Bravo! This is a clear and fair summary of the divide between the oppressor- victim brigade on one side, and “the underprivileged need to get their act together” partisans on the other.
Dr. Adekoya’s prose is so clear and precise, his arguments can be transferred wholesale to other disputes, such as men-women and neurotypical-neurodivergent. Broadly speaking, his arguments fit.
This is very useful piece. Thank you, Dr. Adekoya.
yeah but it is only stating the obvious ! There actually needs to be lots more blaming of the victim if change is EVER going to occur – or even remotely keep up with irresponsible procreation. Anything less will only contribute to the dynamics of living in a ‘state of nature’ ie breeding until the chaos starvation point – even many animals and birds dont breed if the outcome is not favourable to their offspring. As Paul Theroux pointed out 30 years ago – for whatever reason africans dont seem to have the ability to plan – or even think cogently about the future and are therefore doomed to waste any aid given to them – nuf said, buga !
DEI has been able to function because the underlying idea is noble even if the application is almost inherently tyrannical. The theory that social planners can engineer hierarchies according to demographic quotas is absurd. As the author eloquently states, different cultures have different skillsets based on historical traditions. The best you can do as a society is create equal opportunity…not equal outcomes.
But…the concept of inclusion has merit. You want diverse groups of people to have a fair opportunity to earn a seat at the table and helping more people with less opportunity is noble. And yet, the theory that a group without opportunity can be clearly defined as “underprivileged” simply by possessing an immutable trait like Race clearly leads to absurd results. All it does is produce balkanizion and tribal group warfare.
All DEI does in practice is expand a pointless bureacracy of “administrative experts” that profit by promoting group-think and shaming of the heterodox thinkers that see it for the power grab it is.
If you look closely at national IQ stats you’ll see weird anomalies – eg East European countries have lower IQs than Western; central America plummets; China is high, nextdoor India much lower…. I don;t believe that any of the afortmentioned lower IQ countries have differnt genetic makeup that there higher IQ neighbours. I rather looks as though IQ, has substantial socio-economic roots (no doubt some genetic as well). Without wealth and schooling a people will not get to express their brain power potential – just as construction workers, miners etc tend to be physically stronger than office workers.
Moreover, even if it were true that sub-Saharan Africans have a hard-wired lower IQ (North Africans have rather a strong civilisational history) it does not follow that it is insufficient to run a moodern society – we have only been doing so for maybe 500 years of the last 300,000.
“animals and birds dont breed if the outcome is not favourable to their offspring.”
I think animals breed because they are horny.
Jim Veenbaas
11 months ago
I don’t think it stands to reason at all that today’s vision of social justice signals a genuine mass craving for a fairer world in which there is less poverty. Social Justice today is about assigning blame, rather than solving problems. There are never solutions, just victims and oppressors. Why have impoverished former colonies like India managed to turn things around? Why has Argentina, at one time one of the wealthiest nations in the would, become an economic basket case? Social Justice today is nothing more than slogans and marches. Solving problems like widespread economic inequality requires much more critical thinking than this.
Isn’t the clue the simple fact that the people promoting this ideology are invariably from the wealthier classes? It’s just divide and rule with modern PR.
Does anyone genuinely believe that the mind-boggling corruption of Africa’s ruling elites is not a major factor contributing to the continent being the poorest and least economically developed?
But a further question needs to be asked: Why does black Africa produce such dire ruling elites for whom political power is primarily a means to self-enrichment? [By the way, is it too much of a stretch to draw attention to an African-style case of self-enrichment with the leaders of BLM taking personal advantage of that organisation’s massive fund-raising machine]
He gave a possible answer – “Some groups, he suggests, may be better off because they have, over a period of time, collectively mastered endeavours that have turned out to be profitable, teachable to younger generations and conducive to group progress”.
We know that setting up a stable funtional democracy at a national level takes centruries/millenia to master (and of course, even the developed countries as not there yet). Estates of the realm, checks and balances, cultural, political insitutions, law, enforecment etc etc etc. Perhaps sub-Saharan African societies could thrive on a small scale, hunting and gathering in village groups, as they’d done since the emergence of homo-sapiens – due to climate, tradition – whilst those who left the ‘mother continent’, often to harsher climates, had to organise socially, politically, economically to survive. Something like that.
All the old excuses. They don’t have to re-invent the wheel! Democracy has already been created and tested (to destruction). There is no need to spend millennia on trial and error struggles. …even the developed countries not there yet…(?) Should we suspend judgement until the perfect democratic system has finally been created?
They had a firm head start in both Zimbabwe and South Africa and the outcome has been revealing to say the least.
Perhaps it is time to judge sub-Saharan Africans not merely by the ‘content of their character’ but by the abilities they show and the societies they create and manage.
Come on NS – it takes centuries, millenia for a mature modern culture to emerge – to acknowledge that is not to excuse anything at all – they still have to raise their game and do the work, we can look to the actual, scientific, reasons why this has not happened to date. This is very likely – actually must have to do with the environmental conditions, realities, demands of surviving on the African plains, as opposed in Europe.
I have been saying for decades that World history is one big survival race or competition. We who are alive now, and our forebears, clearly have won, so far. In terms modern development, the Africans are losing – they have not caught up with the demands and opportunities of the modern world. If those demands stay in place, they’ll eventually catch up, or die out. The timescale involved in these kinds of change we know to be centuries at the very least.
They don’t have to re-invent the wheel! Democracy has already been created and tested (to destruction). There is no need to spend millennia on trial and error struggles.
And:
They had a firm head start in both Zimbabwe and South Africa and the outcome has been revealing to say the least.
Arggh! No NS – civil modern democratic society is not an invention, like a f-ing wheel that you can simply copy – it’s a highly complex edifice that requires several layers interacting smoothly – the law: judiciary, legislature, enforcement; a constitution (written or unwritten); an educated populace (and all the institutions that educate); a freely operating fourth estate; a mature, disciplined military; academe; commerce; religion; physical infrastructure; deep historical experience etc etc etc. This is why parachuting democracy into countries does not work, unless they already have mature cultural, political, commercial institutions (eg Japan, Korea, China, India).
You asked, ” Why does black Africa produce such dire ruling elites for whom political power is primarily a means to self-enrichment” ….I and several others have tried to answer that question – what’s yours? Let’s hear it.
I realise this will be a deeply unfashionable comment but having spent enough time in the rainbow nation over the last 15 years (still have in laws there) and watching it slide into the abyss I have to say it appears to be down to tribal politics and the associated allegiances. We tend to think of populations as relatively homogeneous but that couldn’t be further from the truth, the rivalry & hatred has to be seen to be believed. It’s not even left at home when they emigrate either – my cousin is a senior ICU nurse at a hospital in SE England and has had to sit 2 nurses from SA, from different tribes down and explain that the attitude of “I’m not helping that patient, it’s one of hers” simply won’t wash. As I said earlier, not a fashionable thing to say, but that doesn’t make it any less true unfortunately.
Samir Iker
11 months ago
Another way to look at it is – Europe was indeed responsible for Africa’s problems.
But its Africa (just like India, China, Korea, etc) who is responsible for the solutions to their problems. Crying about who did what in 1800 isn’t a solution, growing up and taking charge of your own destiny is.
Incidentally, in the wake of what is happening elsewhere, it is interesting how “anti racists” blame the West but not the middle East, who were also responsible, equally if not more, for colonialism and slavery.
In case of India, for instance, while the British empire was a disaster for the economy, the real problem was the much longer and much more devastating colonialism prior to that by islamic invaders.
For instance, at least the Brits built a few universities. The previous invaders burnt down existing, flourishing universities in India, far bigger than European equivalents at the time.
…anti racists blame the West but not the middle East.. because they know they will get a sympathetic hearing in the West. We are caught in what might be called a compassion trap – forced relentlessly to live up to a high level of sharing-and-caring humanitarian standards which other nations treat with callous disregard.
That is the West’s Achilles Heel. Remember when Sweden boasted of its status as a ‘Humanitarian Superpower’ – the current growth of gangster power in the immigrant communities is the deadly fruit all that reckless compassion.
What you say is true, Samir, although your final paragraph is disappointing. The British did more for India than build “a few universities.” In addition, they built countless village schools, hospitals and roads, improved agriculture, outlawed sati (widow burning), promoted the scholarly study of Indian scriptures and classical languages, provided a common (second) language and, most important of all, established a functioning, durable, democracy.
Last edited 11 months ago by Paul Nathanson
Tom Lewis
11 months ago
“ Africa has been dealt a terrible hand by history”
No, Africa has been dealt exactly the same set of cards as everyone else. What exists, and has existed, in Africa, has, at one time or another, existed everywhere.
If ‘Western’ society has ‘progressed’ faster than elsewhere, it might well be ascribed to it’s core belief system, Christianity, and all the things that have led from that.
If Africa is unfortunate it is possibly that at a time when Africa could most benefit from the ‘European Christian journey’ the society’s that have most benefited from it (despite it’s undoubted manifest ill’s) are consigning it, and God, to the dustbin of history as quickly as they can. I’m not suggesting that Christianity is the be all and end all, or that the religious element is crucial (even if, perhaps, fundamentally needed) it’s just that as a way of organising and energising society it has worked incredibly well for European societies, and that, is coming from someone who isn’t a Christian and might describe himself as agnostic at best.
I’ll take issue on behalf of Thomas Sowell. He points out that Africa’s geography has been an issue for economic development. In “Wealth Poverty and Politics” Sowell looks at numerous factors of economic development, including unfortunate geography affecting trade. Just one snippet shows the depth of his analysis. This is not excuse making from Sowell that is not his schtick. he’s just grappling with why some places are richer and some poorer and, resources, culture climate, geography, politics, religion all play a part.
One of the remarkable facts about the continent of Africa is that, although Africa is more than twice the size of Europe, the African coastline is shorter than the European coastline. 7 This is possible only because the European coastline twists and turns, creating many harbors where ships can dock, sheltered from the rough waters of the open seas. Moreover, the coastline of Europe is increased by the many islands and peninsulas that make up more than one-third of that continent’s total land area. By contrast, the African coastline is smooth, with few substantial indentations, few good natural harbors, and fewer islands and peninsulas— which make up only 2 percent of Africa’s land area. The ratio of Europe’s coastline to its area is four times that of Africa. Moreover, the coastal waters around sub-Saharan Africa are often too shallow for ocean-going ships to dock. 9 In such places, large ocean-going ships must anchor offshore, and have their cargoes unloaded onto smaller vessels that can operate in shallow waters. But this time-consuming process, and the greater amount of labor and equipment required, has been more costly— often prohibitively costly. For centuries, seaborne commerce between Europe and Asia sailed around Africa, and seldom stopped.
In general I have a lot of respect for Thomas Sowell but this seems like a post hoc ‘just so story.’
If Africa has more landmass but less coast, doesn’t that mean less sea trade but more natural resources at its disposal? Less fishing, more farming and mining?
In other words, for every benefit of sea access (like easier trade) there are negatives… like invasion from the sea. In fact, you could make a strong case that the relative ease of movement around Europe played a major role in the centuries of internal and external conflict that Europe endured – whether that was Vikings sailing down into the European heartland to rape and pillage, or various European powers sending navies against one another for centuries. Not only were marauding tribes coming into Europe from the East, but Europeans were killing themselves with comfortable frequency using these same trade routes.
The vast depths of sub-Saharan African were relatively isolated from the rest of the world for much of human history. If Africa had unusually advanced civilizations that we were trying to explain, this would be one of our explanatory factors… “See how this African tribe was insulated from conflict due to their isolated position, allowing their society to develop with much less disruption than happened to most European tribes.”
I think the reality is that people groups have developed at different speeds all over the world, and there is no persuasive explanation for why. What is important is that we now see that all people groups have the potential for vast and immediate social development, given the opportunity.
As an atheist, i can agree that Christianity played a huge role in the development of Western society to a dominant position, especially after the reformation and the Protestant work ethic. It is, however, time to move on since those conditions in which it thrived no longer apply. I’d also agree that a spiritual dimension is essential for humanity, but it needn’t (indeed shouldn’t) come from organised religious belief systems. It can arise from a better understanding of ourselves, as we’ve developed from our origins.
So, we should learn more about ourselves instead of being in denial, and then begin to accept ourselves in all our humanity. There’s absolute and clear evidence that organised religion gets in the way of that, playing out before our very eyes. How long will it take before the veil (literally, in some cases) is lifted?
I have an Atheist friend that speaks almost exactly like you with absolute certitude that Atheistic Materialism is an unassailable position.
The “spiritual dimension” that you often mention on these forums contradicts the entire premise of Atheism. What you’re describing is utopian social constructivism. You’re constructing a Myth knowing it to be false but attempting to trick yourself because believing it will provide some kind of stability. Atheists project this on Christians but seemingly don’t realize, you’re doing the same thing you’re projecting on Christians. Comforting yourselves with lies. This is what Wokism and Marxism do. All these “moral systems” are Christian Alternatives because they’re Gnostic. They’re just Christianity flipped upside down and rebranded.
The reason Christianity can’t seem to be displaced is because Christianity is 1) Based on a Man that lived in the real world (as supported by overwhelming scholarship) and 2) His teachings conform to the Correspondence Theory of Truth. In other words, Christianity is not only spiritually fulfilling but logical. It is maximum spirituality combined with maximum utility. You’re not going to replace that with “something better.”
Christianity has been subverted for Centuries and used by Kings, conquerors and Gnostics as a moral shield, yet the original message of hope, humility and human charity still shines through in times of crisis. There is no form of Secular Humanism that will ever usurp Christian principles in terms of creating productive societies with a moral compass that never gives up on other human beings.
Yes, appalling, I know. Fortunately nobody here knows me so I think I can get away without having to hide my face in shame at being the half educated buffoon that I am ( thank goodness for spellcheck at least).
I applaud Remi Adekoya. I am a South African. The governing ANC has just expressed its pride in the fact that 19 million people here on on social grants. That the amounts are beyond pitiable is because the very policies that the ANC has implemented in the last 20 years are the very same policies that have reduced South Africa to an economic shell of its former state.It’s not the West’s fault. The policies we need (and the private sector is more than up to the task) include free markets and as little government as is feasible. Instead, we suffer under the boiled-in-aspic policies of Lenin and the USSR’s support of the ANC during the liberation struggle.
South Africans now live with almost daily electricity cuts. Our destroyed railway system can’t get our minerals or agriculture to ports. Our educational, health, even the payment of grant system is a shambles.
Cyril Ramaphosa blames it on the West but it has nothing to do with the West. All our institutions that the government ‘controls’ lie in tatters because the elite has stolen from them. Yes, you can steal railways, electricity, grants for the poor, hospitals etc. All of this has been enabled by an ANC that has legislated affirmative action (for a population that it is over 80% black) and most insidiously ‘cadre deployment’ that wonderful concept that puts party loyalty ahead of competence.
Recently the general secretary the SA Communist Party recently said, with reference to a political tour to China, that we must learn from our Chinese ally. Risible doesn’t begin to describe that.
One of the many differences between China and South Africa is that China doesn’t have truck with the victim-centred world view of the ANC.
If you let your past dictate your future, you will fail. If your past informs but doesn’t dictate your future, you will succeed.
The soft bigotry of low expectations in the West is a curse.
Everything that you say about South Africa sounds reasonable to me, Sara, but I’m not so sure about your concluding discussion of China. It’s true that China doesn’t blame itself for anything that goes wrong or is likely to go wrong. But this doesn’t prevent it from allowing the past to determine the present and future. Its vision is of restoring Chinese dominance (which it enjoyed for centuries until decadence made it easy prey for European traders and Japanese invaders). Its worldview relies at least partly on revenge for having been a victim of foreigners.
You’re right that they play the victim globally but I think she’s referring to China’s domestic policies. Chinese citizens aren’t awarded state benefits by virtue of being downtrodden by past regimes. There’s more to say about that but I think you’re responding to a different context than she was implying.
Chipoko
11 months ago
How come former Asian colonies (Singapore being a prime example) have been fantastically successful since throwing off their colonial shackles, and yet Africa has failed so abysmally? Do the Singaporeans ‘thank’ their colonial ‘oppressors’ for their magnificent inheritance and impressive post-colonial performance; or do they consider that they have been the principal architects of their success? Whatever the reasons, sub-Saharan Africa cannot blame its appalling post-colonial performance on anything other than its own inadequacies and incompetencies. And contemplate Africa before the evil colonisers (Britain leading the pack) arrived basically existed in a state of barbarism and savagery and Iron Age technology at best, especially in the central and southern regions. They sold their own into slavery for centuries if not millennia (primarily to the Arab world) before the arrival of European slave traders on its West coast, which represented a brand new, profitable market for the African slaver merchants who supplied the goods.
Western democracies have invested trillions upon trillions of dollars into post-colonial Africa, and as much again during the colonial era. Until the Africans can blame themselves, not everyone else, then the continent will continue to fail – and provide easy pickings for the likes of China, who are not the purveyors of colonial beneficence as were the British.
William Cameron
11 months ago
Very Strong Correlation between success in life and having two married parents.
Over 60% of Afro Caribbean kids dont have that. Thats not oppression its choice on the fathers part.
The reason(s) for single parent families and lack of socio-economic success are likely to be largely the same, so I’m not sure that point gets us far. The absent father phenomenon in Afro-Carib, Afro-American culture does actually have much to do with slavery (but as the author points out, that’s in the past, the future is another thing).
And yet, Dominic, the black American family was relatively strong until the 1960s. Even under slavery, many black fathers risked their lives to see or help their families who had been sold to other plantations. After the Civil War, black Americans built strong churches, schools, businesses and communities. Those began to erode as recently as the 1960s (within living memory) despite, and partly because of, government policies. Apart from any other consequences was a quickly rising number of fatherless homes. By now, after only two generations, black boys are being taught (on the streets and in popular culture) that becoming live-in fathers (let alone being literate) is somehow “white.” No, this is definitely not due to slavery.
Hmm – there’s some detail missing. As you say, black American famillies were relatively strong until the 1960s – only 20% single parent…..but actually this was very high for that time (4x higher than white Americans). Since that time both white and black single parent familes have gone up by the same ration – 400% – relative to their 1970s position. I’m not sure what to make of that, but it is not a simple story of ‘black family decline’.
I didn’t say that black families in the States were ever as stable as white families, not even after slavery, only that they were surprisingly strong despite the economic and psychological problems that most black people faced under segregation.
The decline of black families–and white families–set in during the 1960s. In the case of black families, this was not due to the legacy of slavery or even segregation. It was due mainly to the rise of hedonism among both black and white people. Setting the stage were innovations such as no-fault divorce, reliable birth control and abortion on demand (along with affirmative action, one side-effect of which was to replace fathers with bureaucrats of the state). Meanwhile, the black middle class was expanding rapidly, which encouraged its exodus from the “ghettoes” to the suburbs, leaving behind many black boys with only gangsters as local role models instead of doctors, teachers, lawyers, pastors and so on).
Dougie Undersub
11 months ago
Dambisa Moyo’s book “Dead Aid” is almost 15 years old now but still packs a punch. Dead Aid: Why aid is not working and how there is another way for Africa: Amazon.co.uk: Moyo, Dambisa: 9780141031187: Books
Compare the economic and social advances of Africa since the 50s with that of SE Asia. Both regions started in much the same place but the former has had $Ts of aid from a guilty(?) West, the latter almost none. And yet the call for more aid, now with added “reparations”, goes on, long after it has been conclusively proven to be counterproductive.
Waffles
11 months ago
This is worth reading. Wokes tried to silence this research but eventually it was published. Scientific, peer reviewed research that shows that countries benefited from being colonised. People chose to move from non colonised to colonised areas because they were more peaceful and better governed.
I tried to read the article but ended up having to skim it, too much rubbish to process in the time I had. I’ll return to it.
Having said that, of the things I know about, much of it seems obviously absolutely ridiculous. To say that Botswana’s relative success is due to replicating colonial government is madness. It is essentially one tribe (with the San people completely marginalised), great mineral wealth and a tiny population. It suffers none of the divisions of most countries patched together by empires. To say that the Belgian king’s fiefdom of the Congo was praiseworthy in any way, destroys the author’s credibility.
For an amusing antidote see Shashi Tharoor’s Oxford Speech from 2015 (GIYF).
Western cultural ‘progressives’ are in the Congo again,this time turning the local youth against the aid agencies and the UN with stories of white privilege. The result will be another Niger.
Colorado UnHerd
11 months ago
Africa needs to help Africa; addressing overpopulation (and attendent poverty, disease, unemployment, etc.) would be a great starting point. Through lessening the desperate circumstances of too many people (and especially improving the lot of women), controlling fertility would weaken the leverage of corrupt governments. By making Africa a more palatable place to remain, it would also decrease bottomless emigration that taxes the resources of receiving countries and creates understandable resentment from their own inhabitants.
At some point, individuals, communities and countries need to become accountable for themselves rather than blaming their woes on others.
Last edited 11 months ago by Colorado UnHerd
Nathan Ngumi
11 months ago
A sober analysis. Dr. Thomas Sowell’s book on social justice fallacies is an insightful read.
Richard Craven
11 months ago
That the woketards in the photo are still maskurbating in 2023 tells us all we need to know about them.
Bravo! This is a clear and fair summary of the divide between the oppressor- victim brigade on one side, and “the underprivileged need to get their act together” partisans on the other.
Dr. Adekoya’s prose is so clear and precise, his arguments can be transferred wholesale to other disputes, such as men-women and neurotypical-neurodivergent. Broadly speaking, his arguments fit.
This is very useful piece. Thank you, Dr. Adekoya.
yeah but it is only stating the obvious ! There actually needs to be lots more blaming of the victim if change is EVER going to occur – or even remotely keep up with irresponsible procreation. Anything less will only contribute to the dynamics of living in a ‘state of nature’ ie breeding until the chaos starvation point – even many animals and birds dont breed if the outcome is not favourable to their offspring. As Paul Theroux pointed out 30 years ago – for whatever reason africans dont seem to have the ability to plan – or even think cogently about the future and are therefore doomed to waste any aid given to them – nuf said, buga !
DEI has been able to function because the underlying idea is noble even if the application is almost inherently tyrannical. The theory that social planners can engineer hierarchies according to demographic quotas is absurd. As the author eloquently states, different cultures have different skillsets based on historical traditions. The best you can do as a society is create equal opportunity…not equal outcomes.
But…the concept of inclusion has merit. You want diverse groups of people to have a fair opportunity to earn a seat at the table and helping more people with less opportunity is noble. And yet, the theory that a group without opportunity can be clearly defined as “underprivileged” simply by possessing an immutable trait like Race clearly leads to absurd results. All it does is produce balkanizion and tribal group warfare.
All DEI does in practice is expand a pointless bureacracy of “administrative experts” that profit by promoting group-think and shaming of the heterodox thinkers that see it for the power grab it is.
Theroux, like many people knows the reason, the average IQ in Africa is just too low to run a modern society
If you look closely at national IQ stats you’ll see weird anomalies – eg East European countries have lower IQs than Western; central America plummets; China is high, nextdoor India much lower…. I don;t believe that any of the afortmentioned lower IQ countries have differnt genetic makeup that there higher IQ neighbours. I rather looks as though IQ, has substantial socio-economic roots (no doubt some genetic as well). Without wealth and schooling a people will not get to express their brain power potential – just as construction workers, miners etc tend to be physically stronger than office workers.
Moreover, even if it were true that sub-Saharan Africans have a hard-wired lower IQ (North Africans have rather a strong civilisational history) it does not follow that it is insufficient to run a moodern society – we have only been doing so for maybe 500 years of the last 300,000.
“animals and birds dont breed if the outcome is not favourable to their offspring.”
I think animals breed because they are horny.
I don’t think it stands to reason at all that today’s vision of social justice signals a genuine mass craving for a fairer world in which there is less poverty. Social Justice today is about assigning blame, rather than solving problems. There are never solutions, just victims and oppressors. Why have impoverished former colonies like India managed to turn things around? Why has Argentina, at one time one of the wealthiest nations in the would, become an economic basket case? Social Justice today is nothing more than slogans and marches. Solving problems like widespread economic inequality requires much more critical thinking than this.
Isn’t the clue the simple fact that the people promoting this ideology are invariably from the wealthier classes? It’s just divide and rule with modern PR.
Absolutely
Dr Adekoya asks:
But a further question needs to be asked: Why does black Africa produce such dire ruling elites for whom political power is primarily a means to self-enrichment? [By the way, is it too much of a stretch to draw attention to an African-style case of self-enrichment with the leaders of BLM taking personal advantage of that organisation’s massive fund-raising machine]
He gave a possible answer – “Some groups, he suggests, may be better off because they have, over a period of time, collectively mastered endeavours that have turned out to be profitable, teachable to younger generations and conducive to group progress”.
We know that setting up a stable funtional democracy at a national level takes centruries/millenia to master (and of course, even the developed countries as not there yet). Estates of the realm, checks and balances, cultural, political insitutions, law, enforecment etc etc etc. Perhaps sub-Saharan African societies could thrive on a small scale, hunting and gathering in village groups, as they’d done since the emergence of homo-sapiens – due to climate, tradition – whilst those who left the ‘mother continent’, often to harsher climates, had to organise socially, politically, economically to survive. Something like that.
All the old excuses. They don’t have to re-invent the wheel! Democracy has already been created and tested (to destruction). There is no need to spend millennia on trial and error struggles.
…even the developed countries not there yet…(?) Should we suspend judgement until the perfect democratic system has finally been created?
They had a firm head start in both Zimbabwe and South Africa and the outcome has been revealing to say the least.
Perhaps it is time to judge sub-Saharan Africans not merely by the ‘content of their character’ but by the abilities they show and the societies they create and manage.
Come on NS – it takes centuries, millenia for a mature modern culture to emerge – to acknowledge that is not to excuse anything at all – they still have to raise their game and do the work, we can look to the actual, scientific, reasons why this has not happened to date. This is very likely – actually must have to do with the environmental conditions, realities, demands of surviving on the African plains, as opposed in Europe.
I have been saying for decades that World history is one big survival race or competition. We who are alive now, and our forebears, clearly have won, so far. In terms modern development, the Africans are losing – they have not caught up with the demands and opportunities of the modern world. If those demands stay in place, they’ll eventually catch up, or die out. The timescale involved in these kinds of change we know to be centuries at the very least.
Do I really have to repeat myself?
And:
Arggh! No NS – civil modern democratic society is not an invention, like a f-ing wheel that you can simply copy – it’s a highly complex edifice that requires several layers interacting smoothly – the law: judiciary, legislature, enforcement; a constitution (written or unwritten); an educated populace (and all the institutions that educate); a freely operating fourth estate; a mature, disciplined military; academe; commerce; religion; physical infrastructure; deep historical experience etc etc etc. This is why parachuting democracy into countries does not work, unless they already have mature cultural, political, commercial institutions (eg Japan, Korea, China, India).
You asked, ” Why does black Africa produce such dire ruling elites for whom political power is primarily a means to self-enrichment” ….I and several others have tried to answer that question – what’s yours? Let’s hear it.
Excellent final statement.
I realise this will be a deeply unfashionable comment but having spent enough time in the rainbow nation over the last 15 years (still have in laws there) and watching it slide into the abyss I have to say it appears to be down to tribal politics and the associated allegiances. We tend to think of populations as relatively homogeneous but that couldn’t be further from the truth, the rivalry & hatred has to be seen to be believed. It’s not even left at home when they emigrate either – my cousin is a senior ICU nurse at a hospital in SE England and has had to sit 2 nurses from SA, from different tribes down and explain that the attitude of “I’m not helping that patient, it’s one of hers” simply won’t wash. As I said earlier, not a fashionable thing to say, but that doesn’t make it any less true unfortunately.
Another way to look at it is – Europe was indeed responsible for Africa’s problems.
But its Africa (just like India, China, Korea, etc) who is responsible for the solutions to their problems. Crying about who did what in 1800 isn’t a solution, growing up and taking charge of your own destiny is.
Incidentally, in the wake of what is happening elsewhere, it is interesting how “anti racists” blame the West but not the middle East, who were also responsible, equally if not more, for colonialism and slavery.
In case of India, for instance, while the British empire was a disaster for the economy, the real problem was the much longer and much more devastating colonialism prior to that by islamic invaders.
For instance, at least the Brits built a few universities. The previous invaders burnt down existing, flourishing universities in India, far bigger than European equivalents at the time.
…anti racists blame the West but not the middle East.. because they know they will get a sympathetic hearing in the West. We are caught in what might be called a compassion trap – forced relentlessly to live up to a high level of sharing-and-caring humanitarian standards which other nations treat with callous disregard.
That is the West’s Achilles Heel. Remember when Sweden boasted of its status as a ‘Humanitarian Superpower’ – the current growth of gangster power in the immigrant communities is the deadly fruit all that reckless compassion.
What you say is true, Samir, although your final paragraph is disappointing. The British did more for India than build “a few universities.” In addition, they built countless village schools, hospitals and roads, improved agriculture, outlawed sati (widow burning), promoted the scholarly study of Indian scriptures and classical languages, provided a common (second) language and, most important of all, established a functioning, durable, democracy.
“ Africa has been dealt a terrible hand by history”
No, Africa has been dealt exactly the same set of cards as everyone else. What exists, and has existed, in Africa, has, at one time or another, existed everywhere.
If ‘Western’ society has ‘progressed’ faster than elsewhere, it might well be ascribed to it’s core belief system, Christianity, and all the things that have led from that.
If Africa is unfortunate it is possibly that at a time when Africa could most benefit from the ‘European Christian journey’ the society’s that have most benefited from it (despite it’s undoubted manifest ill’s) are consigning it, and God, to the dustbin of history as quickly as they can. I’m not suggesting that Christianity is the be all and end all, or that the religious element is crucial (even if, perhaps, fundamentally needed) it’s just that as a way of organising and energising society it has worked incredibly well for European societies, and that, is coming from someone who isn’t a Christian and might describe himself as agnostic at best.
I’ll take issue on behalf of Thomas Sowell. He points out that Africa’s geography has been an issue for economic development. In “Wealth Poverty and Politics” Sowell looks at numerous factors of economic development, including unfortunate geography affecting trade. Just one snippet shows the depth of his analysis. This is not excuse making from Sowell that is not his schtick. he’s just grappling with why some places are richer and some poorer and, resources, culture climate, geography, politics, religion all play a part.
In general I have a lot of respect for Thomas Sowell but this seems like a post hoc ‘just so story.’
If Africa has more landmass but less coast, doesn’t that mean less sea trade but more natural resources at its disposal? Less fishing, more farming and mining?
In other words, for every benefit of sea access (like easier trade) there are negatives… like invasion from the sea. In fact, you could make a strong case that the relative ease of movement around Europe played a major role in the centuries of internal and external conflict that Europe endured – whether that was Vikings sailing down into the European heartland to rape and pillage, or various European powers sending navies against one another for centuries. Not only were marauding tribes coming into Europe from the East, but Europeans were killing themselves with comfortable frequency using these same trade routes.
The vast depths of sub-Saharan African were relatively isolated from the rest of the world for much of human history. If Africa had unusually advanced civilizations that we were trying to explain, this would be one of our explanatory factors… “See how this African tribe was insulated from conflict due to their isolated position, allowing their society to develop with much less disruption than happened to most European tribes.”
I think the reality is that people groups have developed at different speeds all over the world, and there is no persuasive explanation for why. What is important is that we now see that all people groups have the potential for vast and immediate social development, given the opportunity.
As an atheist, i can agree that Christianity played a huge role in the development of Western society to a dominant position, especially after the reformation and the Protestant work ethic. It is, however, time to move on since those conditions in which it thrived no longer apply. I’d also agree that a spiritual dimension is essential for humanity, but it needn’t (indeed shouldn’t) come from organised religious belief systems. It can arise from a better understanding of ourselves, as we’ve developed from our origins.
So, we should learn more about ourselves instead of being in denial, and then begin to accept ourselves in all our humanity. There’s absolute and clear evidence that organised religion gets in the way of that, playing out before our very eyes. How long will it take before the veil (literally, in some cases) is lifted?
I have an Atheist friend that speaks almost exactly like you with absolute certitude that Atheistic Materialism is an unassailable position.
The “spiritual dimension” that you often mention on these forums contradicts the entire premise of Atheism. What you’re describing is utopian social constructivism. You’re constructing a Myth knowing it to be false but attempting to trick yourself because believing it will provide some kind of stability. Atheists project this on Christians but seemingly don’t realize, you’re doing the same thing you’re projecting on Christians. Comforting yourselves with lies. This is what Wokism and Marxism do. All these “moral systems” are Christian Alternatives because they’re Gnostic. They’re just Christianity flipped upside down and rebranded.
The reason Christianity can’t seem to be displaced is because Christianity is 1) Based on a Man that lived in the real world (as supported by overwhelming scholarship) and 2) His teachings conform to the Correspondence Theory of Truth. In other words, Christianity is not only spiritually fulfilling but logical. It is maximum spirituality combined with maximum utility. You’re not going to replace that with “something better.”
Christianity has been subverted for Centuries and used by Kings, conquerors and Gnostics as a moral shield, yet the original message of hope, humility and human charity still shines through in times of crisis. There is no form of Secular Humanism that will ever usurp Christian principles in terms of creating productive societies with a moral compass that never gives up on other human beings.
Fair enough but you seem to have a problem with your apostrophes. Sorry to be pedantic!
Yes, appalling, I know. Fortunately nobody here knows me so I think I can get away without having to hide my face in shame at being the half educated buffoon that I am ( thank goodness for spellcheck at least).
Very gracious reply.
I applaud Remi Adekoya. I am a South African. The governing ANC has just expressed its pride in the fact that 19 million people here on on social grants. That the amounts are beyond pitiable is because the very policies that the ANC has implemented in the last 20 years are the very same policies that have reduced South Africa to an economic shell of its former state.It’s not the West’s fault. The policies we need (and the private sector is more than up to the task) include free markets and as little government as is feasible. Instead, we suffer under the boiled-in-aspic policies of Lenin and the USSR’s support of the ANC during the liberation struggle.
South Africans now live with almost daily electricity cuts. Our destroyed railway system can’t get our minerals or agriculture to ports. Our educational, health, even the payment of grant system is a shambles.
Cyril Ramaphosa blames it on the West but it has nothing to do with the West. All our institutions that the government ‘controls’ lie in tatters because the elite has stolen from them. Yes, you can steal railways, electricity, grants for the poor, hospitals etc. All of this has been enabled by an ANC that has legislated affirmative action (for a population that it is over 80% black) and most insidiously ‘cadre deployment’ that wonderful concept that puts party loyalty ahead of competence.
Recently the general secretary the SA Communist Party recently said, with reference to a political tour to China, that we must learn from our Chinese ally. Risible doesn’t begin to describe that.
One of the many differences between China and South Africa is that China doesn’t have truck with the victim-centred world view of the ANC.
If you let your past dictate your future, you will fail. If your past informs but doesn’t dictate your future, you will succeed.
The soft bigotry of low expectations in the West is a curse.
Everything that you say about South Africa sounds reasonable to me, Sara, but I’m not so sure about your concluding discussion of China. It’s true that China doesn’t blame itself for anything that goes wrong or is likely to go wrong. But this doesn’t prevent it from allowing the past to determine the present and future. Its vision is of restoring Chinese dominance (which it enjoyed for centuries until decadence made it easy prey for European traders and Japanese invaders). Its worldview relies at least partly on revenge for having been a victim of foreigners.
You’re right that they play the victim globally but I think she’s referring to China’s domestic policies. Chinese citizens aren’t awarded state benefits by virtue of being downtrodden by past regimes. There’s more to say about that but I think you’re responding to a different context than she was implying.
How come former Asian colonies (Singapore being a prime example) have been fantastically successful since throwing off their colonial shackles, and yet Africa has failed so abysmally? Do the Singaporeans ‘thank’ their colonial ‘oppressors’ for their magnificent inheritance and impressive post-colonial performance; or do they consider that they have been the principal architects of their success? Whatever the reasons, sub-Saharan Africa cannot blame its appalling post-colonial performance on anything other than its own inadequacies and incompetencies. And contemplate Africa before the evil colonisers (Britain leading the pack) arrived basically existed in a state of barbarism and savagery and Iron Age technology at best, especially in the central and southern regions. They sold their own into slavery for centuries if not millennia (primarily to the Arab world) before the arrival of European slave traders on its West coast, which represented a brand new, profitable market for the African slaver merchants who supplied the goods.
Western democracies have invested trillions upon trillions of dollars into post-colonial Africa, and as much again during the colonial era. Until the Africans can blame themselves, not everyone else, then the continent will continue to fail – and provide easy pickings for the likes of China, who are not the purveyors of colonial beneficence as were the British.
Very Strong Correlation between success in life and having two married parents.
Over 60% of Afro Caribbean kids dont have that. Thats not oppression its choice on the fathers part.
The reason(s) for single parent families and lack of socio-economic success are likely to be largely the same, so I’m not sure that point gets us far. The absent father phenomenon in Afro-Carib, Afro-American culture does actually have much to do with slavery (but as the author points out, that’s in the past, the future is another thing).
And yet, Dominic, the black American family was relatively strong until the 1960s. Even under slavery, many black fathers risked their lives to see or help their families who had been sold to other plantations. After the Civil War, black Americans built strong churches, schools, businesses and communities. Those began to erode as recently as the 1960s (within living memory) despite, and partly because of, government policies. Apart from any other consequences was a quickly rising number of fatherless homes. By now, after only two generations, black boys are being taught (on the streets and in popular culture) that becoming live-in fathers (let alone being literate) is somehow “white.” No, this is definitely not due to slavery.
Hmm – there’s some detail missing. As you say, black American famillies were relatively strong until the 1960s – only 20% single parent…..but actually this was very high for that time (4x higher than white Americans). Since that time both white and black single parent familes have gone up by the same ration – 400% – relative to their 1970s position. I’m not sure what to make of that, but it is not a simple story of ‘black family decline’.
I didn’t say that black families in the States were ever as stable as white families, not even after slavery, only that they were surprisingly strong despite the economic and psychological problems that most black people faced under segregation.
The decline of black families–and white families–set in during the 1960s. In the case of black families, this was not due to the legacy of slavery or even segregation. It was due mainly to the rise of hedonism among both black and white people. Setting the stage were innovations such as no-fault divorce, reliable birth control and abortion on demand (along with affirmative action, one side-effect of which was to replace fathers with bureaucrats of the state). Meanwhile, the black middle class was expanding rapidly, which encouraged its exodus from the “ghettoes” to the suburbs, leaving behind many black boys with only gangsters as local role models instead of doctors, teachers, lawyers, pastors and so on).
Dambisa Moyo’s book “Dead Aid” is almost 15 years old now but still packs a punch.
Dead Aid: Why aid is not working and how there is another way for Africa: Amazon.co.uk: Moyo, Dambisa: 9780141031187: Books
Compare the economic and social advances of Africa since the 50s with that of SE Asia. Both regions started in much the same place but the former has had $Ts of aid from a guilty(?) West, the latter almost none. And yet the call for more aid, now with added “reparations”, goes on, long after it has been conclusively proven to be counterproductive.
This is worth reading. Wokes tried to silence this research but eventually it was published. Scientific, peer reviewed research that shows that countries benefited from being colonised. People chose to move from non colonised to colonised areas because they were more peaceful and better governed.
https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/31/2/the_case_for_colonialism?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
I tried to read the article but ended up having to skim it, too much rubbish to process in the time I had. I’ll return to it.
Having said that, of the things I know about, much of it seems obviously absolutely ridiculous. To say that Botswana’s relative success is due to replicating colonial government is madness. It is essentially one tribe (with the San people completely marginalised), great mineral wealth and a tiny population. It suffers none of the divisions of most countries patched together by empires. To say that the Belgian king’s fiefdom of the Congo was praiseworthy in any way, destroys the author’s credibility.
For an amusing antidote see Shashi Tharoor’s Oxford Speech from 2015 (GIYF).
Western cultural ‘progressives’ are in the Congo again,this time turning the local youth against the aid agencies and the UN with stories of white privilege. The result will be another Niger.
Africa needs to help Africa; addressing overpopulation (and attendent poverty, disease, unemployment, etc.) would be a great starting point. Through lessening the desperate circumstances of too many people (and especially improving the lot of women), controlling fertility would weaken the leverage of corrupt governments. By making Africa a more palatable place to remain, it would also decrease bottomless emigration that taxes the resources of receiving countries and creates understandable resentment from their own inhabitants.
At some point, individuals, communities and countries need to become accountable for themselves rather than blaming their woes on others.
A sober analysis. Dr. Thomas Sowell’s book on social justice fallacies is an insightful read.
That the woketards in the photo are still maskurbating in 2023 tells us all we need to know about them.