True. But a lot of those problems can be attributed to the atrocities that were a result of Europe's "conquest" of Africa in the early 1800's (England, Holland, France, Spain, Germany, Portugal, etc.) which resulted in massive apartheid and fragmentation.
I wonder what would've happened if Africans were allowed to draw their own boundaries? My educated guess: Africa would still be a hell hole. Oh, and it's racist of you to assume that diversity (fragmentation in this case) is bad for a country.
The apartheid in Africa led to the development of corrupt goverments and nations, that over the past hundred years have been in constant fights with eachother.
No, the culture in Africa has led to the development of corrupt governments and nations. Europe spent most of the 20th century in some form of turmoil and corruption is relatively low there. African culture promotes serious egomania that leads to this sort of thing compared to the West.
These warlord/waring nations and governments probably wouldn't have developed to what they were today if European's had't came in and stripped the nations of their natural resources (leaving them with nothing for future sources of income/trade)
"Stripped"? Please. Africa is still very rich with resources. It's a matter of them putting them to good use. It's also important to note that Sub-Saharan Africa didn't even have the wheel when Europeans showed up, what were they going to do with these resources they were sitting on without realizing their potential uses for thousands of years?
and tried to force they way of life onto them.
I do agree with this. What's good for us doesn't mean it will work out for them and I respect Africa's right to be African. Nice use of ebonics, btw.
. Europe definitely got the ball rolling on this shitstorm that is Africa as we know it though.
That ball had already been a'rollin'.
ilikehorses wrote:
so what's your intelligent solution? let the murder and death continue? .
As shitty as it is, yes. This raises some interesting ethical questions, but to me it seems like we realistically have two scenarios:
1. We choose to not intervene in the life of an African and let that person die off. That individual suffers and that's the end of it.
2. We intervene, keep that person alive, said person breeds (at typically much higher rates than us), a few years down the line they're looking to be saved again and this time there are a handful of children growing up suffering and in misery. We help them, they breed, repeat process.
Neither option gives us warm fuzzies, but it seems like we either have to do nothing or end up enabling more suffering.
While Africa has a ton of resources, they're not being used efficiently to provide for the population. There are cultural factors in play as well, but maybe the population of Africa is a little higher than what they can actually handle and allowing the herd to thin might make things better over there.
I'm currently reading "Camp of the Saints" that in a way address this sort of moral dilemma.