of dense habitation areas necessary for the formation of large states and institutions.

If you're asking "why didn't Africa have big continent spanning empires like the Roman or Persian empires", the answer is that without navigable rivers and horses (coincidentally, the places that did have horses like Somalia and Mali, repeatedly formed large empires) it's hard to build one, and you're basically complaining that Africans aren't super human.

Of course it does, but it was the Arabs, Romans and other Europeans that civilised the area......not indigenous Africans.

This is nonsense. The Berbers predate them all and were widely renowned as among the best cavalry of antiquity.
 
Africa continues to be ridden with corruption, violence and poor governance. Why?
Africa is a continent, not a country.

There are 54 countries in Africa. Some are wealthy some are poor. Have you been to any? I have, before you paint with a broad brush try doing a little research or travel.
 
There are 54 countries in Africa. Some are wealthy some are poor. Have you been to any? I have, before you paint with a broad brush try doing a little research or travel.

Er, yes. Went to school in Malawi and lived elsewhere in Southern Africa for several decades.

Hence, my interest in that continent.

Your only contribution here is to make the blatantly obvious statement that Africa is a continent....a fact you probably derived from searching Google.

To educate yourself on how much of a basket case Africa is, go to the statistics which show which are the poorest people in the world in terms of GDP per Capita......they're in Africa.

Let me help you :

 
Simple. Divide and conquer imperialism and constant interference in internal governance by foreign powers supporting corrupt, rapacious dictatorships in exchange for one-sided economic ties. France is one of the biggest culprits along with Great Britain, but China is rapidly catching up. If foreign powers did to Europe what Europe has done and continues to do to Africa, Europe would look like what it did back during the Thirty Years War.
That's too simplistic of an answer. Imperialism can't be blamed for everything, and it's not even feasible to do so with how vast the continent is.
 
Mansa Musa is often regarded to have been one of the wealthiest men in the world, so this notion that African has always been a dirt poor continent is nonsensical.

"Often regarded" ? Lol!

His wealth is impossible to estimate.

I suggest you use Google to find out what Timbuktu is like now.

That you have to go back to the 13th century to find an African that you deem successful speaks volumes.
 
"Often regarded" ? Lol!

His wealth is impossible to estimate.

? Is that really the best you can come up with?

I suggest you use Google to find out what Timbuktu is like now.

Yeah, colonization can really **** a place up. Who knew?

That you have to go back to the 13th century to find an African that you deem successful speaks volumes.

I can find plenty of successful Africans in modern times; there's more than a billion of them. Are you sure you worded this statement correctly?
 
Yeah, colonization can really **** a place up.

You must wonder why the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc etc are amongst the most desired destinations for African emigrants.

Africa is actually far worse off now than during the colonial period :

"One half of the African continent lives below the poverty line. In sub-Saharan Africa, per capita GDP is now less than it was in 1974, having declined over 11 percent."

 
You must wonder why the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc etc are amongst the most desired destinations for African immigrants.


Because they're wealthy nations with high standards of living and economic opportunity.
 
I have no idea. Nobody has.....except maybe Nostradamus.

You may not know, but there are very few fascist dictators left in Africa. Most nations are democratically elected, although elections are often rigged.

Most Africans, especially those in Central and Southern Africa who had not benefitted from Arab influences, were still running around wearing animal skins and living in mud huts before colonisation.

Colonisation brought civilisation to Africa. Roads, railways, the rule of law, schools, universities, employment opportunities etc did not exist prior to colonisation.

You can try to blame whites all you like (African Americans still use the same excuse) but what have Africans achieved by themselves?

Answer : Very, very little.
Well there’s America’s unique and principle contribution to the world, jazz and rock, which comes from Africans.

But are we to conclude that Africans, by virtue of their skin color or simply by being Africans, are inferior? They certainly seem to be better at basketball. But are Jews better business people? Italians better cooks? Irish better poets?
 
Because they're wealthy nations with high standards of living and economic opportunity.

Exactly.

They are all former colonised nations.

Do their people make silly excuses today about colonisation holding them back?

Instead of becoming ridden with corruption, nepotism and inefficiency like many African nations, they have become places that billions of people would love to live in.
 
That's too simplistic of an answer. Imperialism can't be blamed for everything, and it's not even feasible to do so with how vast the continent is.

Perhaps, Fishking. Though I would argue it is far less simplistic an answer than some undefined "African culture" being to blame; a singular culture which somehow infects all Africans despite the peoples being as disparate and diverse as those of Asia.
 
But are we to conclude that Africans, by virtue of their skin color or simply by being Africans, are inferior? They certainly seem to be better at basketball. But are Jews better business people? Italians better cooks? Irish better poets?

As the heading of this thread suggests, cultural differences are most likely the cause.
 
None of which were colonized in the same level or manner as Africa, so that means very little.

A weak excuse.

Many Africans were largely unaffected by colonisation, except of course for no longer having to fear slavery (banned by colonial powers) and being able to benefit from schools, universities, hospitals, the rule of law, increases in life expectancy etc etc
 
A weak excuse.

It's not an excuse, it's a historical explanation.

You seem to not want to accept any answer that isn't "Africa is poor and impoverished because African culture is bad". Coincidentally, you can't actually explain what is it about African culture that is "bad".
 
Africa continues to be ridden with corruption, violence and poor governance. Why?
Because they're black and have inherited their countries from European dominance. That's why you focus on African corruption, violence and poor governance while ignoring the European corruption, violence and poor governance still working in Latin America.
 
As the heading of this thread suggests, cultural differences are most likely the cause.
How can a continent as large as Africa be said to have but one (faulty) culture? No one says it of Latin America, even tho the vast majority of its countries are united by one language.
 
Back
Top Bottom