Why is sub-Saharan Africa so poor?

[Tyrannosaurus Che]

Forgive me if this has been asked before many times, but I've long wondered why most of sub-Saharan Africa suffers such grinding poverty today. Most people with whom I've talked about this claim or imply it's all because of something pathological in African culture, but this explanation strikes me as quasi-racist at the very least. Where are some good resources for understanding why Africa has stayed so poor for so long?

[Leftie]

Capitalism.

[SacRedMan]

Capitalism.

Corrupt governement, resources getting exploited every day, genocides in the past, conflicts, climate,...

[Sun Wukong]

Corrupt governement, resources getting exploited every day, genocides in the past, conflicts, climate,...
All these things have a pretty significant showing in European/American/Asian history too and completely fail to answer the question.

Africa was not always poor. It's poverty is not some kind of original historical condition, nor as you correctly identify is it the result of African's being work-shy or any other racist excuse.

Africa's poverty was imposed upon it chiefly by Western Europe and it's bastard offspring the United States. Imperialism is why Africa is poor.


A couple of good texts that deal with this are: Michael Parenti's Against Empire and Walter Rodney's How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. Chapter 1 of the first and the entire text of the latter are available online but apparently I'm not allowed to link anything yet.

[Kamos]

Most people with whom I've talked about this claim or imply it's all because of something pathological in African culture, but this explanation strikes me as quasi-racist at the very least.

Not African culture - just African climate. The regions of the Earth are quite different - it is natural that fertile European lands lying by rivers full of fish are easier to prosper on than a desert where your best bet is herding animals. What others have said before, however, is probably the biggest part. After ages of tribal wars, European (and even Ottoman) colonialism Africa had the misfortune of being exploited to the fullest.
And as the American and Asian colonies started declaring independence the great colonialist powers were struggling to find markets for the shit they were producing, so they had to resort to what was left - Africa. That's what the era of imperialism was about - Britain and France, in particular, gobbled up huge areas of African desert, for nothing other than establishing a corridor (for whatever reason) through the continent, and to have more buyers for their capitalistic products.
The colonial rule of Europeans persisted for long - seen any independent countries in Africa before the end of WWII? Not many. And this meant that Africa had no time to prosper like Europe and later America. Decolonisation has begun eventually, but the borders were basically drawn with a ruler everywhere, and due to nationalism (curse that ideology) a multitude of conflicts erupted again. Not surprising - think what Europe would be like if the countries were divided by random lines drawn onto the map. And here we are today.
This is basically the reason that Africa is still so poor today. Its climate ensured that technological advances are much harder to achieve than in Europe - and as a result, it could get colonised easily, and that era lasted longer there than anywhere else in the world. (And still lasts today, of course, if not so visibly.) Claiming that it has anything to do with the African people is completely stupid - in fact, before colonialism, some African states did have pretty impressive culture (think of Timbuktu, in the Songhai Empire, so deep in Africa high school teachers don't even mention it - it got ransacked by Moroccans though). And I'm certain that if left alone and possibly given some real aid to recover, Africa could become magnificent as well.

(If I'm wrong anywhere please correct me. African history interests me and so I'd hate to know something wrong.)

[punisa]

Unfortunately very corrupt governments with very strong ties with the west. The african people are super-exploited by these groups and they simply have no chance to break free that easily.
It would be very foolish and ignorant to say that Africans as people are in some way backwards and unable to act.

There are many amazing people in Africa, writers, political authors, poets, artists etc etc.
Unfortunately these people are never mentioned in the west and the whole propaganda is just trying to portray Africa as uncivilized and savage.

[Triple A]

Africa was not always that poor.
Of course is hard to develop after such agressive colonisations like de west imposed. And after colonies were dismantled IMF and world bank carried on the exploitation of natural resources.

[a rebel]

not to mention De Beers, the only company in the world who can buy and sell diamonds.

[MattShizzle]

Mostly Imperialism but also a general lack of resources. And as someone pointed out once sub-saharan Africa doesn't have an animal equivalent to the horse, so Africa didn't have a chance to be the exploiters rather than the exploited.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Mostly Imperialism but also a general lack of resources.

Africa is one of the most resource rich continents in the world.

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa#Geography):

"The continent is believed to hold 90% of the world’s cobalt, 90% of its platinum, 50% of its gold, 98% of its chromium, 70% of its tantalite, 64% of its manganese and one-third of its uranium. The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) has 70% of the world’s coltan, and most mobile phones in the world have coltan in them. The DRC also has more than 30% of the world’s diamond reserves. Guinea is the world’s largest exporter of bauxite. As the growth in Africa has been driven mainly by services and not manufacturing or agriculture, it has been growth without jobs and without reduction in poverty levels. In fact, the food security crisis of 2008 which took place on the heels of the global financial crisis has pushed back 100 million people into food insecurity." (Check the article for sources)

And according to Aid and Other Dirty Business by Giles Bolton, the small East African country of Uganda could produce enough agriculture to feed all of Africa if properly farmed.

[Bronco]

Yeah that's bollocks that they have no recources, it was their abundance of them that was the main reason for the Scramble for Africa in the first place


Imperialism is why Africa is poor

Bingo

[Franz Fanonipants]

walter rodney and gtfo

/thread

[Tommy4ever]

Corrupt and incompetent governance, legacy of Imperialism, stupid borders, a lack of resources, conflict, tribal and ethnic divisions, bad farmland, very high population growth with very low economic growth, failed development schemes in the early post-colonial period, crippling debt, very laclustre use of aid (it has in effect contributed to a suppression of growth on many occaisions), lacked of a skilled workforce.

Those are the biggies.

[Rusty Shackleford]

walter rodney and gtfo

/thread
"How Europe Underdeveloped Africa" by Walter Rodney

the conscious underindustrializing africa during colonial times, and the extraction of raw materials and financial domination from and of africa today.


imperialism.

[red cat]

Forgive me if this has been asked before many times, but I've long wondered why most of sub-Saharan Africa suffers such grinding poverty today. Most people with whom I've talked about this claim or imply it's all because of something pathological in African culture, but this explanation strikes me as quasi-racist at the very least. Where are some good resources for understanding why Africa has stayed so poor for so long?

Past and present imperialism and the resultant socio-economic structure are the only causes of Africa's misery. Climate or the culture of the oppressed masses have nothing to do with it.

[Tyrannosaurus Che]

A couple of good texts that deal with this are: Michael Parenti's Against Empire and Walter Rodney's How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. Chapter 1 of the first and the entire text of the latter are available online but apparently I'm not allowed to link anything yet.

I just added both to my Amazon Wish List. Thanks!

[Dr Mindbender]

Various factors, not least historical relativism. Africa being a mainly tribal continent was at the brunt end of co-ordinated European colonialism that sapped its resources, dignity, confidence and autonomy. The slave trade also created a brain drain- many of the continents gifted were taken to north america, disarming Africa's ability to compete with the world.

[pranabjyoti]

The condition of the aboriginal people of democratic India (which can send a probe to the Moon) is nearly same (in some cases worse) than the condition of the people of Sub-Saharan Africa. There is no question that imperialism and capitalism together are responsible for the condition of Africa all together now.

[jake williams]

While the above posts are mostly accurate, it is important to note that sub-Saharan Africa isn't uniformly or uniquely poor, and that, as the origin of all of human culture, it's a pretty complex place.

As pranabjyoti said, there is comparable poverty in parts of India. Urban poverty is very different from rural poverty. The old Belgian areas are generally a lot worse than anywhere else. The worst urban poverty in Africa isn't that different than the worst urban poverty in, say, Brazil. Climate doesn't help either, and is a significant aggravating factor just south of the Sahara.

I'd be a bit cautious about the "corruption" argument. Of course there's official corruption and it's a huge problem, but there is a whole line that explicitly says that corruption is endemic in African culture and that's the main or only cause of continued extreme mass poverty. A specific type of corruption is a product of the specific type of neo-colonial relations produced particularly through extractive industry. It tends to occur in places with immense mineral wealth, rather than any particular cultural area.

I can say at least in South Africa that a lot of what gets called "corruption" basically is due to the abandonment of class politics by post-colonial leaders, a failure with pretty complex roots, but a specifically political one which affects a particular group of countries around southern Africa (SA and Zimbabwe in particular).

[Agent Ducky]

Sub-Saharan Africa has been ravaged by imperialism in the past and is still being manipulated by Western countries, even after they gained 'independence' from Western imperial powers.

In short, capitalism. Because the rich countries always need poor countries to exploit, even if it's not direct imperialism. That's the short version. Comrades above have more detailed explanations.

[robbo203]

Not African culture - just African climate. The regions of the Earth are quite different - it is natural that fertile European lands lying by rivers full of fish are easier to prosper on than a desert where your best bet is herding animals. What others have said before, however, is probably the biggest part. After ages of tribal wars, European (and even Ottoman) colonialism Africa had the misfortune of being exploited to the fullest.
And as the American and Asian colonies started declaring independence the great colonialist powers were struggling to find markets for the shit they were producing, so they had to resort to what was left - Africa. That's what the era of imperialism was about - Britain and France, in particular, gobbled up huge areas of African desert, for nothing other than establishing a corridor (for whatever reason) through the continent, and to have more buyers for their capitalistic products.
The colonial rule of Europeans persisted for long - seen any independent countries in Africa before the end of WWII? Not many. And this meant that Africa had no time to prosper like Europe and later America. Decolonisation has begun eventually, but the borders were basically drawn with a ruler everywhere, and due to nationalism (curse that ideology) a multitude of conflicts erupted again. Not surprising - think what Europe would be like if the countries were divided by random lines drawn onto the map. And here we are today.
This is basically the reason that Africa is still so poor today. Its climate ensured that technological advances are much harder to achieve than in Europe - and as a result, it could get colonised easily, and that era lasted longer there than anywhere else in the world. (And still lasts today, of course, if not so visibly.) Claiming that it has anything to do with the African people is completely stupid - in fact, before colonialism, some African states did have pretty impressive culture (think of Timbuktu, in the Songhai Empire, so deep in Africa high school teachers don't even mention it - it got ransacked by Moroccans though). And I'm certain that if left alone and possibly given some real aid to recover, Africa could become magnificent as well.

(If I'm wrong anywhere please correct me. African history interests me and so I'd hate to know something wrong.)

On the point about African cultures, yes , in precolonial times some of the old kingdoms particularly in West Africa like Benin were pretty advanced but you are wrong to think that this was not in the field of technology (due to climate). You mention Timbuktu . This was a renowned centre of learning and mathematics. The early Portuguese explorers were amazed by what they found - well ordered cities with sanitation and other facilities superior to what existed in most of Europe at the time. For a long time the hugely impressive ruins of Great Zimbabwe were thought by racist anthropologists to be the remnants of a construction that could not possibly have been built by black Africans and must therefore have been built by outsiders - the so called "hamitic thesis". Throughout Southern Africa or at least the Eastern part of it, ancient mine workings have been discovered and it was the discovery of these in Zimbabwe by a german explorer, Munch, that led Cecil Rhodes, to believe that gold was to be found there rather than in the old backwater boer agrarian republics. He was quite content to bypass these and expand northwards until the discovered gold in the 1880s in Johannesburg. That was when British imperialism turned its eyes on the Transvaal

So no its not really true to argue that climate held back technological advances since such advances were certainly there. I say nothing of the sophisticated agricultural adaptations to the African environment. Read Paul Richard's excellent Indigenous Agricultural Revolution which explodes quite a few myths about the alleged superiority of western style capitalist farming in Africa

You mention deserts but of course most of Africa is not desert and we should not forget either that what is now desert was once forested. The Carthage empire which extended right across the North African coast and even into Spain was notable for its environmentally destructive practices such as deforestation. In the Sahara there are sandstone caves with paintings depicting all sorts of animals which today populate the savannah including elephants (hundreds of North African elephants were used by Hannibal in his war against the Romans).

There are many reasons for Africa's relative "backwardness" one of which you did not mention was the legacy of the slave trade. Large parts of Africa were significantly depopulated and so you did not have that critical threshold of population numbers to induce technological development. An example - "Slash" and "burn" agriculture which is actually a pretty rational way of organising food production since it mimimises the need for labour inputs in what is a sparse population, You basically let nature do the work for you and move on to a new peice of land when soil fertility drops. But it does mean that, until population levels rise significantly, you dont need to actually develop or alter your farming techniques, they are perfectly adequate as they are.

Just one little point to bear in mind in thinking about what is a very big and complex subject

[Lorax]

To put it simply, Sub-Saharan Africa is a very wealthy region of the world. The problem is distribution. I vividly remember saying this very thing to an exchange student from Zimbabwe around 2002. My capitalist economics major roommate looked at me like I was deranged while the Zimbabwean laughed and said it may sound funny, but it's true.

However, it's not as simple as the proletariat or a vanguard party seizing the means of production. While proletarian control of the means of production is our goal, attempts to accomplish this rapidly have resulted in disaster all too often. These nations are not nearly as advanced as Marx would have thought they would need to be before becoming ripe for a socialist revolution.

Let's not fool ourselves: culture plays a role in the relative wealth of various societies. Many other factors play significant roles as well, history not least among them. The accidents of geography are critical as well- Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel is a great read on this topic. We should also be careful about how measure wealth- measures of happiness would seem to be more important than GDP.

[robbo203]

To put it simply, Sub-Saharan Africa is a very wealthy region of the world. The problem is distribution. I vividly remember saying this very thing to an exchange student from Zimbabwe around 2002. My capitalist economics major roommate looked at me like I was deranged while the Zimbabwean laughed and said it may sound funny, but it's true.

However, it's not as simple as the proletariat or a vanguard party seizing the means of production. While proletarian control of the means of production is our goal, attempts to accomplish this rapidly have resulted in disaster all too often. These nations are not nearly as advanced as Marx would have thought they would need to be before becoming ripe for a socialist revolution.

Let's not fool ourselves: culture plays a role in the relative wealth of various societies. Many other factors play significant roles as well, history not least among them. The accidents of geography are critical as well- Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel is a great read on this topic. We should also be careful about how measure wealth- measures of happiness would seem to be more important than GDP.


As a rider to to your last sentence this was a point that Ether Boserup made about the systematic discounting of subsistence acitivities simply because they are not monetised and therefore do not contribute to GDP:


The present system of under-reporting subsistence activities not only makes the underdeveloped countries seem poorer than they really are in comparison with the more developed countries, but it also makes their rate of economic growth appear in a more favorable light than the facts warrant, since economic development entails a gradual replacement of the omitted subsistence activities by the creation of income in the non-subsistence sector which is recorded more correctly (Boserup E. 1970, Woman's Role in Economic Development p. 163)

[progressive_lefty]

Good thread.

I'm also not very familar with African history, but I am definetly familar with the stereotypes of African people.

As far as the situation in terms of poverty - I personally have done a bit of research on the topic, but not a lot. Neo-liberalist policies have hampered Africa quite significantly - it's quite depressing. And you have to remember, this is not even taking into account of the terrible consequences left over from colonialism. 'Free trade' and private land ownership have destroyed traditional subsistence farming in some of the war-free African countries. The IMF and WTO - which like every knows if you don't join them they'll basically squeeze the life out of you and your country - both have blood on their hands in relation to Africa's agricultural problems. The WTO has placed restrictions on the production of certain agricultural items on many poor African countries. The country I am familiar with is Ghana - the WTO banned Ghana from placing tariffs on imported goods, and Ghana must eliminate tariffs by 80% by 2023 (google that if you want to confirm if its true). That's just an example of the disastrous policies of the WTO. The only word I can use to describe them is 'animalistic'. Do animals even behave like that? People will die in Ghana because they wont be able to make money out of their crops in their own country. I just cannot understand what the WTO is doing, and I hate them with a passion for doing it.

[human strike]

There are some very rich people in sub-Saharan Africa, ya know.