Will Africa ever lose third world status? - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the nations of Africa.

Moderator: PoFo Africa Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
By Truth To Power
#15002219
rik wrote:One of the biggest problems Africa is facing, is western hypocrisy. The West accuses Africa of being corrupt. But it's western nations that aid corrupt Africans in moving stolen loot from Africa to the West. In reality, it's the West that is corrupting Africa.

The west looks the other way, when these African thieves bring in stolen millions and billions of USD for deposit in foreign banks. Swiss banks are key among banks in this regard.

Right. The thieving and corruption by African rulers are part of the West's plan -- or at least, the banksters' plan. See, "Superimperialism" by Michael Hudson, or for a less technical treatment, "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" by John Perkins.
#15002223
Yes it will lose third world status. However it needs two conditions, first of all the West needs to stop trying to interfere and needs to start conducting business with Africa on the basis of mutual respect. Secondly it needs idealisit and true altruistic leaders in charge. There is weak leadership in Africa.
#15002240
Zionist Nationalist wrote:Some parts of Africa can develop and catch up
but I think most of Africa will always stay behind the rest of the world
with the incoming weather changes things will only get worse


Maybe Africa's conditions will somewhat improve if Madagascar had jewish refugees. They can sell more homes there and open up banks there.
#15002246
This thread is disturbing.

There is no race so there is no winner. Who cares if they "gain first world status". First world refers to highly capitalist, industrialized countries.

Portugal and Spain are not first world countries. They will never reach the GDP of the US. I would be more than happy living in either of them though I live in THE first world country.

So that is the deal. It "winning" setting Africa on a course to compete with the US and China? At the expense of their wonderful and rich history. At the expense of the various peoples living less than modern lives? Or is winning, allowing people to be happier, safer and healthier? Would a Dogun tribesman be happier with a Cadillac and a Mortgage?

The talk of IQ is also disturbing. Consider.

If the average IQ in Africa is 70 then the difference between the average American is less than the average American and any member of Mensa. Much less. A Mensa member is "smarter" than 98% of the people he/she meets. What does that even mean as a practical matter?

A country requires and benefits from really smart people. The percentage of "smart" people required to perform at their potential is minuscule. An average American with an IQ of 98 and working in a grocery store or as a business manager may well be excellent at his/her job while performing well below the potential indicated by their IQ.
#15002250
Spain and Portugal are both first world countries and very nice even by U.S. standards.

Why it matters: With a population with an average I.Q. of 100 a person with and I.Q. of 130, 2 sds out, isn't that unusual, about 1 in 50. If you take a population with an average I.Q. of 70 and sd of 15, a person with an I.Q. of 130 is 4 sds out, about 1 in 1,000,000. For the other side of the tail, about half the population would meet out definition of mentally retarded.
#15002251
Africa needs the map to be redrawn.
Colonial borders will continue to cause friction and conflict all over the continent.
A Christian leader in Nigeria, if fully patriotic and altruistic, will serve the interest of his fellow Christians in Nigeria; Not because he hates Muslims or whatever reason some will claim, but because until recently, the Muslim population in northern Nigeria was its own nation and still in many ways is, simply forced under one state by the British.

Libya will always be either under a dictator or in state of permenant civil war because Libya is 3 nations forced into one state by Italian colonial rule.

Morocco and to some extent Algeria are remnants of empires that predates colonial rule, which is why they'll always have separatist movements.
Somalia will also remain in a state of chaos because its 5 nations put into one state.
Yemen is 2 nations put into one state, which is why this is its 4 civil war.

The same applies to most African and even middle eastern countries.
Heck, even seemingly stable countries like Saudi Arabia or Iran are also constantly standing on the edge due to the fact they're not nations but empires or remnants of empires.
Saudi Arabia is a state built by one nation conquering 4 others.
Iran is a remnant of an empire with either full or parts of other surrounding nations being annexed into it.
Even Lebanon, as small as it is, though was always one nation for the past 4000+ years, Lebanon was always a collection of city-states, which is why it will always be hard for any centralized state to take full control because it's much harder to convince everyone to give up their autonomy.
And the list of examples keeps on forever.
#15002255
@SolarCross
And countries with borders based on conquest and expansion still faces many problems, social, political and economic, to this very day.
Whether its the US or Spain or China or India or Russia or many others.
Let us not forget that Europe, the former heart of the "developed and advance world", fought 2 world wars due to this issue.
And even went through several conflicts in the 90s, again due to this issue, and even at this very moment with Brexit and the refugee crisis.
#15002262
@anasawad
Way back when the African Union was formed, the first resoution passed was not to change any borders, as they understood it would open Pandora's box.
Everything you posted is correct but who would be the final arbiter in deciding about new countries and borders ?
Not to mention the problems of partitioning the debt and riches of each entity.
#15002263
Ter wrote:@anasawad
Way back when the African Union was formed, the first resoution passed was not to change any borders, as they understood it would open Pandora's box.
Everything you posted is correct but who would be the final arbiter in deciding about new countries and borders ?
Not to mention the problems of partitioning the debt and riches of each entity.


Just extract natural resources from Africa, and increase labour and Africa should do fine.
#15002273
Spain and Portugal are both first world countries and very nice even by U.S. standards.


No they aren't first world countries. Do some research. I agree they are nice. I love visiting both of them but economically they are no Germany.

Why it matters: With a population with an average I.Q. of 100 a person with and I.Q. of 130, 2 sds out, isn't that unusual, about 1 in 50. If you take a population with an average I.Q. of 70 and sd of 15, a person with an I.Q. of 130 is 4 sds out, about 1 in 1,000,000. For the other side of the tail, about half the population would meet out definition of mentally retarded.


None of this matters and all of it misses my point. Do try to read my post again. Pay attention this time.
#15002276


Chinese infrastructure investment commitments in Africa have increased to $100 billion in 2016, by which new airports, railways, ports, and bridges were built all across Africa. This Chinese initiative added efficiencies to local markets through introducing technologies and new products. China is finishing the job that European colonial powers started in the 19th century. Probably the communist model works best for Africa regardless of China's ulterior motives.
#15002336
Drlee wrote:No they aren't first world countries. Do some research. I agree they are nice. I love visiting both of them but economically they are no Germany.



None of this matters and all of it misses my point. Do try to read my post again. Pay attention this time.


I took your advice and did some research! :lol:

NATO Member States during the Cold War

Belgium Canada Denmark
France Germany Greece
Iceland Italy Luxembourg
Netherlands Norway Portugal
Spain (since 1982) Turkey United Kingdom
USA

US Aligned States
Israel Japan Korea (South)

Former British Colonies
Australia New Zealand

Neutral and more or less industrialized capitalist countries
Austria Ireland Sweden
Switzerland
#15002343
The archaic term "first world" association with NATO died with the Soviet Union. So today would you consider Russia a first world nation?
#15002348
Drlee wrote:This thread is disturbing.

There is no race so there is no winner. Who cares if they "gain first world status". First world refers to highly capitalist, industrialized countries.

Portugal and Spain are not first world countries. They will never reach the GDP of the US. I would be more than happy living in either of them though I live in THE first world country.

So that is the deal. It "winning" setting Africa on a course to compete with the US and China? At the expense of their wonderful and rich history. At the expense of the various peoples living less than modern lives? Or is winning, allowing people to be happier, safer and healthier? Would a Dogun tribesman be happier with a Cadillac and a Mortgage?

The talk of IQ is also disturbing. Consider.

If the average IQ in Africa is 70 then the difference between the average American is less than the average American and any member of Mensa. Much less. A Mensa member is "smarter" than 98% of the people he/she meets. What does that even mean as a practical matter?

A country requires and benefits from really smart people. The percentage of "smart" people required to perform at their potential is minuscule. An average American with an IQ of 98 and working in a grocery store or as a business manager may well be excellent at his/her job while performing well below the potential indicated by their IQ.



Nonsense-
"A country requires and benefits from really smart people."

So, if we apply that 'logic' to migration, say, into the U.K, that would be good politics would it, considering our experience of 'Third Country' migration to the E.U countries & the U.K decision to leave?

Conversely, if we deported, or allowed the economic migrants to return home, the 'home' countries of the migrants would see it as a positive for them?

Which raises a question, if the latter is true, why did they come here in the first place & why did we allow them to stay here as long as they have?

In reality, post WW2, Africa has been the main beneficiary of global 'charity', yet, the place is still awash in 'poverty', a result of, I suspect, much of that 'charity' being siphoned off into the pockets of the corrupt class of people in Africa who are not impoverished.

With charities like OXFAM, being the recipients, as well as agents of distribution from westerners charity, along with our government's giving 'foreign aid' for decades, the question ought to be asked as to why there is still any 'poverty' around in that place nowadays when in the U.K we have so-called food banks?
#15002350
I am not even sure what you are trying to say here. What that I said was "nonsense"?
#15002353
Nonsense wrote:Nonsense-
"A country requires and benefits from really smart people."

So, if we apply that 'logic' to migration, say, into the U.K, that would be good politics would it, considering our experience of 'Third Country' migration to the E.U countries & the U.K decision to leave?

Conversely, if we deported, or allowed the economic migrants to return home, the 'home' countries of the migrants would see it as a positive for them?

Which raises a question, if the latter is true, why did they come here in the first place & why did we allow them to stay here as long as they have?

In reality, post WW2, Africa has been the main beneficiary of global 'charity', yet, the place is still awash in 'poverty', a result of, I suspect, much of that 'charity' being siphoned off into the pockets of the corrupt class of people in Africa who are not impoverished.

With charities like OXFAM, being the recipients, as well as agents of distribution from westerners charity, along with our government's giving 'foreign aid' for decades, the question ought to be asked as to why there is still any 'poverty' around in that place nowadays when in the U.K we have so-called food banks?


Yep, Africa's best and brightest fled to the West. We need to return them to make Africa great again. Also we have been giving away "free" food for decade. I wonder what this does to farmers trying to make a living trying to sell food.

Have you ever noticed that when we are shown the videos of starving African children, flies and all, we don't see many starving women and generally no starving men?
#15002357
Drlee wrote:
The talk of IQ is also disturbing.


It's not disturbing in itself, low average IQ is a serious problem for these societies. What's disturbing is how the idiots who harp on the IQ issue ignore the centuries of predation and simplistically reduce all the problems in these societies to low average IQ. Even if all the problems could be attributed to low average IQ, the low IQ can in large part be attributed to the predatory exploitation of these societies by colonialist powers. Colonialism not only arrested the cognitive development of the societies, it's also likely that it has driven the average IQ significantly lower than it was prior to colonization.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 8

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uBPQT2Ia8fU

Then i'd have to be clearer I suppose. Sometimes […]

The Next UK PM everybody...

https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1162812535[…]

EU-BREXIT

Well he's leader of the Labour Party now and has a[…]