Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Using the term "under-developed" implies that you feel development is important. Why do you feel that development is important? Have you asked people in those "underdeveloped" areas their opinion about development? Maybe they like it that way. Maybe they enjoy having rain forests and the savannas and natural surroundings that support the wildlife. Maybe it makes them feel good knowing that they're living off the land, engaging in co-parenting the planet. Maybe it's their culture to do so, and maybe they think the rest of the world is a bunch of freaks for insisting on razing nature to the ground and replacing it with cement.
Perhaps the poster you're responding to simply questions whether or not a striking percentage of the continental population actually wants to, if given the choice, merely subsist under the perpetual threats of wanton corruption, disease, murder, rape, and starvation as a way of life. You're suggesting that's the cultural prerogative? And due to the perceived alternative prospect of concrete sidewalks marring the natural landscape?
Using the term "under-developed" implies that you feel development is important. Why do you feel that development is important?.
I see you live in FL. Do you have air conditioning?....
I will agree that happiness is more important than material goods, but the two are not mutually exclusive.
With "development" comes more security in comfort and in health. We're not talking the difference between owning one car or two, we're talking about easy access to a well stocked grocery store and a good source of income vs subsistence farming and the very real risk of starvation each year, hi high infant mortality, etc.
Israel received a total of $3.2 billion in economic and military assistance in 2017 per that link, a whopping $383 per capita. I'm not sure why you think military dollars don't count.
HAHA...yeah nice try. This thread is not about Israel and even less about military aid. Economic assistance was mentioned in this topic indeed in terms of helping undeveloped countries. Military aid is not economic assistance and is not given by the USAID (United States Agency for International Development).
Israel receives almost exclusively military aid for reasons that are beyond the scope of this topic (i.e. national security), they receive very little economic assistance. Stop spinning the topic in trying to group it together, I am not sure who you think you are fooling.
A better question is why you are bringing up a topic about Israel in a thread about Africa?
Like they have an abundance of everything needed to be an economic powerhouse. Over a billion people. Over 11 million square miles of territory that is very rich in natural resources. Geographically isolated enough to have little contact during the two World Wars.
Look at Japan and Germany after WW2 for example. Viet Nam after that war. Cities and industrial infrastructure bombed into oblivion. Food supplies curtailed. Sure, we helped them rebuild, and then became world economic powers. Japan especially, with little arable land for the population, scant natural resources, especially oil.
New countries from the old USSR, like Belarus and Ukraine, Croatia and Serbia from former Yugoslavia, are getting along fine without massive aid.
But Africa still isn't keeping up with the rest of the world, despite trillions of $$$ of aid. Maybe Egypt and South Africa are sustaining. But most of the rest, well...........
Time is short here so get please get back to me with your input.
So was 1940 Nazi Germany greater than any black African nation in the 1940s, you know that Germany technology and wealth was ahead of that of the United States until the very end of the second World War?
Perhaps the poster you're responding to simply questions whether or not a striking percentage of the continental population actually wants to, if given the choice, merely subsist under the perpetual threats of wanton corruption, disease, murder, rape, and starvation as a way of life. You're suggesting that's the cultural prerogative? And due to the perceived alternative prospect of concrete sidewalks marring the natural landscape?
What sort of sick nonsense is this...
I can guarantee that mothers would like to see an improvement in medical services, food availability and technology.
But just as in the States it's not an either or situation. There will be both pros and cons of keeping the status quo as well as with developing primitive areas of the continent. It will depend on what is valued most highly.
Will it be those who suffer? Ultimately it depends on who is in power (has the money) and what they want.
How many who have improved their circumstances are willing to go where their skills would be most needed? Very few, I'm afraid.
2. The hangover from colonialism that exacerbated the above.
big up. i had a friend in college who was born in nigeria so she identified with nigerian; on the other hand, her parents were born in (i think it was called) english victoria and identified as bonny.
thats like being born in california but your kids are born in trumporfornia. -- thousand of years of tribal identity gone in less than 50 years.
the cherokee were among the baddest groups but now they are locked in something called oklahoma.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanley-88888888
i think that the idea of borders and countries comes from middle ages europe. a lord would govern their manor which were square acres and a grouping of manors would combine to be a shire (or county) ruled by a shire-reef (or county sheriff). a grouping of shires become a kingdom ruled by a king.
that is why many large states are exact square/rectangles. the pueblos didnt say our nation is between the imaginary boundary of 37°n to 41°n. the natives had nebulously defined areas and they prospered. they would have skirmishes and wars with neighboring tribes but extermination was difficult due to equal technology/access to resources.
similar to what i remember of the hutu and tunzi nations. the french/belgiums strategically grouped together these nations during their occupation. these two groups have been warring for hundreds (thousands ?) of years but neither side had the capacity to exterminate the other. the border divided (i think) the tunzi nation so that family on the tunzania side were probably denied entry to visit friends on the inside (anyone play papers please). the strategy was that there would be more infighting between the two nations that the ruling european class could govern and extract resources without resistance from the indigenous.
when the europeans were done extracting minerals... they left one of the groups in power (with control of gign rifles, machetes, food surplus, water, national radio (used to spread propaganda), border control ...) and they now had the capacity to starve the other side out.
Last edited by stanley-88888888; 01-06-2020 at 11:01 AM..
Perhaps the poster you're responding to simply questions whether or not a striking percentage of the continental population actually wants to, if given the choice, merely subsist under the perpetual threats of wanton corruption, disease, murder, rape, and starvation as a way of life. You're suggesting that's the cultural prerogative? And due to the perceived alternative prospect of concrete sidewalks marring the natural landscape?
What sort of sick nonsense is this...
No. I'm not suggesting anything. I'll state it clearly: The subset of "areas that are not technologically or architecturally modern" do not equal "areas where the people are subsisting with perpetual threats of wanton coruption, disease, murder, rape, and starvation as a way of life."
There are inbetweens. There are non-modern areas of Africa populated by people who like their way of life, embrace it, and would really prefer it if everyone just left them to live their lives without interference.
I see you live in FL. Do you have air conditioning?....
I will agree that happiness is more important than material goods, but the two are not mutually exclusive.
With "development" comes more security in comfort and in health. We're not talking the difference between owning one car or two, we're talking about easy access to a well stocked grocery store and a good source of income vs subsistence farming and the very real risk of starvation each year, hi high infant mortality, etc.
This isn't about MY air conditioning. It is about subjecting some OTHER areas with whatever "I" feel is development. Sort of like imposing your morality on me - if I didn't ask for it, I'd prefer it if you just keep it to yourself. Or impose it on someone else.
Yes, I have air conditioning. I like having those kinds of modern creature comforts.
There are those who prefer to live au natural. I would not require them to upgrade and get electricity and indoor plumbing, if they are in their own part of the country where their way of life doesn't impose on mine - and I would not require they embrace my way of life just because I wouldn't want to live their way.
Like they have an abundance of everything needed to be an economic powerhouse. Over a billion people. Over 11 million square miles of territory that is very rich in natural resources. Geographically isolated enough to have little contact during the two World Wars.
Look at Japan and Germany after WW2 for example. Viet Nam after that war. Cities and industrial infrastructure bombed into oblivion. Food supplies curtailed. Sure, we helped them rebuild, and then became world economic powers. Japan especially, with little arable land for the population, scant natural resources, especially oil.
New countries from the old USSR, like Belarus and Ukraine, Croatia and Serbia from former Yugoslavia, are getting along fine without massive aid.
But Africa still isn't keeping up with the rest of the world, despite trillions of $$$ of aid. Maybe Egypt and South Africa are sustaining. But most of the rest, well...........
Time is short here so get please get back to me with your input.
Very simple. No commitment to freedom, rule of law, and the most important thing: CAPITALISM. African nations have never valued freedom, individual rights, private property rights, and the only economic system that has ever pulled the world out of the swamp, aka capitalism. Until and unless they completely do an about-face on mysticism and tribalism, the people of Africa will remain in a poverty stricken and desperate state. They need to renounce tribal values, and copy and adopt western values. Otherwise, they will stay right where they are.
Resources mean nothing unless a society is committed to science, engineering, private property rights and individualism. And all of it linked by an economic system based on freedom and achievement, which means capitalism.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
