• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

why is sub-sahara so bad?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
H54 said:
Thats not true at all. There were several nations and states in place prior to European arrival. Check out what anthropologist consider necessary for a state or nation to exist.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that there weren't functioning states before the Europeans came, but that the colonies the Europeans created had arbitrary borders. That has led to tons of conflict between and within the nations that followed.
 
preslove said:
You know fuck all about "history material," you empty headed idiot. You are too fucking stupid to understand what is racist and what isn't.
Click to expand...

Ttalk about being stupid, many of the things you have stated are exactly what is meant by understanding the people that live there, so feel free to hop aboard that clue buss the next time it runs you over.


And you want racist, how about when the US outlawed the import of any further slaves and those pesky subsaharan's still enslaved each other, both to offer for sale to non-africans and for their own use. Those racist!
 
ShawnD1 said:
So basically it has the same history as USA, Canada, Mexico, and all of othe other countries in north and south America. Instead of turning out like USA or Canada, it worked out more like Nicaragua or Haiti.
Click to expand...

Absolutely not.

The big difference between the Americas' and Africa's development stems from disease. The peoples of the Americas were isolated from the Eurasian land mass and therefore had never developed immunities to their diseases. So, when the Europeans came into contact with the indian poeples, they infected the indigenous populations and set off the WORST plagues in human history. Some estimates put the percentage of dead to ~90%. This allowed the Spanish to easily enslave the surviving indians of south america, and the English settlers to slaughter & ethnically cleanse the surviving indians of north america.

In Sub Saharan Africa, it was the reverse. They had the immunities to European diseases AND they had others, like sleeping sickness, terrible malaria, and others. This meant that European colonialists had a pretty high mortality rate. This is one reason why South Africa is the only South African country that saw large scale European settlement. And, even there, the whites were a minority population. Most African colonies were just there for exploitative agriculture and mining.
 
lupi said:
Ttalk about being stupid, many of the things you have stated are exactly what is meant by understanding the people that live there, so feel free to hop aboard that clue buss the next time it runs you over.


And you want racist, how about when the US outlawed the import of any further slaves and those pesky subsaharan's still enslaved each other, both to offer for sale to non-africans and for their own use. Those racist!
Click to expand...

Are you current wearing:

kkk.jpg
 
preslove said:
I'm not saying that there weren't functioning states before the Europeans came, but that the colonies the Europeans created had arbitrary borders. That has led to tons of conflict between and within the nations that followed.
Click to expand...


Thats true. But what you wrote stated something completely different.

"...those counties usually had no real cultural, historical, or linguistic foundations in to build a nation on..."
 
lupi said:
Ttalk about being stupid, many of the things you have stated are exactly what is meant by understanding the people that live there, so feel free to hop aboard that clue buss the next time it runs you over.


And you want racist, how about when the US outlawed the import of any further slaves and those pesky subsaharan's still enslaved each other, both to offer for sale to non-africans and for their own use. Those racist!
Click to expand...

The point of my post was that Europeans destroyed the governments societies that had evolved there, and then replaced them governments that were almost designed to fail. You don't manage an empire by creating cohesive colonies. No, you set them up so that the indigenous populations are in conflict and have to come to you for arbitration. Take out the colonialists on top and you get near constant warfare.

Of course, you're too stupid to understand something like this.
 
H54 said:
Thats true. But what you wrote stated something completely different.

"...those counties usually had no real cultural, historical, or linguistic foundations in to build a nation on..."
Click to expand...

I meant the new countries. I clarified it just now by writing "...those new counties usually had no real cultural..."
 
lupi said:
And you want racist, how about when the US outlawed the import of any further slaves and those pesky subsaharan's still enslaved each other, both to offer for sale to non-africans and for their own use. Those racist!
Click to expand...


Don't forget that Saudi Arabia only outlawed slavery in 1962 and it's been estimated that in the early 1960's, Saudi Arabia had over 300K slaves.

And all this about Europeans destroying African nations and the like....while the Europeans were complicit in keeping the various African nations down and not progressing, do not forget that Arabs engaged in a slave trade for over 1000 years, decimating Africa and the nations contained therein. Also include in that the Ottomans, Turks, Greeks, etc. It's been going on almost since recorded history......Sumer, Islamic Caliphate, Egypt, China, Assyria, India for example

So, the "modern" Europeans were only one of the later oppressors in Africa....and shorter lived ones, too.
 
Meghan54 said:
Don't forget that Saudi Arabia only outlawed slavery in 1962 and it's been estimated that in the early 1960's, Saudi Arabia had over 300K slaves.

And all this about Europeans destroying African nations and the like....while the Europeans were complicit in keeping the various African nations down and not progressing, do not forget that Arabs engaged in a slave trade for over 1000 years, decimating Africa and the nations contained therein. Also include in that the Ottomans, Turks, Greeks, etc. It's been going on almost since recorded history......Sumer, Islamic Caliphate, Egypt, China, Assyria, India for example

So, the "modern" Europeans were only one of the later oppressors in Africa....and shorter lived ones, too.
Click to expand...


I'm going to act like a regular forumite and toss common sense out the window and declare you're obviously racist.
 
Meghan54 said:
Don't forget that Saudi Arabia only outlawed slavery in 1962 and it's been estimated that in the early 1960's, Saudi Arabia had over 300K slaves.
Click to expand...
Much of the arab world still has ~slaves. They recruit poor people from countries like Bangladesh to do construction work. When the workers arrive, their passports and identification are taken away, they are given no money, and they receive food in exchange for work.

here's a brief explanation of how it works:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_United_Arab_Emirates#Migrant_and_labor_rights


In Sub Saharan Africa, it was the reverse. They had the immunities to European diseases AND they had others, like sleeping sickness, terrible malaria, and others. This meant that European colonialists had a pretty high mortality rate.
Click to expand...
Interesting.
 
I think I'm the only South African regularly posting on these boards - correct?

The colonial powers did have a huge influence on African countries, but the biggest influence at the moment is rampant corruption. I dont think many Americans appreciate how bad corruption is here, or how bad the police are getting. A lady bumped a police van outside a police station, so the sergeant walks outside and shoots her dead. Yes it happened, recently. Yes he is being tried for murder. Point is, its hardly a unique occurence.

Anyway, by corruption I mean ministers giving contracts to family members and taking all expenses paid holidays to America at the taxpayers expense. I can go on. Expensive luxury cars for anyone at the right level of government, whether the taxpayers can afford it or not. There is little oversight, and even worse, there seems to be little desire to stop the corruption.

I think it will take some time for the corruption to settle down. Right now, those in government only got to power recently. They are drunk with power and wealth, and want to do exactly what the whites did - make as much money in as little time as possible, doing as little as possible. At least in South Africa's case, this results in something like animal farm - the lot of your average black man hasnt changed, only the government is now black too. But they care about as much about blacks in poverty as the old racist apartheid government did.

True story - my uncle, high up in business, had the opportunity to speak with a wealthy and powerful black guy, with connections to government. This guys exact words were "Fuck the poor". Now, I'm not being racist and claiming that only a black person could be so callous - some white people have been and still just as callous, if not more so. My point is that the government of these African states is not aligned with what the people actually want or need. More bluntly, they just dont care. They really, really, dont care. Once the revolution was won, its every man for himself, it seems.

preslove said:
In Sub Saharan Africa, it was the reverse. They had the immunities to European diseases AND they had others, like sleeping sickness, terrible malaria, and others. This meant that European colonialists had a pretty high mortality rate. This is one reason why South Africa is the only South African country that saw large scale European settlement. And, even there, the whites were a minority population. Most African colonies were just there for exploitative agriculture and mining.
Click to expand...

Probably partially true but there is no such thing as a resistance to malaria. It makes the mosquito the most dangerous animal in africa for a reason.
 
lupi said:
For the non-intelligent schmucks that reported me for some bogus racism crap, feel free to read some history material before talking out of you ass again.
Click to expand...

I'll side with you if you clarify what you meant by your remarks.

And to the OP, it sucks because the people have basically not progressed beyond a tribal society mindset and thus exhibit an extremely primitive political, social, and economic when compared to the West. Europe was basically in the same spot until the Renaissance; the Muslims basically thought Europeans were as back-assward then as we think of Africa now.
 
lupi said:
For the non-intelligent schmucks that reported me for some bogus racism crap, feel free to read some history material before talking out of you ass again.
Click to expand...

You are the one making the unpopular, and unusual claim, therefore the burden of proof is on you. Either back up the claims or don't even bother talking at all...

I might be misunderstanding what you are trying to say, and I apologize if I am, but it sounds like your above statement is saying that history supports your racist claims (from your earlier post)?

Or have we misunderstood your earlier post, which was not intended to be racist? In which case please elaborate because I think most have interpreted both posts as racist.
 
Clean Running water, no
Clean water, no
running water, no
water, not really (unless you count that brown stuff loaded with e. coli as water...)
health insurance, no
medicine, no
doctors, not really (very very very low number of doctors per capita)
infrastructure, no, not really

Essentially, conditions are so fvcking bad that anybody who makes it into adulthood has survived conditions worse than most of us in "rich" countries could even imagine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top