[internaut]

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?

[rulegoon]

> 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.

[internaut]

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.

[rulegoon]

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.

[internaut]

I have read your responses. I think I understand your anger because I held similar convictions about ten years ago.

The problem I am having with this argument is that you are not actually addressing the ideas directly. To me it is all impressionistic what I'm hearing.

Accusations of ignorance/bias, semi-philosophical, perhaps conspiratorial musings and emotive language describing past horrors and diabolical events, none of this actually addresses the central question directly.

The central question is why is African so impoverished?

I ask you to summarize precisely and as concisely as you can your hypothesis.

I understand that you want Africa to be a better place than it currently is and feel passionately about that. I also want it to be a better place but for us to communicate without descending into stereotypes or hyperbole about the right or left we have to talk from first principals.

Otherwise I am forced to make assumptions about your position. Presently I assume you believe that white men came to Africa, blitzed it, and then secretly are still controlling it after independence. This is not actually a mainstream position, although it is popular among many US and British students.

This means I assume you think there exists one and only one reason why Africa is so improvised. Namely, white invaders. That Africans were, and are still, slaves.

Fortunately you are able to provide the accurate explanation that you believe to be true. Then we could build on that foundation. Then neither of us will have to attack strawmen. Or we could just call each other names. It is your call.

[jomamaxx]

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.