The root cause of Africa's problems?

[Virus]

But African slavery and their trade with the Arab, Persian and Turkish empires was Kosher?

 

[McHrozni]

Revise history much?

Are you even aware of haw many millions of African were forcibly removed from Africa as a result of the trans-Atlantic slave trade?

Approximately 15 million over 300 years, with about half that number occurring in 18th century.

To put it in perspective, that's about 75,000 slaves a year, out of population of a hundred million or so. Adjusted for population, that's roughly the same amount of damage road deaths cause to China right now (somewhat fewer deaths, but way more seriously injured or crippled). This isn't insignificant, but it's hardly crippling.

McHrozni

 

[Virus]

How is the slave trade (which the British forced the Africans to give up, against their wishes) responsible for Africa being poor when nobody alive now was affected by it?

 

[Virus]

60 years ago China had Communism. It was ruled by the greatest mass-murderer in human history. It instituted the Great Leap Forward which was greatest man-made catastrophe in human history. Then followed that up with the Cultural Revolution as an encore. There are still people alive who remember people eating their kids to survive. Four decades later its the world's second largest economy with double-digit growth.

So do you know what I say to Africa being permanently poor because of something that happened hundreds of years ago? Ass grapes.

 

[epepke]

As far as I'm concerned this is the main reason.

I think you mean that it should be the main reason, and that you personally like that sort of thing. Well, fine, so do I, but my point is that it's the position of a tiny minority. As we know from Hume (and some figured it out by independent thought), "ought" isn't "isn't."

I'm pointing out that a lot of people don't do this. I notice, for instance, that @Virus is getting picked on a lot. From my perspective, the only real difference between @Virus and his detractors is that he is, shall we say, more of one kind of political animal, and his detractors are more of a different kind of political animal.

But that doesn't make what is said against him any better, more informative, more factual, or even less bigoted and stupid. It just has the goal of propping up different sensibilities.

Many people just look at where to put blame and feel good because it's someone else did something wrong and not them or something.

Or, equally stupidly, that their group did something bad so that they can work off their group guilt rather cheaply.

Note one thing though - colonialism and imperialism differ. Colonialism (settling your own population abroad) is what happened in Americas, whereas Africa toiled under imperialism (rule from abroad with few settlers). South(-ern) Africa is an obvious exception.

We're already needlessly conflating things like race and slavery, which are probably only in the conversation to paint some sort of booga booga picture of Europeans whipping Africans.

Colonialism and imperialism undoubtedly differ, but there are far, far more gradations than that. Talking about them would doubtlessly be interesting and inform even a real discussions about what made imported slaves so desirable in parts of North America. (Basically, it's not really so different in pattern as to why poor people go to Wal Mart to get cheap stuff from China, but only if K-Mart and Target obey the Pope.)

That would, however, be a minority discussion, because most people don't want that. They want to score cheap points for Western Cultural Superiority™ or self-excoriation for White Guilt™, and those camps are so fascinated by their belief that they are opposites, they don't understand how self-serving both sets of attitudes are. Anybody interested in an actual discussion is going to find themselves totally ignored, and the best we can reasonably hope that the sarcasm they settle upon in order to maintain their sanity will be somewhat amusing.

 

[McHrozni]

I think you mean that it should be the main reason, and that you personally like that sort of thing. Well, fine, so do I, but my point is that it's the position of a tiny minority. As we know from Hume (and some figured it out by independent thought), "ought" isn't "isn't."

What I meant is that [finding solutions, as opposed to placing blame] is the only reason why I'm thinking about and debating these issues. It's the only reason for me, and the only reason (that I know of) that makes the issue worthy of any consideration at all.

Colonialism and imperialism undoubtedly differ, but there are far, far more gradations than that. Talking about them would doubtlessly be interesting and inform even a real discussions about what made imported slaves so desirable in parts of North America. (Basically, it's not really so different in pattern as to why poor people go to Wal Mart to get cheap stuff from China, but only if K-Mart and Target obey the Pope.)

Could you perhaps explain this a bit? I see but vaguely what you're trying to say. It looks to me as if I'd agree to it, but I can't be sure.

So do you know what I say to Africa being permanently poor because of something that happened hundreds of years ago? Ass grapes.

Migrating animals! It was the migrating animals I tell you!
Had to say it

McHrozni

 

[Earthborn]

This is a good explanation. Modern anthropologists, sociologists, or historians might not even consider the superior/inferior question. Basically thinking it is irrelevant.

They tend to think it the question is not merely irrelevant, but dangerous. In some cultures, anthropologists, sociologists and historians are expected to answer the question which culture is superior by finding arguments for the superiority of their own culture. That doesn't really lead to particularly good cultures.

One of the nice aspects of modern Western culture is that social scientists are encouraged to study cultures -- including their own -- with a critical eye and try to work around their cultural biases. The only way they can do that by not assuming that one culture must be "superior" to another.

Although, I would say that when you consider things like science, secularism, human rights, treatment of women/children/minorities ect, that some cultures are superior than others.

Of course in Pinkland people think their culture is superior to that of Purpleland by virtue of Pinkness. If you judge a culture on its own cultural values, you can often find it is superior to another, though not always; sometimes a culture fails to live up even to its own standards.

a guy from the culture that destroyed the world climate is trying to claim superiority, how utterly arrogant.

"Western culture" can be called "superior" in many aspects, but I am afraid "ecological sustainability" may not be one them. Good thing though that cultures can change (and "Western culture" appears particularly good at changing) so hopefully it changes into something sustainable. Whether it can muster that particular change remains to be seen, however.

Africa can prosper if they abandon their culture and adopt our culture.

Culture is not something one can simply abandon (unless one wipes all information stored in one's brain) and adopt another. What is possible is that people from one culture can learn things from another culture. What we call "Western culture" has produced a lot of scientific knowledge, and also has a history of huge social experiments and plenty of horrendous blunders, so there is no doubt that people in other cultures can learn a whole lot from it and that doing so will enrich their culture enormously.

Africa's problems are largely due to colonialism.

Arguing otherwise is arguing from a position of extreme ignorance.

Perhaps it is extreme ignorance, but I argue otherwise. Problems in some African nations are largely due to colonialism, but there are also other nations and other problems.

This of course leads to a new issue which is, what exactly is defined as "Western Culture". Is an African Politician driving the latest BMW, wearing an Armani suit and talking on his iPhone part of Western Culture or African Culture? Is a traditional healer that uses a Facebook page to reach customers part of African culture or Western culture? Is a white South African working for a black South African part of Western Culture or African Culture?

The answer to all those questions is: "Yes". A person can be -- and usually is -- part of more than one culture at the same time. Culture is simply learnt behaviour and it is not an exclusionary thing; being part of one culture does not automatically exclude one from being part of another one.

If you believe in this sort of rigid determinism then have to say that the poor countries will always be poor because you can change ideas, but you can't change your geography.

It is not exactly true that one cannot change geography, and you are also ignoring how geography influences people's culture.

Certainly you are not one of those bigots who prefer some cultural traits over others, are you?

Preferring some cultural traits over others is not being bigoted, it is just what it means to have a culture. What is bigoted is to dismiss ideas merely because they come from a different culture.

Colonialism didn't enslave anyone in Africa. The Europeans bought people who were enslaved by their own African rulers. They didn't "charge in" either because there were diseases there. They did the trading at the ports where African rulers sold their slaves to the Europeans.

I think most historians would agree though that the increased demand for slaves by Western imperialists did increase the number of people who were enslaved.

Dinesh D'Souza wrote a pretty good article explaining why colonialism wasn't as horrible as it's cracked up to be.

Looks to me more that he's arguing that it was plenty horrible, but that sometimes out of bad things good things can arise. I totally agree with that.

The end result of colonialism is a mixed bag for sure. For all its horrors, it was also a huge -- albeit unequal -- cultural exchange. As cultures clashed they came into contact with different ideas and practices, enriching them. Colonialists brought technologies that local cultures would not have developed until much later, while they took philosophical ideas and food practices back to their own countries.

One of the ideas that they enriched Western culture with was the idea that the native people of other countries weren't as inferior and backward as Western culture first imagined them to be, and their cultures weren't as crazy but rather influenced by local conditions just like Western culture was. Confronted with the realisation that people in other places were quite similar, Western culture developed ideas such as "universal values" and a critical look toward Western culture itself.

How is the slave trade (which the British forced the Africans to give up, against their wishes) responsible for Africa being poor when nobody alive now was affected by it?

There is still slavery.

 

[McHrozni]

One of the ideas that they enriched Western culture with was the idea that the native people of other countries weren't as inferior and backward as Western culture first imagined them to be, and their cultures weren't as crazy but rather influenced by local conditions just like Western culture was. Confronted with the realisation that people in other places were quite similar, Western culture developed ideas such as "universal values" and a critical look toward Western culture itself.

I would say this is something uniquely Western, and also one of the few issues most people anywhere in the world agree with. The exceptions are usually either part of the hugely privileged elites that depend on exceptionalism for their way of life (e.g. North Korean elite)*, or the heavily bigoted groups (e.g. Islamic extremists). It's both the greatest weakness of the Western world, not being able to do whatever the hell you want, and also by far it's greatest strength. You can scarcely find a country that doesn't claim to uphold these rights (reality nonwithstanding), simply to placate their people.

* that doesn't mean there are no such elites in the Western world, but rather that they support these rights

McHrozni

 

[Earthborn]

I would say this is something uniquely Western, and also one of the few issues most people anywhere in the world agree with.

You are contradicting yourself. If it is something most people anywhere in the world agree with, it is not uniquely Western. Perhaps you mean to say that the idea is something that originated in the West, but while that may be true once other people learn about it and make the idea their own it is no longer uniquely Western.

 

[Virus]

Every invention, discovery and idea in the last 500 years comes from the West.

That makes it superior. The West could do things that other cultures couldn't even dream of.

 

[McHrozni]

You are contradicting yourself. If it is something most people anywhere in the world agree with, it is not uniquely Western. Perhaps you mean to say that the idea is something that originated in the West, but while that may be true once other people learn about it and make the idea their own it is no longer uniquely Western.

Well yes, I did mean uniquely Western in origin. By today practically nothing is uniquely Western, thanks to deep Western penetration to the four corners of the globe

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

Every invention, discovery and idea in the last 500 years comes from the West.

Not literately, and you'll still have to include some westernized countries - like South Korea and Japan in the mix. That said, this:

The West could do things that other cultures couldn't even dream of.

is still true. I'll withhold comment on the value judgment you made from this conclusion.

McHrozni

 

[Mark6]

They tend to think it the question is not merely irrelevant, but dangerous. In some cultures, anthropologists, sociologists and historians are expected to answer the question which culture is superior by finding arguments for the superiority of their own culture. That doesn't really lead to particularly good cultures.

One of the nice aspects of modern Western culture is that social scientists are encouraged to study cultures -- including their own -- with a critical eye and try to work around their cultural biases. The only way they can do that by not assuming that one culture must be "superior" to another.

Really? How can youl look at a set of anything "with a critical eye" and assume that no member of the set is superior to another member in any way? Doesn't that preclude any meaningful criticism?

I would change your last sentence to The only way they can do that by not assuming that their own culture must be "superior" to any other. Which is admittedly difficult to do. Especially if in some ways their own culture really does turn out superior. Easier to just pretend all cultures are equally valid.

 

[epepke]

Could you perhaps explain this a bit? I see but vaguely what you're trying to say. It looks to me as if I'd agree to it, but I can't be sure.

It's nothing really earth-shattering. Just the observation that the Carolinas had a lot of land but not many locals to enslave. So indentured servitude was tried. This did some things with long-lasting results (such as association of property with voting and establishment of slavery ideas anyway, as indentured servants started selling their children into slavery). That was effectively a Ponzi scheme, though, as it was usually only a few years to get 50 acres of land, and then you needed someone to work it. So Europeans, who had ships, decided to pick up some slaves and sell them and get some rum and whisky back (which were becoming pretty popular). So they went where you could get the slaves, which was Africa.

It's not really as if the Dutch just decided "oh, I'd really enjoy hating some Black people, so I'm going to spend a lot of money and lives on a risky endeavor to get me some." It was pretty much business. A ruthless and reprehensible business, but at an important level just business.

This is quite unlike the history of South America, which had a lot of locals to enslave, and the Pope had declared that they had souls, so you couldn't just go around killing them for fun, at least not as much. This led to a lot of interesting differences, like very different attitudes toward personal property.

 

[McHrozni]

It's nothing really earth-shattering. Just the observation that the Carolinas had a lot of land but not many locals to enslave. So indentured servitude was tried. This did some things with long-lasting results (such as association of property with voting and establishment of slavery ideas anyway, as indentured servants started selling their children into slavery). That was effectively a Ponzi scheme, though, as it was usually only a few years to get 50 acres of land, and then you needed someone to work it. So Europeans, who had ships, decided to pick up some slaves and sell them and get some rum and whisky back (which were becoming pretty popular). So they went where you could get the slaves, which was Africa.

It's not really as if the Dutch just decided "oh, I'd really enjoy hating some Black people, so I'm going to spend a lot of money and lives on a risky endeavor to get me some." It was pretty much business. A ruthless and reprehensible business, but at an important level just business.

Yes, I certainly agree with this. Racism, racial superiority or being plain evil had nothing to do with Atlantic slave trade, it was profit and little else. Reprehensible by today's standards, certainly, but also logical consequence of supply and demand.

McHrozni

 

[portlandatheist]

On Tuesday Morning driving to work, I was listening to NPR and they had a great interview with a female activist in Egypt who is part of the Arab Spring. The topic was women rights generally but more specifically, the cultural(her words, not mine) practice of female genital mutilation in Egypt and her own family history with this cultural practice and why she was fortunate enough to not be a victim of it and her mission to stop it.
I agree with her 100% with her mission. It's not just a different cultural practice than ours, its actually worse than ours and I guess that makes be bigoted for judging that cultural practice as better/worse than cultures who do not do this backwards cultural practice according to the cultural relativists.
The majority of the things we describe as "cultural" are benign: spicy food vs. not so spicy food and so on and I have no problems with vastly different cultures but female genital mutilation and slavery doesn't fall into that category.
Africa needs infrastructure and political accountability, this culture conversation is a bit of a side track. Western culture has changed: food aid to Africa has changed to infrastructure aid and clean water aid. Teach a man to fish and so on. Africa will eventually progress its just a mater of when and what we can do to help.

 

[Virus]

Africa is getting better, the whole world is getting better. Africa is just at a slower rate than the rest of the world. Because of curuption, misrule and unfree economies. The governments and institutions are bad but these things don't fall from the sky, they're a product of the culture at large.

 

[Mark6]

They tend to think it the question is not merely irrelevant, but dangerous. In some cultures, anthropologists, sociologists and historians are expected to answer the question which culture is superior by finding arguments for the superiority of their own culture. That doesn't really lead to particularly good cultures.

I am extremely wary of anyone who says "Asking such and such question is dangerous!" It means one of two things: Either the person asking the question is afraid the answer is not what he wants to hear, or he is afraid people cannot handle the truth whatever truth may turn out to be. The first is self-serving, but the second is IMO worse for it amounts to "Pretend X does not exist because it would be awful if people learned about X!"

One example of such mindset is feminists who want to stop any research into brain differences between men and women, because it is dangerous. Some of them deny such brain differences exist, but others say "Even if they are real, knowing about them can only lead to bad things".

Another example is evolution of human brain over last few millennia. For decades anthropologists did not question that human beings are genetically unchanged since at least 50,000 years -- "we still have caveman brains". Well, over last couple decades it became increasingly evident that humans have in fact noticeably evolved over much more recent time period -- blue eyes did not exist 10,000 years ago, and sperm competition in humans is even more recent and coincides with appearance of cities. Well, if humans evolved new somatic traits over last few millennia, why not new cognitive traits? Yet hardly any anthropologist or biologist would touch this question with a ten-foot pole.

Sorry, I do not believe in "things men were not meant to know". Some knowledge may be easy to misuse, or be uncomfortable to modern sensibilities. That does not mean ignoring it will make it go away.

As for cultures being inferior/superior to each other, I rather like this line from "Stainless Steel Rat":

A culture is a human invention, like a fork or a computer. And some human inventions are just plain BAD.

Denying that some cultures, or aspects of cultures, are "just plain bad" is hiding head in the sand. Although one should be honest enough to recognize such aspects in one's own culture. Which of course is hard to do.

 

[Earthborn]

I am extremely wary of anyone who says "Asking such and such question is dangerous!" It means one of two things: Either the person asking the question is afraid the answer is not what he wants to hear, or he is afraid people cannot handle the truth whatever truth may turn out to be.

It can also mean another thing: that the question is not a meaningful scientific question, and that asking the question reveals some worrying traits of the person asking them. For example the question "Does God want us to kill unbelievers?" is such a question; and I think you'll agree that the asker of such a question likely asks it because s/he wants a specific answer. Questions are not always value free; questions of "superiority" certainly never are.

One example of such mindset is feminists who want to stop any research into brain differences between men and women, because it is dangerous. Some of them deny such brain differences exist, but others say "Even if they are real, knowing about them can only lead to bad things".

While such research can be based on scientifically answerable questions, I think it is fair to ask why some researchers are so interested in finding such brain differences. Could it be that they just want confirmation of their biases, or legitimisation of discrimination? The poorly designed experiments and the small sample sizes in most of these studies seems to suggest that's the case.

Well, if humans evolved new somatic traits over last few millennia, why not new cognitive traits? Yet hardly any anthropologist or biologist would touch this question with a ten-foot pole.

Quite likely because it would be extremely difficult to determine whether new cognitive traits have evolved, and even harder to determine whether they evolved through genetic or cultural evolution.

Sorry, I do not believe in "things men were not meant to know".

I don't believe that either. I also do not believe that all questions a person can ask are honest inquiries for knowledge. Some questions are leading questions, and some leading questions might lead one away from knowledge.

As for cultures being inferior/superior to each other, I rather like this line from "Stainless Steel Rat":

You believe that some human inventions are "just plain bad" ? I think that some human inventions can easily be misused, and for other inventions we haven't found much use for. But I can't think of any that are "just plain bad".

Although one should be honest enough to recognize such aspects in one's own culture. Which of course is hard to do.

It is even harder to look at a culture that one might think is "just plain bad" and recognise aspects that make it understandable that the people living that culture consider it good. It is easy to dismiss things without actually considering them, but that is not the way to understand a culture.

 

[Humes fork]

I'm surprised that people are reluctant to accept the role of culture in the story of a society's success or failure when it's so obvious if you look at what societies have succeeded and failed in the 20th century. If you think the different outcomes of Switzerland and Somalia is because the latter was once a colony, the former was not, then you are frankly delusional.

Germany was after World War 2 reduced to rubble. It was far worse affected by the war than any colonialism that affected the Middle East. Yet today Germany is prosperous, the Middle East not so much (despite the oil). How can anyone suggest that culture plays no role?

There is one exception in the Middle East however, and its name is Israel. And don't be ridiculous and attribute it to Israel getting subsidies from the US. It doesn't hold. Egypt and Saudi Arabia also get military subsidies from Israel. Further, Israel is required to keep constant check on its enemies, like Hamas and Hezbollah.

Are Israel's less successful neighbours interested in how they could emulate the Israeli success? Are they interested in looking at if the Israelis have hit upon a better way of organizing their society than they have? No. They are interested in how to wipe it off the map (and they would within minutes if there was any reasonable chance of succeeding).

Ibn Warraq says it best, you really should read it all:

The edifice of modern science and scientific method is one of Western man’s greatest gifts to the world. The West has given us not only nearly every scientific discovery of the last 500 years—from electricity to computers—but also, thanks to its humanitarian impulses, the Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International. The West provides the bulk of aid to beleaguered Darfur; Islamic countries are conspicuous by their lack of assistance.

Moreover, other parts of the world recognize Western superiority. When other societies such as South Korea and Japan have adopted Western political principles, their citizens have flourished. It is to the West, not to Saudi Arabia or Iran, that millions of refugees from theocratic or other totalitarian regimes flee, seeking tolerance and political freedom. Nor would any Western politician be able to get away with the anti-Semitic remarks that former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad made in 2003. Our excusing Mahathir’s diatribe indicates not only a double standard but also a tacit acknowledgment that we apply higher ethical standards to Western leaders.