Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by ntaenta 3562 days ago
> It is evident that different societies have different rates of things like social cohesion, trust, violence and about a million other variables.

Of course...

> There are some societies that have managed to emulate the success of Europeans, such as the Japanese and Chinese, so we know it is possible, that is the good news.

Many culturally and technologically sophisticated societies existed in the ancient world outside of Europe -- in Asia, the Americas, and yes, Africa too. I have neither the time nor knowledge to list them all, but perhaps you should start by checking out what was happening in Egypt, China, Central America, and India long before golden age of European antiquity.

> The bad news is that there is no evidence Africa is attempting a similar feat. That is the fact and it is as plain as day.

Nairobi, Lagos, Luanda, Dar es Salaam, Addis Ababa, Cairo, Dakar, Harare, Kigali, Abidjan...

https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/03/da/de/46/...

http://s.newsweek.com/sites/www.newsweek.com/files/styles/lg...

http://imgs.sapo.pt/gfx/fc/67/591570.jpg

https://afktravel.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/dar-es-sala...

http://paradiseintheworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/add...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b2/View_fro...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/Dakar-In...

http://www.bradtguides.com/media/wysiwyg/destinations/africa...

https://jaredmworley.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/p1070303.jp...

http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/66636928.jpg

> Think of the enormity of it. The richest people (Euros) trade with the East Asians across a terrific distance by land or sea. All those ships bypass Africa. It is incredible.

What is incredible is how ignorant you are. The images above clearly demonstrate that trade is happening in Africa, though however I don't think trade is a meaningful measure of societal "success" in the first place.

1 comments

> Many culturally and technologically sophisticated societies existed in the ancient world outside of Europe....

That is a fact.

However something else is also a fact. That growth over the last 3 centuries in almost every area catapulted Europeans to incredible, almost seemingly impossible levels of economic success with respect to previous history.

The truth is in the numbers. Look at a graph of economic change over the centuries, it is astounding. I'm no Kurzweil but I see where he gets his (misplaced) optimism from.

This success has also been incredibly specific geographically, with the Far East only coming up in the last few decades, a delay I attribute to the retardation that was Communism.

> What is incredible is how ignorant you are. The images above clearly demonstrate that trade is happening in Africa, though however I don't think trade is a meaningful measure of societal "success" in the first place.

I was an investor in the so called frontier markets. The statistics were, are, and continue to be, absolutely terrible. In many cases if you measure on a per [yes, including black] capita basis Africa is doing worse today than it was half a century ago.

Western media constantly harps on positive news from the frontier.

Western media has a very strong bias against negative news about Africa for political reasons.

Even the Chinese who are very frugal and exceptionally adept at business cannot make headway directly. They employ resource extraction, (expensive!) worker importation and bribery on a massive scale. What do you think the corollary to that is?

I suppose you'll dismiss this as something-ism but if you quit using evidence based on Tripadvisor photographs maybe we'd see eye to eye.

We have to call a spade a spade. Africa is the most backward place in the world. Most growth that exists is obviously non-organic, relying on extensive networks of foreign coordination and siloed off resource extraction. This is an entire Continent that has not experienced an agricultural revolution let alone an industrial one. The level of corruption is hard to comprehend because it is the norm and not the exception.

Did you know that the south of the Continent relies on electricity production from a single company that has plants which are past their lifespan, which have not been maintained properly or replaced for decades?

In the North, Egypt, the most advanced, is a standing joke with its high population and meager economic output. It is a canal that has a country, not a country that has a canal.

The economy, such as it is, of the entire system is extremely fragile and it is very likely to fail outright. The structural integrity is shot.

> however I don't think trade is a meaningful measure of societal "success" in the first place.

Over centuries it is indeed the physical, material success that matters. That and biology and ecology, but those are subjects for another day.

I agree that economic success is not the only factor in the world but without it supporting the bottom items in Maslow's Pyramid there isn't much else.

There exist people who disavow materalism, secular communists, religious monks, but to me this always seemed like the brain rejecting the feet in some futile metaphysical standoff, since those people with their lifestyle tend to be indirectly supported by the scale of the economic system, just as the existence of North Korea is tacitly because of the West and our competitors.

Intuitively it is hard to maintain human dignity and self respect when you're poor, and easier when you are richer.

> However something else is also a fact. That growth over the last 3 centuries in almost every area catapulted Europeans to incredible, almost seemingly impossible levels of economic success with respect to previous history.

Have you looked deeper into what fueled this "incredible/impossible" growth you're so proud of? It was the disruption, colonization and then plunder of the resources of other societies around the world, which hit Africa the hardest. The Europeans at the time invented the gun, which gave them lethal military advantage over other cultures that still used spears and swords for warfare. This, coupled with their ruthless drive to amass wealth led to ridiculous situations where an army of just 50 gun totting soldiers could slaughter 1000 warriors in just 30 minutes. And slaughter they did, and after the slaughter came the plunder. Not only their minerals and crops, but their people as well. Many of their healthy, strong young African men and women were sold off into slavery in the middle east, Europe and Americas.

And lets be honest: this plunder and disruption was very easy for them to do, since the Europeans of the time did not really consider Africans human. Maybe the Asians, but definitely not the Africans. Many were treated worse than horses or dogs. Go read up on what king Leopold of Belgium did at the Congo. If you still could not work hard or fast enough after all the whippings, your fingers, the hands and limbs would be chopped off. This is called trauma. Whole generations of African communities were brutalized and traumatized just 100 years ago. If you don't know untreated trauma does to the human psyche, or how it can be passed from generation to generation, go ask your local therapist. And I'm sorry African society doesn't seem to be recovering fast enough for you, maybe they are not just as "strong/civilized" as you are.

> This success has also been incredibly specific geographically, with the Far East only coming up in the last few decades, a delay I attribute to the retardation that was Communism.

Really? What metrics are you using to measure this success? You seem to be using per capita income, which means you don't get simple economics. You're basically saying that someone earning 1000 US dollars in New York is on par with someone earning the same in rural Texas. The United Nations HDI index paints a very different picture, putting Africa more or less at par with Asia, and Europe on top. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Dev....

> Western media constantly harps on positive news from the frontier. > Western media has a very strong bias against negative news about Africa for political reasons.

Hahaha! Don't make me laugh. Whats most likely happening here is the few positive stories you've stumbled upon have just blown your mind and worldview, so you think its happening evrywhere because those are the ones you remember. For every one positive, you'll find another 20 negative from that same western media outlet.

> We have to call a spade a spade. Africa is the most backward place in the world. Most growth that exists is obviously non-organic, relying on extensive networks of foreign > coordination and siloed off resource extraction. This is an entire Continent that has not experienced an agricultural revolution let alone an industrial one. The level of > corruption is hard to comprehend because it is the norm and not the exception.

Once again, whats the metric for measuring the backwardness of a place? If its the western way of life and values, I agree with you 100%. And I don't think it would be a good idea for Africans to wholesomely adopt all those values, just the ones that work. Understand this: in terms of natural and human resources, Africa is the richest most abundant planet on this continent. In terms of consumption of these resources, its people are the last. Why? For the same reason that the CEO of a successful company earns in one day what his/her personal secretary earns in a year. Is it fair? No, but that's just how the world works: wealth brings power, and that power is used to enforce and maintain the status quo. The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. As it is for individuals, so is it for nations. The CEO's of African nations are its leaders, and they work with the CEOs global corporations to continue the plunder of the continent. There are thousands of Africans who have enough money to buy you, your mother and the whole street you live in; and live a life of untold luxury and comfort that would put yours to shame, right in the heart of Africa. There partners in corruption and plunder are the leaders of western governments and corporations. The same corporations that own the media, and YOUR 18th century views about Africa, which is why I find your comment about positive western media hilarious. That's just good old fashioned prejudice and ignorance.

Your great grandfather had an excuse for his ignorance, you don't. Go find out where the coffee you drink comes from (hint: its not from a pre-agrigarian revolution society) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_coffee_pr...

Broadly your position appears to be that Africa is not necessarily backward but that if it is definitely backward then this is the consequence of Europeans conquering their lands centuries ago and since there are no European colonies anymore we Europeans have been manipulating them in the present day through corporations as proxies, thus retarding their (already slow because colonization) progress.

Is that an accurate summation?

Because if it is then the following must be true.

1. There must be a strong relationship between colonization and poverty. After all, they are taking your things.

2. Nations or ethic groups that are conquered by aggressors take considerable time to recover, perhaps many generations.

I repeat; is my summary accurate?

> Broadly your position appears to be that Africa is not necessarily backward but that if it is definitely backward then this is the consequence of Europeans conquering their lands centuries ago

Centuries ago? Most African states got independence just 50 years ago!! Get your timelines right. Broadly, my position is that there is nothing superior about Europeans or inferior and backward about Africans, which is the main thrust of your argument, is it not? That the problems and state of Africa today is simply caused by the backwardness and faults of its inhabitants, right?

My position is that you are trying very hard to rationalize what are simply feelings good old fashioned prejudice, coupled with a lot of ignorance. I cannot

> There must be a strong relationship between colonization and poverty. After all, they are taking your things.

If the colonizers are racist taskmasters who view their subjects as some sort of sub-human species, the effects of colonization are devastating. Not just economically, but socially and culturally. For example, where do you think the practice of militias chopping off victims hands came from? Do you think such barbaric practices existed before the arrival of the European colonizer?

> Nations or ethic groups that are conquered by aggressors take considerable time to recover, perhaps many generations.

If your aim is to be accurate, then ask precise questions. What is "considerable time"?! Who are the aggressors? How are they treating their subjects? What social and cultural structures did they find coming in, and what did they leave behind when going? Who did they hand power over to when they "left"? What resources did they plunder? Its very easy to be hand-wavy and prejudiced when thinking broad, general terms. So do your homework, get more specific and your ignorance, and hopefully prejudice will disappear.

I shall answer specific questions but before I do that I want an answer on those I put to you.

> Broadly your position appears to be that Africa is not necessarily backward but that ...

> Is that an accurate summation?

> I repeat; is my summary accurate?

I was repeating in my words your arguments, and I need to know whether I have it right or we shall descend into the weeds.

I've already answered your questions, have you even read the response! Will be short and sweet this time:

> Is that an accurate summation?

No. For an accurate summation... see/read/note/understand/grok/comprendez my last response above.

The nations of Africa that have the most intact colonial apparatuses, and the most people with European ancestry - are the most wealthy.

I'm not making a moral argument.