Why is the African continent poor?

[Jesus Malverde]

I was asked to investigate why it is that the vast majority of African countries are clustered at or near the bottom of the United Nations Human Development Index - in other words they have a pretty appalling standard of living.

Snip

And the headline question is in fact misleading; Africans as a people may be poor, but Africa as a place is fantastically rich - in minerals, land, labour and sunshine.

That is why outsiders have been coming here for hundreds of years - to invade, occupy, convert, plunder and trade.

Read More: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8215083.stm

[struggle4progress]

1. Galeano brilliantly described this phenomenon in his "Open Veins of Latin America,"

writing

... our region still works as a menial. It continues to exist at the service of others' needs, as a source and reserve of oil and iron, of copper and meat, of fruit and coffee, the raw materials and foods destined for rich countries which profit more from consuming them than Latin America does from producing them ... To each area has been assigned a function, always for the benefit of the foreign metropolis of the moment, and the endless chain of dependency has
been endlessly extended ... Our defeat was always implicit in the victory of others; our wealth has always generated our poverty by nourishing the prosperity of others — the empires and their native overseers. In the colonial and neocolonial alchemy, gold changes into scrap metal and food into poison ...

before launching into a section titled MANKIND'S POVERTY AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE WEALTH OF THE LAND

[bravenak]

2. THE RAPE OF AFRICA CAUSED THE POVERTY. Europeans came,stole, slaved, killed, abused,and

Now they judge. It is the fault of the european theives and maniacs who went there to oppress africa with their superior technology, forced them to labor, and ruined the continent.

[Warpy]

6. And they drew borders that had no basis in cultural reality,

making sure all countries there would be perpetually at war within their borders while they looted with impunity.

They also forced local economies to conform to the European standards, utterly destroying them in the process.

I can think of few positive effects Europeans have had. Individual Europeans, yes. As a whole, no.

[Javaman]

52. You should read the book "Leopold's Ghost" about the Belgium Congo.

Your post hits the nail right on the head.

[tenderfoot]

56. I have that book and had to put it down.

Made my blood boil.

[Javaman]

60. It will do that. nt

[jwirr]

46. That is the truth in a nut shell. And now they are unwilling to help the victims of their greed. And

this is not just in Africa.

[JI7]

3. .

[2naSalit]

4. Sums it up quite clearly. n/t

[Jesus Malverde]

14. Interesting graph thanks...

One of the reasons NATO attacked Libya was its role in promoting pan africanism.

The history of Libya funding Africas only telecommunications satellite is a good example where the west is more into exploiting, than development.

[Octafish]

50. What JI7 said.

Wasn't always this way. JFK wanted State to work with the PEOPLE over the colonial powers, appointing Michigan's ex-governor to get the ball rolling:

G. Mennen Williams

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Post gubernatorial years

After leaving office in 1961, Williams was quickly appointed to the new post of Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs by President John F. Kennedy, where Williams became known for his frequent refrain, "Africa for the Africans!" He served in this post until early 1966, when he resigned to unsuccessfully challenge Republican United States Senator Robert P. Griffin.

Two years later, he was named by President Lyndon B. Johnson to be U.S. ambassador to the Philippines, where he served less than a year. Williams was elected to the Michigan Supreme Court in 1970 and was named Chief Justice in 1983.

http://www.reference.com/browse/g.%20mennen%20williams

DUer Jim DiEugenio spoke about all this at the Duquesne conference.

[DemocraticWing]

5. Every stride Latin America has made has been from ridding the influence of outsiders.

If Africa can finally throw off the remaining vestiges of colonialism, the neo-colonialism of globalized capitalism, then they can reclaim their wealth and build a stronger society as a result.

[jwirr]

47. And there was a post on DU last week that showed us how many of our CIA agents etc. are now

in Africa and I want to know WHY? There is not a poor region in the world that does not have the history of first ravishment, then poverty and finally control by either the powers that caused the poverty. Is it Africa's turn now? What is left for us to steal?

[Maedhros]

54. Africa: “the battlefield of tomorrow, today.”

http://www.thenation.com/article/179050/why-us-military-averaging-more-mission-day-africa#

Last year, according AFRICOM commander General David Rodriguez, the US military carried out a total of 546 “activities” on the continent—a catch-all term for everything the military does in Africa. In other words, it averages about one and a half missions a day. This represents a 217 percent increase in operations, programs and exercises since the command was established in 2008.

From 2008 to 2013, the number of missions, exercises, operations and other activities under AFRICOM’s purview has skyrocketed from 172 to 546, but little substantive information has been made public about what exactly most of these missions involved and just who US forces have trained. Since 2011, US Army Africa alone has taken part in close to 1,000 “activities” across the continent, but independent reporters have only been on hand for a tiny fraction of them, so there are limits to what we can know about them beyond military talking points and official news releases for a relative few of these missions. Only later did it become clear that the United States extensively mentored the military officer who overthrew Mali’s elected government in 2012, and that the US trained a Congolese commando battalion implicated by the United Nations in mass rapes and other atrocities during that same year, to cite two examples.

Since its inception, US Africa Command has consistently downplayed its role on the continent. Meanwhile, far from the press or the public, the officers running its secret operations have privately been calling Africa “the battlefield of tomorrow, today.”

I presume this is the reason:

[jwirr]

58. Thank you for posting it to my post as this old lady has trouble doing it.

[Maedhros]

62. Why, you're welcome!

[woo me with science]

61. Thank you for this post. nt

[grasswire]

7. Didn't the book "Guns, Germs and Steel" have...

....something to say about this phenomenon?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel

[LeftyMom]

9. As anthropologists go, Jared Diamond makes an excellent ornithologist.

He gets details painfully wrong. He gets sued for putting words in people's mouths they didn't say. He tells just-so stories that read more like modern day Kipling than like science or history.

"Collapse" is based on a narrative of the collapse of the Rapa Nui (Easter Island) culture that's disputed at best and debunked at worst (it depends on who you ask) where the Rapa Nui culture's value is to serve as a metaphor for modern society. "Guns, Germs and Steel" paints a weird story of human history where agency and motivation disappear entirely in favor of chance and luck. "The World Until Yesterday" is just plain racist.

He should stick to birds. He's good at birds.

[Scootaloo]

20. I think you should read the books in question

Because I think it's pretty clear from your take of them that either you didn't read them, or you consider flipping a few pages at the bookstore to be a thorough read.

[LeftyMom]

39. I read them. That's why I think he's awful.

[LeftyMom]

8. Because the infrastructure that does exist is built for resource extraction and not local needs,

and in a post-colonial* world much of that infrastructure is in poor condition.

For example, South Sudan, a country divided by the Nile, has one bridge. In the entire country. There are ten bridges in my town and that's an entirely inadequate number that really cries out for further investment. Eleven million people who all live along a major river system have one bridge. It collapsed a while back and they had no bridge at all, but now it's fixed and they have one bridge.

Obviously there's a lot more to it than that, but if you're farming in South Sudan and things haven't gone to shit lately (yeah, I know) and you've managed to stay on your land and grow a successful crop, how the hell do you sell your goods to somebody on the far side of the Nile? Do you truck them up to Juba, over the one bridge and back down the river, or do you take them over by boat? How much does that drive up the cost and how many things get ruined in the process? Now scale that problem up to an entire country. Then figure in political instability.

*not really, colonialism just works differently under multinationals, but humor me

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. Because Africa is at the bottom of the Trickle Down benefits list of neo-liberalism and colonialism.

Neo-liberalism being a prettied up version of colonialism.

[TBF]

29. ^ this. nt

[Art_from_Ark]

11. Africa has many problems

Not all of them stem from European colonialism. Half of the continent, for example, is desert, with much of the remainder semi-desert. Just finding and maintaining a steady supply of drinking water is a major concern in a lot of places, not to mention having enough water to irrigate crops as well. There is also great income inequality in countries like Nigeria, whose oil revenues are siphoned off by the local (African) elite, while most of the country has little to show for the country's petrodollars.

And Africans have been abusing other Africans for centuries, if not longer. The Kingdom of Benin, for example, was the African-based center for the slave trade, and was more than happy to accommodate European, New World, and even other African demand for slaves.

http://www.academia.edu/1903485/Benin_and_the_Slave_Trade

[micraphone]

12. Colonialism facilitates

Dictators - Pres for life etc etc. A speciality of most, as you correctly alluded, is killing those who disagree with them (usually). Despots have been endemic in Africa for centuries, however at least some of these are there as tribal heads. The sham "elections" in a lot of African countries perpetuate the powerlessness of ordinary folk. Meanwhile these despots get rich from corruption involved in selling oiff their countries' assets. To the Corporations who own US.

[Scootaloo]

21. Oh yes, the "They sold their own people" claims

Tell me. Did those nasty Africans force slaves upon the hapless good-hearted Europeans? Because that's what that narrative posits. Slavery from Benin was an economic response to a demand for slaves from Europeans, bottom line. The Europeans paid with guns, which excaberated local warfare, which hastened the slave trade while simultaneously weakening resistance against it.

[Art_from_Ark]

67. Benin had slaves before the Europeans came

It was an extensive empire, which like all empires, was maintained by force. Slaves were very much a part of that, as they were in virtually all empires that had existed up until then. Benin certainly was not a group of poor innocent Africans who were forced into the slave trade by nasty Europeans. To wit (from my link):

"Slavery and the slave trade in Benin preexisted the arrival of the Europeans. Slaves were never the only, and until the mid-17th century were not the principal, article purchased by the Europeans (others included pepper, ivory, cloth, etc.). The slave trade from Benin continued until the late 19th century, long after the official abolition of the overseas slave trade, and slavery existed within Biniland till the 1920s. Most significantly, the course of Benin’s socio-cultural development was firmly established before the Europeans arrived. Unlike some West African societies such as Ouidah and Calabar, Benin’s rise and decline were not determined primarily by the slave trade, although the European presence in general and the slave trade in particular did accelerate or hinder specific social, economic, political, and cultural processes. In particular, the rise of Benin, accompanied by intensive military expansion and the growth of inland trade -- both preconditions for obtaining growing numbers of slaves -- began several decades before the Europeans’ arrival and ended in the early 17th century, long before the slave trade’s end."

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

13. Poor infrastructure, trade barriers, poor leadership, poor opportunity.

The largest contemporary problem is a brain drain. Young professionals see no reason to stay, when I did a lot of business in Africa every young person I encountered planned on moving to London. These are the people who would build indigenous wealth. They're just too disillusioned.

[malaise]

15. And don't forget that they looted the continent of millions of

their healthiest citizens.

[JustAnotherGen]

31. My father would have agreed

He had a theory or two about that . . .

[malaise]

33. Mine too

[seveneyes]

16. Not just poverty, why so much mayhem, murder, rape and torture?

It's as if the killing is done out of hate, not any sort of need or survival. And it appears to be getting more common. It's not just ignorance that causes people to rape virgins to "cure their AIDS" either. Something is driving the destruction.

[jwirr]

48. Scarcity leads to the violence and especially between competing tribes. And as to the rape a virgin,

that is part of ones war against the other tribe because protection of the tribes women is vital to its survival.

[Shankapotomus]

17. If you consider Africa is the starting point

Last edited Tue May 20, 2014, 07:45 AM - Edit history (1)

of human civilization, my answer goes like this:


One thing to keep in mind when judging societies is their place in the chronological development of humankind.


A lot of human technological development depends on two factors: 1.) Where you started in time and 2.) A change in environment.

If you where the staring point of humanity, as Africa was, naturally your technological innovation is going to be a lot more basic than subsequent groups of humans who would eventually inherit and add to your initial achievements.

Secondly, once you have adapted to an environment by innovating the technologies needed to master it enough to make existence there comfortable for YOU, there is little need to innovate or develop new technologies unless either your environment changes or you migrate to a different environment. Since the early people who stayed in Africa didn't migrate, they only developed technologies for their one environment.

The further away you go by civilization in time and distance from Africa, the more is built upon the technology of the societies that came before. For example, the groups that migrated out of Africa took with them the knowledge and technologies they developed while in the African environment. By moving into Europe, they had to continue adapting and innovating technology while in the new and different European environment. So any technology they evolved or developed in Europe was added to advances they took out of Africa with them, like fire making, spear making and language, organized hunting, etc...

Notice America was a new environment further away from Europe and, going by my hypotheses, it makes sense that Americans built upon the technological advances they carried with them from all previous civilizations to create one of the more advanced and developed societies, technology wise, the world has ever seen.

So no civilization or continent is inherently superior or inferior to another. Your development depends on where you started in the timescale of humanity and what technologies and behaviors you inherited from the human societies before you.

Humankind have inherited the most important developments from its African ancestors. The development of language, fire and quite possibly agriculture. It is quite extraordinary the roles those developments play and continue to play on humankind. One could say we wouldn't be humans without the development of language. A lot rests on the early advances made in Africa.

[Jesus Malverde]

18. I saw someone ask the same question about brazil.

When your in a tropical climate and you can live comfortably in a paper shack.

When your in north america or northern europe living in a paper shack would be a death sentence the first winter.

The resources and technology needed to live in each area contribute to it's development or lack thereof.

[Shankapotomus]

19. Exactly

And once you are optimized for an environment over thousands of years of evolution, it is harder to break out of that comfort zone and find uses for new technologies developed outside your home environment.

Notice also that the paper sack technology and cave use/animal fur technologies both have a use in a European environment. One in the mild seasons. One in the colder seasons. So two technologies are being applied in Europe where one would do in a tropical environment.

[Scootaloo]

24. Yeaaaah, the "Northern Theory" is a favorite of "racialists."

Trouble is it simply ignores historical reality in favor of a just so story that claims Europe became dominant because of its inherent northern superiority (which, like, "Western Civilization" is simply a figleafed way of saying "white.&quot If the northern theory were correct, the world would be dominated by the Inuit (who, mind, are no technological slouches)

[Jesus Malverde]

26. You see the same phenomena in asia

As if environment doesn't affect development...

[Scootaloo]

28. You don't, actually

India: southern Asia, home of more than a few technologically advanced civilizations.

Yakutia: Northern Asia, finally learned how to tether a reindeer about a thousand years ago.

[Jesus Malverde]

30. India is not all tropical...

duh.

[Nye Bevan]

34. Another problem with that theory is that North America gets pretty cold,

so why did the Native Americans not develop technology on par with the Europeans?

[Jesus Malverde]

35. Interesting counterpoint...nt

[politicat]

59. They did, it just doesn't get recognized or didn't survive.

Pre-Columbian metallurgy is incredibly interesting because the goals of their metallurgy were entirely different than that of Europe and Asia. While Europe aimed for brittleness and hardness (to maintain an edge or solidity), indigenous American aimed for malleability and flexibility. They weren't interested in iron because they had other aims for their metal work. (Same with the wheel -- they invented it, they just didn't have much use for it.)

A lot of the metal work didn't long survive because Europe melted it.

The North American tech has the same issue -- Europeans didn't recognize it as technology until recently. The cliff dwellings and farming methods in the Southwest especially are incredibly innovative -- we still don't have anything as effective in deserts as well/waffle gardening, and the Hohokam canal structures are still a marvel. And the cliff-cities... Cleaner, more stable and more functional than anything in Europe at the same time. (Also true of Cahokia -- those cities were larger and more stable and less filthy than Paris or London at the same time.)

The other factor was the building materials in North America -- for the most part, they were perishable materials. (This is also true in Europe, where virtually no vernacular architecture more than 500 years old has survived.) Just as a frame house will rot away in 10-30 years in the humid Midwest if it is completely ignored, so too will any structure built of wood. Once the plagues were opened on the indigenous population after 1492, something like 90% of the population died. There was nobody left to maintain those structures, and by the time Europeans pushed their frontiers west, the remnants of the decimated civilizations were lost. And of course, nobody left to remember. But just because it didn't survive doesn't mean it wasn't innovative, incredibly interesting tech. The few fragments we have are incredibly tantalizing, and unfortunately, insufficient.

And that's not even getting started on the Beni in Bolivia or the complex social structures of the Pacific Northwest, or the complicated inter-group relationships in the upper Midwest...

[DCBob]

23. Yes. General speaking adapting to cold weather bred innovation and technology.

[Shankapotomus]

25. It would have to, right?

You don't need furs in a tropical environment. You don't need thick walled shelter either.

Same could be applied to land locked societies compared to sea faring societies.

[WinkyDink]

22. Anyone know the word "colonialism" or maybe "exploitation"? (Why are there homeless Americans?)

[AngryAmish]

27. Culture, institutions and peoples

In central africa there is a slow motion genocidal war that has been going on for thousands of years. In southern africa that war is mostly won.

Of course the easiest answer is that there were no selection pressure for development. If you can have kids and they survive at the same rate or higher than the folks in developed societies why go to the bother?

At it's core, the very question is racist. It presupposes that western levels of development is superior to the forms of living in Africa. Evolution does not care which level of development you have, just that your offspring survive.

[Whisp]

32. World Bank smacked Africa good with loans

that were impossible to repay in the 60s independence.

[pampango]

36. Asia was in a similar situation a few decades ago.

Japan and South Korea were about the only countries with any degree of prosperity. Now China and India (each with a higher population than the continent of Africa) have made a lot of economic progress and neither of them have the natural resources that Africa has. For the sake of Africans I hope they make similar progress in the decades to come.

[Jesus Malverde]

37. China is putting $2 billion into fighting its neocolonialist image in Africa

Foreign direct investment (FDI) in Africa will hit an unprecedented $80 billion this year, according to a new report (pdf, p. 5) by the African Development Bank. A growing proportion of that is coming from China, which has the largest stock of FDI in Africa of any non-OECD country—about $27.7 billion, according to the report.

That’s alarming for those who argue that China’s investment in the region amounts to little more than “check book diplomacy” of buying alliances and access to resources. But as we’ve pointed out, there are signs that China’s role in Africa is changing. Most recently, the Financial Times reported that this week, Beijing and the African Development Bank, a major lender to the region, will announce a $2 billion investment vehicle (paywall) that will open contracts to the best bidder, instead of just to Chinese firms.

“If it’s true…this is a huge change and a very welcome one,” Deborah Brautigam, an expert in China-Africa relations at Johns Hopkins University, wrote on her blog. “I suspect that Chinese firms will still win the majority of contracts but what an excellent tactic by a maturing Chinese leadership to make them compete internationally for their wins.”

Chinese policy banks have have been criticized for awarding projects to Chinese companies who import their own labor to the region. Some African officials have complained about shoddy construction and projects that bring little benefit to the local economy. Beijing has also been criticized for not disclosing how much is given in development aid. Others have labeled China’s behavior in the region “neocolonialist.”

http://qz.com/211095/china-is-putting-2-billion-into-fighting-its-neocolonialist-image-in-africa/

[pampango]

38. "...there are signs that China’s role in Africa is changing." We can hope. Thanks for the article.

That’s alarming for those who argue that China’s investment in the region amounts to little more than “check book diplomacy” of buying alliances and access to resources. But as we’ve pointed out, there are signs that China’s role in Africa is changing. Most recently, the Financial Times reported that this week, Beijing and the African Development Bank, a major lender to the region, will announce a $2 billion investment vehicle (paywall) that will open contracts to the best bidder, instead of just to Chinese firms.

“If it’s true…this is a huge change and a very welcome one,” Deborah Brautigam, an expert in China-Africa relations at Johns Hopkins University, wrote on her blog. “I suspect that Chinese firms will still win the majority of contracts but what an excellent tactic by a maturing Chinese leadership to make them compete internationally for their wins.”

The article does not dispute the nature of China's past involvement in Africa but holds out the hope of a different future. As a resource-poor country with the world's 2nd biggest economy, it will be a challenge for China's government to balance its own resource needs with the development needs of Africa. I hope China's role (and the West's) in Africa is changing for the better.

[Jesus Malverde]

40. One might argue that china's involvement in africa has been more productive

and empowering to africans, than that of the west.

[pampango]

42. I have not seen anyone make that case but it may be possible.

Much of China's investment in Africa has been in infrastructure related to resource extraction, supporting friendly governments and using imported Chinese rather than local labor.

I understood the point of the article you posted to be that China's investment strategy in Africa may be changing which would be a good thing.

[Jesus Malverde]

43. I'm under the impression they have built

railroads, airports, stadiums etc.

Those projects benefit the regular people too.

[pampango]

44. As your article indicated, their investments have largely been related to resource-extraction.

That does not mean that there were no benefits for the general public. The reason that China is changing its Africa investment strategy (as described in the article you posted) is the widespread perception in Africa is that it was geared primarily to benefit China's need for natural resources with only incidental benefits for Africans. That is the same criticism that was rightly targeted at Western investments in Africa.

I have not read of the positive spin on their investments that you seem to have come across. I would be interested to learn more about that.

[Jesus Malverde]

45. Billions from Beijing: Africans Divided over Chinese Presence

The Chinese are building conspicuous signs of their presence everywhere: presidential palaces, ministries, military barracks, conference centers, museums, stadiums, broadcasting companies, hotel complexes and large-scale agricultural operations. They are renovating railroad lines, paving thousands of kilometers of roads and building airports, dams, power plants and hospitals. Indeed, the Chinese are modernizing a large segment of the continent's infrastructure.

The Washington-based Center for Global Development estimates that, between 2000 and 2011, China provided about €75 billion in aid to Africa for a total of 1,673 projects, or roughly as much as the United States did in the same period. However, it is sometimes hard to tell where profitable investment ends and altruistic initiatives begin.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/chinese-investment-in-africa-boosts-economies-but-worries-many-a-934826-2.html

and

Chinese-Built Angolan "Ghost Town" Wakes Up?
http://www.chinaafricarealstory.com/2014/04/chinese-built-angolan-ghost-town-wakes.html

There are many stories like this where china is building real infrastructure.

China has gained a foothold in the African construction sector through the provision of ‘resources for infrastructure’ loans. The dominance of Chinese companies is particularly evident in mega projects such as railways, major transportation arteries, public buildings, etc. In Angola, China is also involved in the construction of new urban centres on a scale unequalled by any other foreign partners in Africa. These new urban centres, located on the outskirts of major cities, are meant to address the massive housing shortfall in the country.

http://www.saiia.org.za/policy-briefings/oil-for-housing-chinese-built-new-towns-in-angola

[pampango]

51. Thanks. Interesting and balanced articles. n/t

[dawg]

41. The North-South orientation of the continent, coupled with a desert in the North ...

and a thick rain forest at the equator, conspired to block the spread of agricultural and technological advances.

The Americas had the same problem, and they fared far worse. Not only were they technologically behind the Africans (who had iron weapons and more widespread agriculture), they were effectively wiped out by the Europeans. Africans were not wiped out by the Europeans. They were colonized, and are still in the process of regaining their independence. It is a rocky road, but it beats the alternative.

Around 12,000 BC, there was probably no area of the world any more backwards than Europe. But the East-West axis of the Eurasian continent allowed agriculture, specific crops, livestock, and other technologies to easily spread back and forth. As a result, Europeans now dominate every continent except Africa and the Eastern portion of Eurasia.

[rrneck]

49. Eurpoe mostly. The North America didn't help. nt

[larkrake]

53. the gold and diamond trade is not taxed or regulated ?

[truebrit71]

55. Because European invaders stripped the assets and took them back to europe...

...now it's the Chinese turn to do the same thing..

[War Horse]

57. Europe, sure. And North America

No one sane would disagree about the exploitation.

But I find it worrying that some on this thread seem to think that China is some kind of 'savior' to the African continent. They are just as exploitative as anyone.

[JI7]

63. maybe they learned from history , plus there is the whole need to have some acceptance

from the international community. more than before. i don't think they would allow to openly do many of the things others did before.

[951-Riverside]

64. The same reason why places like Detroit and Haiti are poverty stricken and crime filled.

The Dominican republic and Haiti share the same island, one is a thriving tourist attraction and the other is a poverty stricken slum.

Until we address this issue in an honest way, its just going to keep happening and the folks who live in these countries and cities lives aren't going to improve.

[Capt. Obvious]

65. This thread is amazing

Lots of learned members here.

[alarimer]

66. Because they've been exploited for their natural resources?

Is the first thing that comes to mind, followed by centuries of colonial oppression. Not sure which is worse.

[JI7]

68. they are kind of connected aren't they ?