What Happened In Africa?

Mar 2011
4,136
The Celestial Plain
#31
Actually there is not such thing as a human race not suited to a certain climate. Europeans can work in the tropics just as well as africans, as today the proportion of european genetic influence on the brazilian population in the equatorial line is actually several times higher than the african influence.
This is a straw man. I never said that Europeans were intrinsically less suited to working in tropical climates than nonEuropeans. Europe tried indentured servitude in the Americas, and it didn't work, because European workers kept dying since they were not used to climate of the Americas. Africans obviously were used to that kind of climate, which is why they made suitable labor.

Guaporense said:
Actually the export of slaves improved Africa's economy on the level of per capita income:
You are assuming that the export of slaves did not disrupt emergent industries. That is a point you seem to completely missed; their entire economy (in the West specifically) was geared towards providing slaves for the west, because providing slaves for the slave trade was a more profitable investment ( guns enable you to get more slaves) than domestic industry. In the long run, an economy based on capturing people and selling them into slavery is not one with good long-term economic prospects, nor does it lead to long-term economic growth.

Guaporense said:
as the supply of labor declined and a decline of the supply of labor increases labor productivity and wages. African living standards would be worse without the forced migration of labor.
You are trying to use simplified economic models to create a historical fact. Not only is this bad history, but it is bad economics as well, because most economists understand that the model is only a very simplified representation of reality. Wages only rise when you have increased economic growth. The reason labor shortages lead to rising wages is because economic growth outstrips labor growth. But you cannot have an emerging economy if you have either a labor drain or if all your labor is engaged in resource destroying activities, like slave production. Greater levels of population only decrease labor productivity and wages if you have already maxed on the productive capacities of your technology. If you have not, then greater levels of population can also increase productivity. You also seem to assume that labor has an infinite capacity to improve its productivity. If that were true, then you could have one person producing all the stuff in the world.

The denser the population, the greater the degree of division of labor that you can have. With greater and more diversified levels of division of labor, productivity increases at a much greater rate. Productivity levels and income levels can best be looked at along a bell curve. With insufficient labor and population levels, there is insufficient diversification of labor (as well as insufficient domestic demand), which makes market activity very unproductive. Increasing levels of population and density increases productivity, which in turn increases wages, up to a point, where increasing levels of population lead to decreasing wages. There is no indication that Africa had reached a peak population and productivity level. Are wages higher in the countryside than in the cities? Do rural areas have greater degrees of technological development than urban areas? Is labor productivity greater in rural areas than the city? In fact, a city is on average 44% more productive per capita than its surrounding rural areas.
There is also the concept of tipping points. Without sufficient labor or population, engaging in market activity (or in greater and greater levels of market activity) is simply not worth it.


Guaporense said:
Decreased supply of labor caused by the exports of slaves would mean that wages would be higher, increasing the demand for labor saving technology such as machinery.
Actually, if you had just reached a population threshhold where development was worthwhile, then a decreasing supply of labor would lead to underdevelopment, not rising wages. In fact, the decreasing supply of labor would lead to falling wages, because insufficient labor would make industry utterly not worthwhile. And the increasing demand for labor saving technology just does not mystically happen. This would then imply that any sparsely populated region would have greater levels of technology, which is utterly untrue, because by that standard, Africa would already have had higher levels of technological development than Europe, as would native Americans. Why is it, then, that the regions with the greatest level of labor saving technology tend to be urbanized areas, which by definition are the most densely populated? Again, you are confusing simplified economic models with behavioral principles. That is one of the most basic fallacies you can make in economics.

Guaporense said:
The late 19th century was the most prosperous period in the history of Europe. Economic stagnation didn't occur. Only UK's rate of growth decreased, but Germany's and France's rates of economic growth increased. Overall from 1870 to 1914 was the period when Western Europe became industrialized, in 1870 only UK and Belgium were industrialized, with most of their population living in cities and stuff, by 1914 all Western European countries except Spain, Portugal and Southern Italy were industrialized.
Ironic, how every period of industrialization in Europe also coincided with greater levels of colonialism. Just a coincidence, right?


Guaporense said:
I think that the expansion of the European colonial possessions didn't have anything to do with the American civil war. Basically European countries were simply exerting their power in Africa as it was the last region in the world to be colonized by Europeans, due to it's lack of development and hence lack of taxable resources.
Again, you are not doing history, you are trying to infer history from simplified economic models. It is a fact that European nations started sending out colonial expeditions during and after the civil war. You are trying to say that the facts don't exist because they do correspond to economic models.

Guaporense said:
The European countries didn't gain anything from colonizing Africa. The costs were greater than the benefits, they did it due to the matter of national pride.
I never said that Europeans gained from colonizing Africa, although that is a dubious argument, for the simple fact that Africa provided raw materials that were either extremely rare or could not be found elsewhere in the world. There are certain resources that are almost irreplaceable. I don't know the percentage of global GDP that energy constitutes, but let's just say it is 20% for the sake of argument. If an alien were to come and remove all the fossil fuels in the world, the decline in Global would be massively greater than 20%. So fossil fuels are worth more than their share of global GDP, because without fossil fuels, you cannot have an industrial economy. Today, there are parts in computers that can only be made from certain kinds of metal found only in Africa. So for some industries, there are certain kinds of raw materials that are rare, found only in certain places, and without substitution.



Guaporense said:
Please. Plenty of philosophers, poets and writers? Africa in 1960 had 90% rate of illiteracy. The Europeans never westernized africa to remotely the same extent that they westernized North America.
You don't westernize the whole population, just the leaders. They did the same thing in India. "Westernize" 3-10% of the population so that they can essentially rule for you.

And this doesn't disprove my point that Europe failed to impart technical knowledge to Africans to sustain the infrastructure left behind. In fact, it bolsters my point.


Guaporense said:
Low population density is good for the economy, as it means high level of natural resources per capita. Europe had lower population density than China and this helped Europe to develop further than China during the early modern period.
Do you realize that you are contradicting yourself? If the reason that Europe developed further than China during the early modern period was because of its lower population densities, then would it not also follow that Africa would be more advanced than Europe, or that Russia would be more advanced than Great Britain, or that the Native Americans would be more advanced than the rest of the world? Now I know what you are probably going to say; Europe had superior culture. Fine. But if it's culture, then it's culture, not population density. At best the "population density" factor would only be relevant within a specific political-economic paradigm. Anyways, try to have an economy with 1 person for every 1,000 square miles. Or if I really wanted to make a point, by your definition, the most advanced country in the world would be a country that was the size of Africa and had two people in it. Right? That's about as low as population density as you can get. They'd also probably have space ships that could travel faster than the speed of light.

GuaporenseActually per capita incomes are increasing fast in Africa and today they are much higher than they were 10 years ago. But not as fast as in India and China.[/quote said:
Asymmetric growth. There are a lot of places that are getting worse. But you are correct to an extent. In the last decade Africa overall has seen robust economic, although it is unlikely that much of that growth is benefiting the African populace when you consider the staggering levels of inequality (that make the United States look like a communist utopia).


Guaporense said:
Africa is not getting poorer and poorer.
You are an inscrutable man Guaporense. Almost this entire post was about how declining population was good for Africa, and then you argue that Africa is not getting poorer and poorer, even though their population has been exploding over the last few decades. Wouldn't their increasing population (in fact, from 1999 to 2008 Africa's share of the global population increased from 12.8% to 14.5%) make them poorer?
 
Last edited:

bartieboy

Ad Honorem
Dec 2010
6,616
The Netherlands
#32
Yes, I have been doing a lot of research on this, unlike all you sheep who believe whatever the historical record tells you.

So here it is.

But first let's start from the beginning.

There was no Catholic church. Or at least, the catholic church was an instrument of domination for the British Empire, which goes back tens of thousands of years. Great Britain faked a split from the Catholic Church to prevent their satelite countries from rebelling; after all, a break from the Catholic Church would make it seem like the Catholic Church was against the British Empire, making the other continental European countries all willing to follow the Church, ensuring the British Empire continued indirect domination. The British then went into Africa, and after raping all their children (all of them), they enslaved them and sent them to the United States. All was going well, until there was a rebellion against the Catholic Church in France. To put down this rebellion, The British appointed a man named Napoleon Bonaparte to destroy the revolution. Thus, they were able to suppress France for another century. But things started to unravel in the nineteenth century. Americans wanted freedom, as did the Russians from the British Czar. So the British, through their plantation puppets, were able to trigger a Civil War with the United States, hoping to destroy the country before it could rise up and become independent. A failure, but the British had contingency plans. To challenge the system of freedom developing in the Americas, the British commissioned a story-teller by the name of Karl Marx to invent a seductive system that could be spread by British sabotage groups through Europe and the Americas. They then had Czar Alexander II assasinated to destabilize Russia, which would allow for the new communist ideology invented by British story teller Karl Marx to take hold. The British had their puppet in Germany invade France to keep them in check.

Everything seemed to be going well for the British, but for some reason the communist ideology would just not take hold among the freedom loving Americans. So the British began to form grander plans. They commissioned a group called the Bolsheviks to forcefully move Russia towards Communism. They start a world war in Europe, in the hopes of destroying Continental Europe to the extent that would allow other ideologies to take hold. After the War, and the horrible conditions imposed on the Germans dictated by the British through their puppets, the British send a high level spy named Adolf Hitler to Germany to begin the process of another global meltdown. They orchestrate an economic boom in the 20s, to be followed by a depression in the 30s. The contrast between boom and bust would further radicalize populations. While manufacturing a bust in the western world, they also manufactured robust economic growth in Russia, to further try to seduce Americans into embracing communism, but they were thwarted by Freedom Lover Franklin Roosevelt, who saved American Freedom. The goal of the British was to have their agent, Adolf Hitler, lead a war that would destroy Europe, and seemingly Great Britain as well, only to have the Nazis defeated by the Russians. The triumph of the Russians would convince the Americans to adopt the communist system, which would weaken them to the point that the British would be able to conquer them. But what they never anticipated was that the Japanese would intervene. After uncovering the evil plot of the British, the Japanese tried to convince the Americans that this was all an evil plot of the British, but the Americans, poisoned by centuries of anti-Japanese British propaganda, would not believe them. So the Japanese concocted a plot of their own. First, they agreed to join forces with Germany (the racists British didn't worry about this, because they didn't think Asians could make a difference in a war). After joining forces with Germany, the Japanese attacked the United States to draw them into the war. Of course this also meant that the US was at war with Germany as well. American freedom easily triumphed over British German fascism, and fearing the growing power of the US, and seeing that they could not possibly beat the freedom loving hot dog eating Americans, the British decided to join the side of the US and win their favor for the time being, hoping to sabotage them down the road.

What the British did not expect was that the benevolent Americans, after winning the war, would decide to rebuild all of Europe. As British power decayed, the British knew they had to do something to prevent the rise of American led Europe. So they put a very convoluted plan in motion. First, they invented the Greeks, who would go on to sabotage the Euro (which they also planned to invent) and bring down the European Union. At the same time, they invented China to destroy the US economy. Of course, as already noted, the Europeans invented the European Union, the Euro, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, and Italy, with the express purpose of having the growing Continental European powers link their economies to these newly formed countries, only to be brought down with them when their economies inevitably failed. After igniting stagflation in the seventies by disrupting global supplies, the British were able to capitalize on the crisis by getting an English clown named Ronald Reagan elected the president of the United States. Reagan would then turn the economy over to the British bankers, who would ignite a series of financial crises, starting with the Savings and Loan crisis and culminating in the Great Recession. After a British agent named Murdoch seized control of all the media organizations, every president after Reagan was essentially a puppet of the British. The final destruction of the American Utopia of freedom was when the British orchestrated 9/11, and under the pretense of "fighting terror" the British could destroy American freedoms and vitiate our economy through endless and pointless foreign wars.

I'm tired know, so I'll explain why the British created the mythology of Greek and Roman and Chinese civilization later. But as you can see, the British are responsible for everything wrong in the universe.
you sound like one of those Neo Nazi's who believe the Rothschild family is behind everything that is bad in this world. The only difference is that you replace the Rothschild family with the British.

You have lost a lot of credibility in my eyes
 
Mar 2011
4,136
The Celestial Plain
#33
you sound like one of those Neo Nazi's who believe the Rothschild family is behind everything that is bad in this world. The only difference is that you replace the Rothschild family with the British.

You have lost a lot of credibility in my eyes
Just what I'd expect from a deluded sheep! :zany:
 
Last edited:

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
35,041
T'Republic of Yorkshire
#35
It is funny how you see all those theories as the truth while you only come up with acquisitions...
I must say you have a very rich fantasy :confused:
*sigh* You do realise that spellbinder's entire post about the British was completely and utterly tongue in cheek? Do you honestly believe he thinks the British invented China?

Unless you're being wonderfully ironic in reply, of course.
 
Jun 2011
883
#36
I found one detail today. In one caravan of Arabs from Darfur to Cairo it was 18-20 000 slaves. Imagine in one caravan.

And because of Berlin 1885 we have term Balkanization of Africa.
 
Dec 2008
179
Somewhere in Africa
#38
This thread is misguided.What happened to India? What happened to China? What happened to Brazil? All these countries were considered basket cases in the middle of the 20th century but look at what happened recently. It seems that finally they are getting their act together. The thread should be what happened to the Congo? or Zimbabwe? etc. Botswana is doing well. Investment in Africa has grown and their is a growing middle class. The smater corporations have discovered that they can get more returns on their investment in this continent than elsewhere. A good example is the mobile phone industry. There are so many young entreprenuers in the continent and many are taking advantage of new available technologies.

The point I'm trying to make is putting the whole continent in one basket as many here have been doing is misguided. African countries are diverse in terms of their set ups, histories, influences and make up. For what will happen to some African countries in the next 50 years you have to look at India. A few years ago many people viewed India as an overpopulated basket case but now nobody is talking about that.

Please get a better understanding of the continent and its individual nations.
 
Nov 2011
8,887
The Dustbin, formerly, Garden of England
#39
Please get a better understanding of the continent and its individual nations.
Only old Africa hands should comment, the others don't have a clue what they are talking about.
(Except Spellbinder who has the only true copy of the Protocols of the Elders of Tonbridge Wells)
 

Similar History Discussions