Q: Why has Africa always been so shit and undeveloped?

Q: Why has Africa always been so shit and undeveloped?

A: Isolated location, diseases, bad/few animals to domesticate

>isolated

man it's the biggest and best located both in geology (almost no natural disasters) and climate (impressive amount of fertile area) land mass on earth

>diseases

that's not a thing that's there because fuck it
diseases are caused by something
f.ex europe had it's terrible time with diseases because of poverty

>bad animals to domesticate

indians domesticated elephants, africans weren't able to

horses where in africa in the neolithic, but not a single subsaharian people seemed to care about that animal, when the indoeuropeans introduced the horse to the mesopotamian area everyone just got them quickly

Europeans making arbitrary borders

A : it's full of africans

Having such a tropical climate is more of a curse Than a gift. Europe doesn't have diseases like Malaria.

>horses where in africa in the neolithic, but not a single subsaharian people seemed to care about that animal, when the indoeuropeans introduced the horse to the mesopotamian area everyone just got them quickly


Are you retarded?

Horseback riding in Africa was widespread

>man it's the biggest and best located both in geology (almost no natural disasters) and climate (impressive amount of fertile area) land mass on earth
You might be the most retarded person I have seen this month. Its pretty much constantly going into droughts and if you are in the rain forest then you get monsoons constantly, not to mention that rain forest soil is shit. The places that do have good soil are boom and bust in terms of water which is terrible in terms of maintaining a stable agricultural base.

>that's not a thing that's there because fuck it
>diseases are caused by something
So tropical diseases aren't a problem because you said so? Interesting.

>indians domesticated elephants, africans weren't able to
Indian elephants are much smaller and less temperamental, even then elephants going aggro is common.

Egypt is also Africa they are first world in 3000 BC
But I don't know other part of Africa

Tribal diversity is a strength

africans started civilizations but they got fucked over by drought every time

Few commercially navigable rivers so no trade
Lots of barriers to travel between regions so no trade
Terrain is shit so it's expensive to develop on large scales
Nothing is conducive to developing large scale societies in the southern half of the continent

imagine if there's no european scramble and those tribes decides the border for themselves

How do you define a commercially navigable river? Do you have a map of them?

>Isolated location,
Your country is more isolated than Africa.
>diseases,
Europe met diseases too. You know disease regulate overpopulation. Overpopulation leads to famines, wars and diseases.
>bad/few animals to domesticate
So stupid

Also, for all of those making geographic arguments: how do you explain the difference between neighbors Israel ($33.000/capita) and Jordan ($4000/capita), if not with the qualities of the humans?

different priorities

sweden isn't more isolated at all.

Different suite of diseases and pests.

They had domesticated animals but shit like these flues fuck up the viable range you can raise them in.

>indians domesticated elephants, africans weren't able to

Dunno about all this other stuff, but you know that african elephants and asian elephants are very different beasts, yeah? Much bigger and much more scary when they go into their habitual musth. Also wasn't the use of war elephants a thing in Africa?

where ever wh*tes touch it becomes shithole. so whites are the main reason.

>the absolute state of Northern African education
Wew lad, who knew Spaniards were just as painfully stupid as Italians. Guess an African rape baby is an African rape baby, at the end of the day.

War elephants were shit in active combat and even for Object Elephants they were only tamed.

Serious or retarded? Israel has been propped up and heavily funded/armed by rich world policing nations such as the UK and the USA.
Wealthy western nations have essentially helped Israel establish trade, pump with money, technology and armaments, terrorise its neighbours for decades, bending over backwards to defend crimes against humanity and the selling of allied confidential security information to China, etc. etc. etc.

Israel went to war against Jordan in order to secure more territory, effectively being backed up by the UK. If the west stopped treating both Israel and SA like princesses, both of those nations would look more like Yemen.

Because blacks are perfectly suited for African environment and didn't need civilization to survive.

PS. Buy my books.

Colonialism

It's more retarded to assume that some foreign aid and military support can raise the GDP of a country by a factor of almost 10. (Not to forget that Africa also received lots of those.)

The Israelis have established agriculture in the desert, are an active democracy, pass laws for Big Data usage and manager salary caps, while their neighbors are too busy with Stone Age tribal and religious disputes.

//water//

Euros died of malaria as well in the past. Charles V of Spain died of malaria

When the environment is too /comfy/, there's no need to think hard and do great stuff.

Europeans on ice and arabs in the middle of the fucking desert created their own civilizations because the environment was so shitty that they had to be creative so they could live. Natural selection too I believe.

I know it's not a rule, but it makes sense in my head.

The Askenazi created Israel, and they had an european tradition. In other words, when they got there, they knew what to do to make Israel great.

Israel basically was an european colony.

It's bullshit maccacai

This proves my point that know-how, diplomacy, intelligence and determination are what makes a nation successful, not necessarily geographic location

Albeit I'm not denying some places of Africa have horrible conditions, if you we're to populate them with the Dutch, for example, they would be an industrious and prospering place soon

>if you we're to populate them with the Dutch, for example, they would be an industrious and prospering place soon

Not really.

Africans domesticated cattle and camels...

East africa developed becasue of proximity trading routes.

The rest of subsharan africa was isolated by the sahara desert

There is lack of useful land. Congo is a jungle.

The ultimate reason is that now theyre cockblocked by develop nations, trough aid and subsides farmers

And donkeys

Aid helps Africa though in most cases.

>So stupid
It's a huge contributor to how developed a society becomes. You fucking moron

So you're inclined to believe that geography is all and everything?

It does
It worked for Israel and it worked for korea

No one said it was though but it was a big factor

Turns out having America's blessing is a good thing. Hmm who knew?

So which geographic advantages explain East Asia, North America and Europe being the most developed regions? They have little in common.

East Asia isn't most developed. Only Japan, SK, Taiwan, and HK are developed. the rest are poor as hell

A: pic related

Virgin fat anglo neet has spoken

I wonder if weather has some effect in the form of evolutionary pressure. You're more pressured to be intelligent and react apropriately when you're freezing compared to a life where there is no shortage at any point during the year.
Africa would fall into the second category

>t in the form of evolutionary pressure. You're more pressured to be intelligent and react apropriately when you're freezing compared to a life where there is no shortage at any point during the year.
>Africa would fall into the second category
civilization began in warm places and lapps, eskimos, and siberians are controlling the world's wealth and politics

aren't*

This map has to be bullshit. There's no way an entire continent of people has fucking down syndrome level IQ. I know Africa is dysfunctional and terrible, but I'm pretty sure a society ruled by literal downies wouldn't even be able to exist.

>aren't
I'm not so sure about that, I mean look at the finnish. They control the world supply of memes amongst other things.
On a more serious note, I agree there might be diminishing returns with the most nordic civilizations not doing much but in general you could say that nordic people control much of the world's wealth and politics. If you consider nordic as being north of Africa

You people are probably more knowledgable about Africa's history and prospects than I am

And the reason is simple, the situation is so utterly dire and unassailable that I feel little incentive to contribute anything

>If you consider nordic as being north of Africa
lmao

>Ashkenazi created Israel

Sure the modern state of Israel, but historically, Israel was inhabited by the actual Jews and not the descendants of the Greek and Iranic conquerors of Anatolia (the Ashkenazi)

Feudal Europe was utterly dire and unassailable as well

I mean, I REALLY empathize with your struggles, but that's no explanation

Our communal structure isn't sophisticated enough to allow for significant development

Eventually some mosaic of corrupt educated government officials and oppressed citizens emerges everywhere

What do you mean by "communal structure", precisely?

The way we organize communally

People in the west naturally build upon existing organizations or developments, here they assume something must be done for the sake of being done, offer little support or commitment, let it wither, and revert to the simplest form of living. The government officials embezzle a portion of the funds, the citizens are offered little to nothing and no opportunity to protest, its just continual defeatism

>You're more pressured to be intelligent and react apropriately
more like pressured into synced group think
it can actually be really useful, look at how china has propped itself back up

Sounds dreadful indeed, but it really wasn't that much different in the West for quite a while: mighty monarchs, illiterate and docile peasants, no political mass movements.

Something broke this circle here.

Was it luck that broke it or something else?

Enlightenment, Marxism, American intervention all helped.

The tropics are not a very friendly place for humans to live in.

The locals (in the sub-Saharan parts, at least) have a median IQ of 80.

Any other explanation is simply tiptoeing around an uncomfortable truth.

South Korea Was like that though

One reason that I had once read and actually made sense was that Africa is essentially disconnected.
When people were travelling in old times, it was usually in longtidude (east-west) so that the climate remained essentially the same. In Africa if you want to travel this way, you hit the jungle.
Civilizations arise only with communication with other peoples.

so basically, it was a combination of books/mass media and rich people having too much time to sit around and think.
In which case, Africa should be up to Europe's standards by about 2060.
Problem solved

Western imperialism and unfavorable climatic conditions

you forgot the wars and massive empires
mostly wars

...

Fuck off Jorge.

Sup Forums btfo like always

too much heat and jungles

It may be the case - but the IQ is the result of the environmental stimuli.

Ie people evolved with lower IQs or higher IQs based on the environmental challenges to life in the reginos they lived in.

For example in a colder place there may have been more need for future planning than in a tropical place.

>how do you explain the difference between a country that's an American puppet state and the people they forced into slums and oppressed?

Once again a Sup Forumslutant posts statistics without context. Due to the Flynn Effect caused by nutrition, education, etc., Western cunts have gained 15 IQ points per generation, which in turn causes the IQ curve to adjust while developing countries remain the same. Our ancestors from only a few generations ago were literally retarded as per the contemporary bell curve as well.

Why would Botswana be ~20 IQ points lower than the rest of Africa?

You're not going to like the answer.

The Israelis were living in Europe and had the advantage of being able to import European administration and technology without having to educate them on how it worked. That's part of why Australia, USA, Canada and New Zealand were so successful too

But if your geographic location meant that you were completely cut off from the more advanced regions in Europe and Asian then you wouldn't have the proper know-how

IQ doesn't work in undeveloped countries

>Europe is harsher due to ice.
If anything, ice made it easier. They set up shop in a situation where mother nature would obliterate pest insects and many diseases for a quarter of the year. Would you rather a blizzard, or Ebola?

i kind of feel what Africa and ME need is a ww2 type situation where we obliterate each other and thus learn the importance of cooperation like Europe did

Well yeah
Africa is huge.

It's the wh*te man's fault.
Remember they were KINGS until evil wh*tey destroyed everything

Possibly because it has a huge indigenous population that IQ tests don't work well on. Given the success of the cunt, it's highly doubtful that they're retarded.

>Why has Africa always been so shit and undeveloped?
it's because of the unfortunate color of their skin.

human beings have a fucked up sense of beauty, most haven't evolved looking at anything beyond skin deep

It's cos 1) the African continent is not a very suitable place where people can live 2) the African are subhumans so they can't even run their own states properly.

...

>oppressed
lolwut
Their country is independent and their religion/ideology (Islam) is in charge of everything. Christian minorities in Jordan are oppressed, if anyone.

I thought having countries be one ethnic group was bad? Which one is it? Is ethnic diversity bad or is ethnic homogeneity bad?

borders were a mistake

>Q: Why has Africa always been so shit and undeveloped?

A: Niggers

socialism