[malkarouri]

There is nothing special about Africans that will make them "properly[sic?] be so long after we are gone". The same tendency for long wars is everywhere. The history of Europe in the 19th century and earlier was almost a series of continuous wars. The main difference is that the cost of war is now too high for advanced countries. Even WWI wasn't enough. People recognize it and made the League of Nations, which still wasn't enough so the lesson had to be repeated with bigger losses.

[btilly]

I'm fairly sure that the author meant to write "probably" instead of "properly".

And no, there is nothing special about Africans, but a lot that is "special" about Africa. The rampant disease. The widespread corruption. The poverty resulting from those. The political boundaries that are a remnant of European map making rather than any sort of internal logic. These have contributed to generations of misery, and there is no immediate prospect of this changing.

[zokier]

The difference between Africans and Europeans is that Europeans didn't have more advanced civilization constantly prodding and poking them (and drooling for their resources), and that is what makes Africa prone to constant warfare.

The best thing for Africa imho currently would be a big fence around it, and a label on the gate reading "Do not open before year 3000 AD. Sincerely, the people of 2000 AD."

[kuurnn]

And seal the fence with the Wikkit gate?

[tomjen3]

True there is nothing special about the Africans that makes them more likely to make wars. It is just that the meddling that we have done the last couple of centuries, combined with the culture has left them with little alternative.