I moved to Kenya for a job, curious about living on the continent. I thought I understood corruption, but corruption in Africa is on a whole other level.
@@Moe5Tavern Not a scam but they got exposed for selling personal data of their customers to 3rd parties. And this is really personal data, being your mental health and all.
@@rayguistina3314 All that has a more fundamental underlying reason: Culture. The prevailing customs and way of thinking that people are brought up to and what they learn from their own society. The amount of greed and corruption within the peoples of a nation varies enormously from nation to nation, and this is not something that's something innate. It's something that people learn, grow up into, by learning from and emulating other people in their surrounding society. In other words, the prevailing culture of the country. If everybody they grow up with is selfish, greedy and corrupt, then you instinctively learn from them, start emulating them, and become greedy and corrupt yourself. (In a twisted way, it makes a kind of sense: "Why should I be honest and fair, as this only leads to everybody taking advantage of me and screwing me over at every turn?" In a twisted way it kind of acts as a form of self-defense mechanism. You won't be taken advantage of if you, too, are as greedy and corrupt as everybody else.) The only way to change this is to change the prevailing culture. But that's not something that can just be done overnight. You can't just go there and force people to change their upbringing at gunpoint.
I blame the heat. Notice how most rich countries are located in cold climates, and most poor countries in hot climates. So, it's both not sharing enough motivational quotes on FB and the heat.
Residing in Zambia, Africa, for the past 30 years, I've never experienced conflict or war. It's rare to even see a police officer with a gun where I'm from. My realization is that it's corruption that continues to impede our progress and perpetuate poverty. Until our leaders prioritize the development of our nations over personal gain, obstacles to progress will persist. While external forces significantly contribute to corruption, which further reduces access to resources and capital that we need for development we must eventually take responsibility for addressing and combating these issues.
Remove middlemen, remove corruption. Corruption is a symptom of too many middlemen, they get tempted by the chance to take advantage of their gatekeeper position.
@@1wun1 I’d say it improved for a few. We still have half the population living off $1 a day. Which is crazy considering we export so much copper and are the largest producers of emeralds. Very few have benefited. To top it off we now have an IMF loan that is chocking the country. It’s the fault of our leaders for the misuse of funds. Inflation is higher than ever.
I live in Ghana and what I've realized was the missed opportunity when Nkrumah was overthrown. He had his way of steering through the obstacles of international affairs. He created a lot of factories that collapsed after his overthrow. The problem now we face is the devaluing of the cedi against the dollar which makes costs go high because we mostly import with the dollar. Our exports, unfortunately, don't exceed our import demand and so the cedi continuously depreciates. Ghana needs to do more exports and it is challenging because we need to find the market for our products. Worst of all, most of our products exist in other countries and so penetration is costly as a lot of money has to go into expensive marketing.
Kwame suffered the same fate as other intellectuals turned leaders like Trotsky who was outmuscled by Stalin. I've been to Ghana about ten times but only during Jerry John who did what he could but, as technically a coup leader, international cooperation was difficult. "Africa Must Unite!" -- KN
@@GB-ez6geTrotsky and Stalin are not the best examples as they almost completely agreed on everything except one detail. That being whether it was time to export communism to the world or continue to solidify its growth within Russia. Trotsky wanted to go on an offensive war and bring communism to all of Europe while Stalin did not. That’s literally the only major difference in their ideology.
@@darth3911 Please read what I wrote before commenting. It does not state that Stalin was an example. The "example" (really, metaphor) was Trotsky, in his capacity as an intellectual. Their political views and actions are irrelevant to one being an intellectual and the other being forceful. (Whatever their disagreements, Stalin thought them severe enough to assassinate Trotsky while exiled in Mexico.)
But why it collapsed? I don't know reason but it baffled me few years ago and i don't remember country but they decided kick out white farmers but they didn't take over and work fields for whatever reason and result was famine.
I can bet you 1k dollars that the CIA had a hand in the overthrow of Nkrumah. The same Americans who destroy our best leaders gather themselves in their ivory towers (which they built with ivory they stole from us) to discuss why we are poor. Insult to injury! Why is every nation around America that is not dominated by Caucasians, war torn and poor? Why is Mexico poor? Why is Panama poor? Why is Columbia poor? Why is America so rich and everyone else so poor? Americans shouldn't be talking about other peoples poverty. Their government is the cause of a lot of it.
I am from Botswana. It's all true. We're winning. Things really work. Not perfect, but it works. There's a very clear upwards mobility, complimented by our fairly functional education and justice system. I love my country man, and I lived in the States for most of my 20s.
@@Craicfox161 One very big asterisk has to be placed next to Botswana as an example of what other African countries should strive for. Botswana is a huge outlier when it comes to demographics in Africa, more than 75% of Botswana's citizens are Batswana, it is literally the land of the Tswanas. Plus they were never really colonized in the traditional sense of the word, the British didn't conquer them and the agreement to make it a protectorate came after the rulers conflicts against the Boers encroaching on their land, and fortunately the British were also fighting the Boers at that time so the Tswanas basically became an important ally to the British in keeping order as well as the Boers under control, so not only did the core leadership structure never fall apart and lose legitimacy, one could argue it gained more legitimacy even after the British left, which made it impossible for any legitimate challengers to power. This is the same reason why the only truly stable countries in the Middle east are all Monarchies, because that's the best way to maintain stability. With that stability, even if it was poor the first few decades after independence, the country developed with the few resources it had. So, in summary, Botswana had three very important things going for it, that IMO, no other Sub-Saharan African country has - Stability, a strong and legitimate leadership structure and well-maintained, strong institutions arising therein.
I should add that Botswana's history also lends itself towards democracy much more easily. There was never an absolute ruler, only one with the buy-in of the various tribal chiefs. In some ways it could even be compared to the Holy Roman Empire, albeit that comparison is reaching. Point being that it historically didn't lend itself to full-on tyranny.
Honestly his channel has been this way for years. It's low effort low quality trash wrapped up to look smart when it's not. It's just enough usually to convince his viewership that he knows what he's talking about.
@@rusbea.2279 i come back every now and then to check, sometimes compare information and ideas. thing is though despite the fact his information can be very wrong it does change how people think, he does not have a small sphere of influence and I think its good to keep tabs on where people get their info if you can.
@@saaah707 Tribalism is one reason. Europe had it too. Still does to a fair extent, but after slaughtering each other for a thousand years they've grudgingly decided to co-operate a bit.
@@earth9531South Africa has the worst gini coeff of any country in the world. Before apartheid, there was a huge wealth gap which obfuscated the overwhelming poverty that was widespread. This has not changed: it’s just slightly less determined by race.
it's not really a scam, they did have shady practices but it's not like they didn't offer people therapy and it's still cheaper than therapy generally is out of pocket.
Nice vídeo but I missed the point. Is the ground breaking MIT conclusion that countries with less stable or robust institutions are harder to develop? The video is called "MIT Study reveals why Africa is still poor" and then kinda reveals what everyone already knows.
Howwwwwww did you arrive at the word "EVERYONE" ?? are you literally implying that "EVERRRRYONE ALREADY knows, including 13 year old kids and 17 year old kids" ??
About 20 years ago a (white) work colleague cycled from the UK to the very south of South Africa. He wrote a book about his experiences. ''Why Africa will never win the World Cup.'' Although he met some good people on the way he encountered endless corruption. Almost every border crossing involved some form of bribe. He got arrested in Zimbabwe because he foolishly cycled past Mugabe's Palace. A kindly Police Sergeant allowed him to leave in the dead of night with the advice; ''get over the border asap.'' He set off with optimism but returned sadly chastened.
Nothing against cycling long distances and across borders as I've done it myself but I can't think of a better way of flaunting Western ways than going for a multi-national cycling exploit in Africa, where almost no one does that except perhaps a handful of Westerners with a definite apetite for risk and no concept of what it means to be white in Africa. Also, no concept of what it means to do highly noticeable things that locals would never do, which applies to anywhere in the world. I know of two cases of white guys cycling Africa with the obvious exact same results. It's just a stupid insensitive thing to do as a white guy.
@@TROGULAR10000 This sounds like a distraction. He describes the endless corruption they found in governments across a continent (which he could have just as observed by other modes of transportation, not just bicycling), and then you respond by calling cycling through Africa a "stupid insensitive thing to do". So the smart, sensitive thing to do would be to avoid Africa, and thereby not encounter the corruption which locals have no choice but to endure? Somehow it's the "insensitive" cyclists' fault that Africa is what it is today?
That's interesting. Too much Red Tape I find is almost always overlooked when assessing the struggles of many industries and in Algeria case as you say, the struggles of nations.
@@hrthrhs bureaucracy, which is directly linked with poor quality of normative frameworks (i.e., poor quality of legislation) is always overlooked by economists, probably because the price that we all pay for red tape is incalculable, it has to do mostly with lost opportunities, while economists want to see measurable and quantifiable losses/profits. High time, perhaps, to engage a little more in qualitative analysis.
Thomas Sowell wrote extensively about the geographical challenges facing the continent of Africa: high altitudes and steep coastlines ill suited to ports, largely unnavigable, shallow rivers flowing into the interior, etc. Most of this has been known for years.
@@calicoesblue4703 You said the same thing again. Who do you think you are ? Answer questions instead of trying to mock people when you have no skills.
As an agricultural engineer working at ground level since 1978 with government institutions both ministerial and research the greatest problem that many African countries suffer from is the lack of skills, engineers tend to be desk-bound with little or no practical skills, artisans acquire skills but never seem to develop them, content to keep reproducing the same item year after year. This can best be seen in the craft sector where high-quality items are the exception, not the rule, most crafts are rudimentary lacking detail or finish. Research institutions produce products that already exist in the marketplace of better quality and at a lower price but are kept alive by governments to show they do research however they are never subject to an audit so it is impossible to access their contribution to the national economy.
Tribalism is also probably one of the biggest challenges holding back Africa. Dictators on down to regional governors and lowly civil servants are more likely to help their tribe than help the overall population or national interest.
from what I heard from my friend who's from Ghana, this seems to be the problem there. the local leaders will make ridiculous laws making life difficult
That's an old post-colonial problem. It's still present but this criticism is often overused to explain away problems, even in nations which have been modernizing quite a bit - where's it is really doubtful whether these inter-ethnic biases are really still a major factor. I would be careful not to generalize about it. Especially since this particular criticism has its origins in European colonialist excuses for "why the Africans can't govern themselves.". That's not what you seem to be saying, but I promise you others still do on occasion. The other colonial trope that has an ounce of truth to it, but gets overused? "It's a problem with the culture.". Most people recognize what's wrong with that one. (Uhh. Which culture? Where?) 😊 Even if tribalism of "culture" is a barrier in some places, the way out of that is to build strong institutions and traditions of governance and civil society.
I think the biggest problem is the transfer of value. If the value that a country produces through unequal exchange (the main mechanism of value transfer, but by no means the only one) is constantly flowing out of their economy, they simply lack the resources necessary for economic development. What flows back in the form of foreign aid is only a fraction of what flows out. The production of many African countries is at the beginning of the value chain, the least profitable part of the chain. However, the big profits are only realised in the final processing steps and the final sale.
@@Robespierre-lI lol always blaming colonialists won't do you good, look at Southeast Asia, they were colonized the longest by foreign powers but they're thriving economically.
Also true of the middle east. I lived in Iraq for a while and everyone said the same thing - the new democratic institutions are basically just proxies for the tribes and clans to compete with one another, while the old dictatorship allowed them to unite under common interests. Although the younger generation, and especially the Kurds and minority groups, despise Saddam, they are very nostgalic for the old autocracy.
I recommend viewers watch Soma Academy’s video covering why what EE says in this video is incorrect and not factual in regards to African history and historical economics. I don’t blame EE for not knowing African history as it is not his domain, but she really debunks his misconceptions here.
I do blame EE: they make videos with millions of views, on important topics, for profit. You actually have a moreal responsibility to do your homework and not propogate lazy misinformation imo. And this is a recurring problem too. But that's me, maybe I'd be bad at being a youtuber lol
@@Muzikman127 I agree with you completely. Channels like this that deal with history, geopolitics, and other sensitive information need to be more responsible and held to a higher standard.
History is just for information. Development is a point for today and the future. These videos are only for entertainment, not solving any issues or developing anywhere. There are better sources to check as the Global Competitiveness Report.
The graphic at 13:43 is misleading. Only about 10% of enslaved Africans went to the "13 colonies" in North America. The vast majority went to South America and the West Indies.
People forget slavery was everywhere and that the Arab world actually brought slaves from Africa for a longer period of time than the Americas did. Slave markets were there until the 1960s.
Mauritania was the last nation to outlaw slavery-that was in 1983. But, the anti-slavery laws are loosely enforced, and slavery is still widespread-as it is in other similarly situated African countries.
One very big asterisk has to be placed next to Botswana as an example of what other African countries should strive for. Botswana is a huge outlier when it comes to demographics in Africa, more than 75% of Botswana's citizens are Batswana, it is literally the land of the Tswanas. Plus they were never really colonized in the traditional sense of the word, the British didn't conquer them and the agreement to make it a protectorate came after the King's conflicts against the Boers encroaching on their land, and fortunately the British were also fighting the Boers at that time so the Tswanas basically became an important ally to the British in keeping order as well as the Boers under control, so not only did the core leadership structure never fall apart and lose legitimacy, one could argue it gained more legitimacy even after the British left, which made it impossible for any legitimate challengers to power. This is the same reason why the only truly stable countries in the Middle east are all Monarchies, because that's the best way to maintain stability. With that stability, even if it was poor the first few decades after independence, the country developed with the few resources it had. So, in summary, Botswana had three very important things going for it, that IMO, no other Sub-Saharan African country has, Stability, A strong legitimate Monarchy and well-maintained, strong institutions resulting from that stable and legitimate monarchy.
In addition their population is way lower than the available mineral resources, which were discovered after independence (very important). And the mineral sector is in a public-private partnership, unlike the fully privatised ones in the much poorer countries.
It it's also to remember that Botswanan president that put the country on path to prosperity was originally supposed to be the king of Botswana, and after getting kicked out for racism reasons, he returned and became a president instead. Eventhough its is a republic it is still in some sense a legitimate monarchy.
@@sasi5841Umh no. The Khama's were never supposed to be "Botswana's ruling family" They are the tribal chiefs of their own ethnic group. Botswana has multiple ethnic groups, many of which, don't recognize the Khamas as rulers. Botswana is a representative democracy, and to be honest with you, most Batswana within the below 40 cohort despise them. Source, I am a Motswana. There are glaring inaccuracies in your analysis.
You've missed one of the largest factors in Botswana's success. Botswana NEVER had an absolute monarchy. Monarchs in Botswana had to gain consensus with other tribal chiefs and advisors before they made policies. They could not act as absolute monarchs and push through unpopular and arbitrary policies for their own benefit. This made their integration with democratic norms and human rights smoother than other sub-Saharan countries.
@@loetomagang1438 It is good to hear from an opposition source in Botswana. It would be interesting to hear more. As an exSA white I have been to Botswana but most of what I know I have read. I want Africa and Africans to get ahead and realise their potential. Many African countries could learn a lot from Botswana.
As a Nigerian, I absolutely agree with you, friend. We have other issues like bad geography and climate but good leadership and political structures and institutions can negate all of the other issues.
Stop saying it’s about good leadership when Europeans and Americans have assassinated leaders, sponsored coups and terrorist organizations, and use other forms of political meddling which have made all regions of Africa struggle. Everyone wants to focus on what Africa is doing wrong. But nobody wants to talk about how France has the 4th largest gold reserve but no gold mine, and yet holds 90% of the gold from 15 African countries, some of which don’t have their own gold reserves. Let’s talk about how many of the industries extracting resources from Africa are European, American, and Chinese businesses that give little profit or benefit to the countries and local people. Good leadership gets you assassinated bc there’s too much money flowing out of Africa. Almost all of the resources needed to build electric cars are on that continent and this is the moment they should be benefiting but instead we have children in lithium mines
@@katnicole7274 No, let's not talk about _how,_ let's talk about _why._ The discourse you describe is a discourse of grievance and acrimony, not a discourse about understanding and solutions. Africans will not be fooled by such talk forever.
@@katnicole7274 I know the West has assassinated some leaders, but as far as I know they have all been corrupt or communists. So there has been no loss to the country. I don't know the French neo-colonial empire too well, so no comments there.
Thank you so much for making this video. As an African myself (Nigerian, specifically) it always annoys me when most people only attribute Africa's current problems to "colonialism or racism", effectively removing personal responsibility of us Africans, and ignore more important factors like geography, climate, socioeconomic systems, political unity, culture, and leadership. Thanks for focusing on those areas.
@@biafra13743 friend, I don't care. We have so many wannabe secessionists in Nigeria, it's not funny anymore. Oduduwa nation, Arewa separatists, Biafra separatists, Sokoto caliphate fanatics, Fulani insurgents etc. The simple reality is that these groups have very little support or clout, even among their own tribes. They can't sustain themselves without the nation and they know it but choose to remain delusional.
Both can be right at the same time. Ignoring foreign interferance whilst only highlighting corrupt African leadership is no better than Ignoring corrupt African leaders whilst only blaming foreign interference. Your all the same just shilling for different sides.
I read "Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches" a little over 20 years ago and I still remember the point the author made about cultures and why they do things.
There's a reason why most of my African friends have no plans of living in Africa. I'm paraphrasing, but one guy told me "imagine me going back and telling people 'hey we should follow traffic rules and make stop lights.' Everyone would look at me like I was crazy." And that's a small example of how culture and nurture means much more than geography. You have pockets of places with awesome cohesion, property rights and education, but it has to reach a critical mass to be safe from total annihilation.
This kind of culture is a result of corruption, If only half the people have to follow the rules and the other half has a connection in the government or can bribe and get away with a lot of things, people will start to hate the rules and they will lose all respect to them, and with enough time people will start to see it as the norm since that all they know their whole life, specially when the rules are not even enforced properly or fairly
@@Bell_plejdo568p my buddy from Nigeria, neighbors from DRC, met someone whose family is threatened if they go back to Sudan, talked to an ambassador from Ghana and I think Uganda was the other guy. Like this isn't hidden information. Granted all of these people were no longer living in Africa, so maybe their bias is skewed, but that's the point. People that want a certain way of life (property rights, self determination, education) are going overseas, so everyone left are more intrenched in their ways.
"how culture and nurture means much more than geography" EXCEPT the Africans IN the western world -- who are benefitting (and taking advantage of) what the WESTERNERS have built -- did not and DO NOT believe "hey we should follow the rules" unless they are continuously and continually "forced" to do so! They have come to a different "geography" and changed hardly at all! ALLLLL the years of living in a different "culture and nurture" has NOT changed Africans into people who desire to -- and CAN -- live in a different culture and nurture! EVERY "African group" living in EVERY other 'culture and nurture' has an exceedingly HIGH of out-of-wedlock, no-fathers-present, birth rate. EVERY single one. It's PART of their culture and nurture. It exists in Africa, it exists and every African group across the planet. The exceptions do NOT prove the rule! (I'd point out: in the 1920s and 30s in the U.S -- when the African family structure was FORCED to live within the (then-extant) "rules of (White/western) society" -- they had actually a LOWER divorce rate than White/Westerners. Once that force was let up -- they mostly returned to the 'African culture and nurture' of reproduction without marriage, which has only increased since then.
I lived with an African girl who said she'd love to move back and try help her country, but anyone who tries to help through the political system would be jailed or happen to pass away for the SLIGHTEST hint that youd cause problems.
I am South African, and South Africa stands out amongst most of the African Nations as the most "developed", or used to be. Here - and to some extent I would say in most european settled regions (colonialism implies that the wealth was being shipped away, not utilised in country, which is what happened here) - the european conquest broke the inhibiting authority of local rulers that you assert prevented widespread development. In South Africa, it was replaced by a National Authority that, while still authoritarian and oppressive, DID develop enormous amounts of capital - railways, harbours, airports, mining, schools, hospitals, roads, dams, which benefitted everyone, even if the ruling whites under apartheid benefitted more. It doesn't make it right, but an oppressed South African had much better access to healthcare, education, transport, employment, clean water and food than an oppressed NON-South African. The tragedy is that when democracy was introduced - which should have been a wonderful thing - , the new leaders didn't maintain any of the practices or principles that had made the region prosperous. They didn't continue with improving or developing the infrastructure, education, etc. Instead, all they did was exhaust the capital that was previously developed and re-distribute wealth into non-sustainable social aid programmes, which kept their voter base loyal. The result is that any good that came from the suffering under the decades of oppression has been lost. It was all for nothing. They took the silver lining from that dark cloud, cut it into pieces so small that it blew away into the wind as dust. Now we have failing infrastructure, no electricity, no water, no functioning local authorities, 40% unemployment, a collapsing tax base, a prohibitively expensive international credit rating, and no light at the end of the tunnel. Africa is poor, because it insists on doing things its own way. And that way doesn't work, if your goal is to develop along the lines of other non-african industrial and post industrial nations. Other regions of the world - notably South East Asia, embraced industialisation, academicism, national planning etc. etc. and still retained their regional/ cultural identity. But in Africa rejection of "The West" is part of the mindset, and is a rallying cry for the leadership, who drive around in Mercedes Benz's wearing Armani suits. Africa will remain poor, until Africans decide that that rejecting the practices of the wealthy isn't what makes you a real African.
This is what happens when you don't have to fight to develop yourself. European nations that have been built up by centuries of hardship now find themselves with leadership that don't have any clue of how the nations wealth was achieved and are set on squandering it to purchase a voting base using taxation of those who actually work to keep building that wealth.
Explain estonia then. Most of it's wealth was taken away by Russians same with development. After getting out of soviet union they growth was growing with insane numbers. Same with Poland. The "muh colonialism" is just excuse.
@@Tespri That some countries could rise above the hurdles erected by colonialism does not imply that colonialism is not an overwhelming impediment. Estonia and Poland are where they are despite their colonial/oppressive past, not because of or uncoupled from it.
@@debarshidas8072 Finland as well.. Hong Kong after British rule... Singapore after british rule. In fact it seems that the general trend is that only colonies in Africa are incapable to "overcome this hurdle". It's just overwhelming excuse and cope mechanism.
@@debarshidas8072 Finland as well.. Hong Kong after British rule... Singapore after british rule. In fact it seems that the general trend is that only colonies in Africa are incapable to "overcome this hurdle". It's just overwhelming excuse and cope mechanism.
I have a hard time with the argument that a main reason for lack of technology adoption was erratic tyrants. Europe and Asia were both absolutely filled with despots, tyrants of all kinds, hordes of barbarians like the Huns and Danes who pillages and burned down places, yet people still developed commerce and metallurgy.
That not only what he said was the cause . He said the fact that the land in a Africa was big, people could easy leave their communities and settle somewhere else with out the oppressive leader thus they did not developed a sense of nationalisation to come together and fight back.
As a South African, I always got the idea that Africa's greatest problem (at least where I am from) seems to be that the chiefs and king is too often still seen as infallible, or unchallengeable... there have never been a revolution against their hierarchy structures as there was in Europe... it was more of a softening, but never a complete rejection. The lack of adoption of tech for the greater good is also mindboggeling... there appear to be traces of this tech-rejection that precedes European influence on the Southern part of the continent.
You missed what he said, couple the tyrany with the land and the environment allowed groups to escape and set up their own communities and be virtually isolated from the rest preventing ideas they learnt from being spread. Europe never really had that problem, all the natives of the european countries today mainly derive from 1-4 ethnicities. And about metallurgy you should look into how slaves from the carribean helped in the industrial revolution theres a guardian article about it.
Im an African and to me its very obvious why we are still a poor continent. Look at the stark differences between north and south Korea, the stark dofferences that existed between East and West Germany. What im trying to say is that African leaders are hopelessly making the wrong choices generation after generation. It all boils down to governance.
grow up and see the truth, they are just greedy and shortsighted, just as most south american leaders, they love american or european money on their pockets they buy mansions on italy while their people still have no roads. Europeans did terrible tuff in the past but they managed to have enough thinkers that changed the continent, this isn't happening on africa
Interesting though that even East Germany in 1989 was a fairly well-developed and rich country compared to most African countries today, despite having literally been a democracy for only about 10 years of its existence (and those 10 years, the infamous 'Weimar' years, weren't exactly famed for their economic stability) South Korea also is controlled by a wealthy corporate elite. China was once as poor as Africa, and now it's one of the most developed nations in Asia and above the global average. What they all have in common is mass education, together with planned and enforced industrialisation targeting the export market. That is the most successful proven method of economic development in the modern world.
Remove middlemen, remove corruption. Corruption is a symptom of too many middlemen, they get tempted by the chance to take advantage of their gatekeeper position.
I mean look at history, every African leader who sort to do what was best for his people, was overthrown or killed by foreign governments leading to the leaders we have today. So you can’t just say it’s bad governance when the people don’t even get to choose who governs them. Just a thought!
You need a study to figure out why? Have you ever looked at their average IQ? Up until contact with Europeans and colonization, sub-Saharan Africa had been stuck in the Neolithic age for centuries with no written language of any kind. Ge'ez in Ethiopia was introduced with Yemeni Semites. Swahili was brought by the Arabs. They had never discovered metals. They had never figured out sailing. They had never even invented the wheel.
I love hearing about how diversity in African countries is the reason why they remain poor and underdeveloped; however, the same people are quick to point out that diversity is a strength anywhere else... just not in Africa. There is so much dissonance, and I bet these people don't even realise it.
I'm probably one of the people you're referring to, at least tangentially. However, I don't claim that diversity is the problem in Africa, but statements of mine (and perhaps others arguing in a similar way as I do) might be mistaken that way. What I'm saying is this: Countries in Western and Central Europe had favourable conditions for development, such as being able to develop and industrialize on their own terms and not being subject to any form of colonialism or forced liberal market reform. Most of them chose the way of the language or ethnicity based nation state, but there's also Switzerland, for example, which chose a different route, which, for the time, was quite diversity embracing. The problem with colonies is that the way they're organized, the economic structure and power structures, is for extraction by colonizers. They're (very likely) not what the people in the region would build if they could structure their societies on their own terms, if they could go through their own process, their own societal negotiations and conflicts, like Europe once did. That, however, is almost impossible in the current environment, with multi-national corporations teaming up with western governments and their international organizations (e.g. the IMF and the World Bank) to stabilize an environment that is conducive to extraction, and international law and diplomacy set up in a way that make it very hard for countries to reform themselves, or even develop away from the European nation state model. Yes, in numerous cases, the lack of such an independent process surfaces as strife between ethnic groups. However, that is, at least in part, a symptom of a region greatly disrupted by colonial extraction, both in times of traditional colonialism, and (neo)colonialism. Even conflicts that are rooted in pre-colonial structures are exacerbated in a situation where people now have to make do in the results of colonial oppression - and, on top of that, they are conflicts that never had a chance of being resolved on the people's own terms, using the vessels of their own, organically developed civilizations. The root of the problem aren't these surface level symptoms, however, but the lack of an organic process for a region to "find itself", so to say. Looked at from the surface, it may seem like a diversity issue, but it really isn't. Also, in cases where a country is ruled by a government that discriminates against some ethnic groups, and doesn't take into account that some groups might have been dealt a particularly bad hand by past oppression, or worse, engages in direct oppression, violence or even genocide, that's neither a colonial (albeit, of course, being a (neo)colony doesn't help having sound political structures) issue nor an issue of diversity, but moral bankruptcy of those responsible. Blaming diversity in those kinds of situations isn't even a surface-level mistake like in the case of symmetric tribal conflicts, but simply a cheap excuse for a bigoted political agenda (or the very concept of having such an agenda when using Africa as a proxy token in Western political discourse).
@@christianknuchel We all know you took the time to provide this answer; however, I will not similarly return the favour. I appreciate the effort, which is only designed for the viewers and not as an answer directly to me. On the other hand, your reply, in my opinion, is just a more sophisticated way of throwing an insult, which is also okay, as I would not have expected otherwise. I'm afraid I have to disagree with many levels that Africa or most African countries do not have the power to change their course. Unlike other countries throughout history, they didn't have to "invent the wheel" (like the Spanish had to for the Incas - to talk in your "colonialist" language; obviously, there is a lot more than the mere wheel here as it goes profoundly into what a civilisation can achieve). Africa is entirely responsible for their well-being, and they have the power in their hand; they choose to deal with Russia and China these days and appear perfectly happy with it. You must have some form of selective memory when referring to European countries having time to develop, or you must not know history. I must remind you of the recent two world wars that have led to unimaginable destruction and loss of both human and material capital. Even before that, Europe was not peaceful or united, as can be noticed in a brief history review. No, my friend, no one had time to do anything; it was a simple game of survival of the fittest, which is perfectly fine at a cosmic level as we are not yet playing outside this game. We either move forward, or we will be forgotten. As a background, I was born in a diverse communist country (remember, USSR was very diverse), and I lived more time in extreme poverty than in decency. I did not blame anyone for my misfortune. At no time in our previous history did one have more power to change his own fortune than today (with some minor exceptions - not Africa).
but countries in europe have figured out a way to actually work together to be great. ex. europe warred against one another. however, when it came time to slice up africa, they worked together to make that happen so that they could all prosper. africa does not work together to be great and prosper. if they did, they have good roads that linked east to west africa, north to south, etc. to facilitate commerce throughout the continent.
@@dumarudolf3976 I didn't mean to imply that Europe didn't have strife, but that it had the opportunity to develop on its own terms, as it was the first region to emerge global empires. There's a huge difference between symmetric conflict in the way that Europe had internally, and being subject to perpetual oppression. To make a long story short: Europe (and I'm counting the US and Australia as European countries here) won the game for the current political era, it's just that its power projection's gotten a bit more subtle over the past 70 years, which is why some people believe that colonialism is over, even though it's not. As a bit of background for me: As you might have guessed from my earlier example, I'm Swiss. Your rhetoric reminded me very much of discourse I've heard before, including in my own country, where people find excuses to argue against people from other places joining our society. However, Switzerland was founded on people speaking different languages and from different denominations of Christianity, which, as you know, had been at war with one another at various points in History, joining together and making a country. If there's hypocrisy there, it's people who claim themselves to be patriots, but who oppose immigration of people from different places. That issue is even more pronounced in US discourse, a country that was founded on global immigration outright, and US discourse has a lot of influence on the political discourse on the internet, and even local politics - at least over here. Personally, I don't care much about whether diversity is a strength or not. What I care about is the *fulfillment* of the individual, and if people come closer to that fulfillment by means of immigration, so be it. However, it doesn't stop there: Anti-immigration arguments are also used to target refugees, their rights and their chances of being granted asylum. This even leads to things like teenagers who are in the middle of an apprenticeship (!) getting deported back to their country of origin. People who have started to integrate, to build a life! Children with hopes and dreams. Just people, like you, me, everyone else. But because of a mix of nationalist bureaucracy and xenophobic bigotry, they get theirs destroyed - people who've already gone through so much, who were just starting to rebuild. And then there's the inhumane treatment, and sometimes even murder, of refugees before they even get here. Besides the Humanist aspect, I also believe that it's important for the world to interweave and not separate, to facilitate a better understanding of one another, and make it less likely for monstrous views of people from other parts of the world to become widespread. It also begets cultural exchange and expands a society's social horizon and flexibility. Also, I've always loved the cultural bounty of the world, and have had a cosmopolitan mindset pretty much my entire life. I like living in an international place.
This is the biggest intellectual gymnastics stretch I've seen ever! Both Africa and Latin America could have some of the wealthiest countries on earth, but have been continuously mismanaged and riled with corruption.
Did we watch the same video? His whole point was that strong and inclusive institutions are conducive to prosperity while corrupt and extractive ones lead to the situations we see in SA and Africa. Same thesis by Acemoglu and Robinson in their book.
"Adoption of the wheel was limited in Africa, because Africa was ruled by regional kings with unchecked authority, unlike Europe." is a hilariously out of pocket "theory."
@@happyjack8613 because wheels don't work very well in the rough, humid terrain of central Africa. We can see from toys that Africans absolutely understood the concept of the wheel, it's just that in Africa carrying by hand, using pack animals and especially using boats was far more efficient.
@@happyjack8613 It's orders of magnitude easier to just carry something on your head or on your animal or on a boat than to drag a wheelbarrow through uneven heavily-forested muddy or rocky terrain. Why are you being so dense?
@@shawnmendrek3544 yep, remember in Medieval Europe wheel-based transport fell mostly out of use after the Roman road system fell into disrepair. Carts require very well maintained roads.
As an ex South African, and who studied that part of Africa from the inside, can I suggest having a very close look at Botswana. There are a number of very important differences to other African countries, first being mainly a single tribal group. A lot depended on one man, Seretsi Khama, but his policies remind me of Norway.
I am a Motswana. Are you smoking crack? Mainly one ethnic group? You are actually mad, we have over 20. We just don't go to war with one another and only have dialectic differences in our language.
I lived as a white SAfrican, pulling my weight, but privileged. It was not a hard life unlike most Black SAfricans. I did consider that I had paid my way, but it was time to leave and let the country be run by indigenous people. All power to them, I long for them to take their rightful place in the World.
@ebaab9913 my parents migrated to SA from Mozambique. I was born in SA but I've never felt like this is home, I never felt welcomed. I'm not impressed with the leadership or how things are done. I look forward to the day I leave. Whatever opportunity I can find, I'm taking it. I'm so fed up with the way things are done on this continent.
Born in Africa and living in Africa, I can tell you, but in my country, I can not say anything because I will be called a racist and coloniser if I do. Not owning their own short falls and looking to place the blame on past generations is the name of the game for our leaders.
Odd, I thought racism is about power structure and minority components! Whites shouldnt be racist to blacks in Africa with this, was US left word police wrong? What a shock
something I never learned in school is that an almost negligible amount of slaves were brought to the 13 colonies. They mostly went to Brazil and the Caribbean.
I hope you also learned that the reason this is true is because of the absolutely staggering numbers sent to Brazil and the Caribbean. In addition, I hoped you learned that one of the things that made slavery in the US uniquely evil was a forced breeding program and that this multiplied the enslaved population in the States immensely.
@talonhax8336 actually they were among the first. Slavery still exists in many African countries and it existed in Eastern Europe and Asia into the 20th century. Americans are brainwashed to catastrophize our history of slavery as though it was more uniquely terrible than it was. What's unique about it is how it was denied constitutional legitimacy and later started a war to end it.
0:30 America and Ecuador do, however, have shockingly similar election dynamics... I was appalled by Abdala Bucaram's populist Elvis-singing campaign somehow bringing him victory, when the only reason he wasn't in jail is that he was running for President, as he'd fled the country on drug and corruption charges. That could never happen here in America, right?
"Africa has less productive land" then the main colonial settlers economic activities were agriculture and mining the had huge plantations of sisal,cocoa,coffee,and cotton in Tanzania for example the Germans built railroad the agricultural reasons. Most TH-camrs who talks about Africa poverty have never been into Africa 😅
you need to see Europe and the American plains to understand what real agriculture is. I'm Kenyan and geography is a much bigger problem than you think it is. in comparison to Europe and USA, we don't have any arable land in our country.
Literally just because the selective pressures present in Africa have not generated populations with excess ability to engage in abstract thinking and problem solving. Any other explanation is just beating around the bush or trying to distract from the truth, if not outright disinfo.
Every person commenting is as wrong as the video. Africa is "poor" for only one reason, and this reason can not be stated, even though it would be 100% true. Africa is full of people who will never be "not poor", let's just put it that way.
I believe the primary issue is the myopic perspective and extreme levels of corruption throughout the continent. Africans are their own worst enemies. We see the same issue in the nations born of its diaspora, such as Jamaica and Haiti, where my immediate ancestors come from. Corruption exists in all countries, but in other places, the elites at least recognize that the peasantry needs SOMETHING. In Africa and throughout the Caribbean, they horde everything.
No, it isn't that elites recognize that peasants need something--it's that they can't stop the "peasants." A wannabe tyrant won't be a tyrant if he fears the people will kill him at the very moment he oppresses them. If the people are sufficiently able to succeed without the govt, then the govt lacks certain power to keep them from succeeding. Rights, success, are things that people secure for themselves--they are never given by those in power. Waiting on a dictator to give them is futile and foolish.
@@meowmix-t7n isnt the african government or any government created by its own people? are we adults or children and always everybody else is at fault except us lol
Long ago the Economist published a piece called The Chief Problem with Africa - in a nutshell, Africans see their leaders as divine and beyond reproach. As a South African, I can say this problem is still alive and well. It is rooted in mentality and other factors are simply ancillary.
I'm Namibian, and I agree. I think when I ponder the state of political participation our society I often neglect the fact that Apartheid was a very recently lived experience for the majority of our people. When the only thing that matters to you is escape from a system like that, I suppose it's easy to gather religiously around the leaders of the struggle against it, and it thus makes sense emotionally that this reverence lingers in the public consciousness. Nevertheless, it's immensely disheartening to talk to the people who remain proud supporters of leadership just to find out that they are all largely unhappy with the performance of leadership. For them, voting is not an expression of political interest, but rather a ritual they have to celebrate freedom. To them, the democratic process is not one where people participate in decision making. It's just a celebration of the end of Apartheid. In a sense, it's just the legacy of the style of participation of non whites (especially blacks) are used to. It's inertia
south africa is a fantastic example of degradation - in the 90s, it was still classified as a developed economy in financial markets; it had one of the top #10 rail networks; world's best energy supplier; world's best tax collector. all the democratic gov needed to do was build & expand on this incredible infrastructure. .....it didn't.
I wish countries like senegal were discussed in this video only because it has always been politically stable and peaceful but it's still very poor. All the foreign investment benefit those already in power and many say the west African currency is one of the biggest reasons it's remained poor.
The currency is not the main reason Senegal is not thriving at all. Ivory Coast and Benin have the same currency but they have better economic growth annually than many country in the world. Senegal has strong institutions, but it is less economically attrative to investors than Ivory Coast for exemple. Mainly because it lacks natural ressources (cocoa, gold etc.) and its agriculture is very unproductive. That's why when they have the choice, private investors go to countries like Ivory Coast instead of Senegal.
You should look into FrançAfrique and the réseaux Foccart. It’s about neocolonial relationships between France and its ex African colonies. Although it does not tell the whole story as to why Africa is underdeveloped (geography also plays a big role in it as presented in the video), it shows how Western powers, especially France, have dominated African countries in the post colonial era. Basically rigging elections to install leaders favourable to France and acquire control over thei natural resources. So yeah, corruption again. Kinda sad that the involvement of France was not mentioned in the vidéo, they really dominate some part of Africa economically and politically
Sahara is a problem as a barrier? Why is not Australia and New Zeeland poor? Why would fertile lands not lead to development/civilization in Africa but it did in China, Egypt, India, Eufrat/Tigris? I didn't get the reason, Malaria? There used to be malaria also in Europe. Bad infrastructure is not a "reason", the question is why don't they build infrastructure.
_"Bad infrastructure is not a "reason", the question is why don't they build infrastructure."_ That is a question. It's not like any nation had their infrastructure ready. Every nation had to build their basic stuff and foundations first, so they could then develop further. The basic steps of development.
@@xpusostomosit’s almost like there is an incredibly simple and obvious difference that explains everything we see. I hope one day our best researchers can tease out what that is!
clearly that's how bad this video was that you didn't get a good understanding of what makes Africa different. Having people who speak 500 different languages in one country makes it virtually impossible to achieve many things. Having leaders who try to make the countries more independent from their former countries being assassinated, then installing puppets who give special contracts to special European interests becomes exactly why Africa looks like it does today. Africans are not in control of their own resources as Burkina Faso showed how they charged an extremely low price for Uranium and once they pushed the French out they charged 100x the price, which was more near the standard. Africa is poor because of Colonialism and the Neo-Colonialism that pursued thereafter. Everything he's emphasizing in this video makes very little sense. When most of the world was industrializing and building infrastructure, the only part of Africa that was being built was where Europeans lived within Africa. If you notice how colonies built railroads, they built it with the intent to ship goods from inner Africa to ports with the intent to transport materials outside of Africa to Europe. Talking about entrepreneurship and other things he mentions is complete nonsense. There is a much better video from the channel history scope that goes into detail about colonization and how that impacts Africa to date.
I think part of the issue with Africa is also that it's demographics are uniquely fractious, perhaps owing in part to its geography. Very hard to have high levels of social trust when your ethnic group is constantly competing for resources for every other ethnic group. This after being placed in a country with people you don't like.
In order to create prosperity, you need order. To create order you need a strong government and functional institutions. In order to create these, you need your people to agree on societal issues. In order to achieve this you need to create a relatively homogenous society, OR a tolerant society. This is where xenophobia and tribalism comes in. This is why africa is poor.
@@worldofdoom995 At the very least, trust in the government and it's power to enforce legislation are intrinsically linked. Functionally, they are the same: Power - even in an autocracy - comes from public support. Democracy is the art of winning over the opposition by means of persuasion and negotiation, rather than by force. The popular captain will have no trouble enforcing his rule, even if he is a bad captain and his ship ends up sinking. People tend to think about the past colonial empires of absolute monarchies and dictatorships as all-powerful, oppressive institutions... Yet governmental institutions in the developed world are more powerful than they have ever been in human history. This is why democracies are allowed to prosper in a fundamentally kleptocratic world. Only a state that has the *potential* to take absolute control of a society has the authority to impose a functional democracy. This is why countries like the nordic nations have been doing so well, despite being dealt a relatively poor hand, geographically: They have some of the highest levels of trust in the government in any country on the planet.
@@MrCmon113 An uncontrolled market leads to corruption. Without a powerful government, how do you pass and enforce economic laws to curtail the inevitable perversion of wealth? This is precisely what has caused so many ex-colonial states to become oligarchies, in my opinion. I observe it to be true. The underlying causes appear numerous and convoluted, and i recognize i am unqualified to evaluate them - Let's make sure that our leaders do so as well, and ask the proper authorities for help on these issues and how to solve them. There is no place for ego in politics ☀
@@The_Reality_Filter I am definitely in agreement with you. And I understand the importance of manipulating the circumstances of populations in order to maintain the beliefs preferred by certain members of society.
The cultural issues are huge. A friend lived in a village in Kenya that was split by a stream. When it rained, the village was split into two by the high water and simple commerce could not take place between the two sides. He suggested that they move some rocks around to provide stepping stones so that during some rains they could still cross the stream. No one wanted to do this. "Our father's never did that," was the main reason given.
Videos like this have become harder to watch since I began noticing the rampant use of vague stock footage on TH-cam. It makes me appreciate shows like Forensic Files or Air Disasters that produce their own reenactments based on specifics of the story.
@@bojangles2492 Yeah, but sad part of this story is, the channel covered this topic like one or two years ago and is more basic this time around. It's like if he can't find any better topics or other countries are just not clickbait enough.
I agree on this topic. In many cases I would prefer just a static screen with information than random clips that may be close to the subject, but still obviously stock photo. I just feels a little off and takes my focus away. This video I was manly listening to, instead of viewing though.
@bojangles2492 and not everyone should make videos.. its just laziness really. Especially the ones who strictly use AI.. I can't stand then, and block every page I come across, especially if you use clickbait titles.
If people remain poor, labor remains cheap the minerals remain cheap. Maybe the beneficiaries of African minerals want these people to be poor. They probably want there is political instability. If a small conflict ridden country like Israel can flourish so can Africa.
Exactly! As I write this, the US has tens of thousands of "covert operator" troops deployed throughout Africa, overthrowing governments and crushing any local movement which opposes neo-colonialism. We know this from recently declassified Pentagon documents obtained through FOIA. This video skips such "inconvenient facts." This channel and University Economics departments are in the same category as "Political Science" and "Russia Studies" and "China Studies" and "Africa Studies" departments--they exist to indoctrinate students with ruling class propaganda and misinform them about how the real world works. Most professors in these departments routinely make wrong predictions and fail to predict huge events. Meanwhile, plenty of honest commentators outside of academia routinely get the same things right without getting any credit from mainstream academia or mainstream news media. Gary Stevenson does a great job of explaining this phenomenon: th-cam.com/video/EwB5ihGu4Jw/w-d-xo.html
@@xpusostomos "If the societies worked" is an empty propaganda phrase. Until 15 years ago, Libya had a society which worked for average people better than most societies--people got free education, free medical care, free electricity, very cheap gasoline, reduced price automobiles (government covered half the cost) and housing was a guaranteed right--the government gave all newlyweds an interest-free loan to buy a house. Then the US/NATO sent their spies and troops into the country, started a huge civil war, killed the leader, and Libya is now a disaster zone. This kind of thing happens over and over again, and US/NATO news media blame it all on the Africans while keeping quiet about the role of the US and NATO nations' interference.
@@illarionbykov5246 So the US/NATO orchestrated the mass protests against Gaddafi, even though everyone was so happy and prosperous? Or you're asserting that the protests were just made up too?
@@SheonEver I am "asserting" nothing... I am merely reporting facts well established by a library's worth of hard evidence. Do some online searches on "Color Revolutions" to catch up your understanding of modern geopolitical methods. You will learn such "AstroTurf" Color Revolutions have been in development ever since the "Velvet Revolution" of the late 1960's and have been carried out in dozens of nations over the past half century--usually, but not always, successfully. Ge.o.r.ge S.o.r.o.s own official website boasts of his financial role in many of these revolutions.
One concept: Premature democracy. All of Europe went through cultural consolidation far before it became host to several nations that were democracies. The continent is still cultural unconsolidated. Democracy cannot function while there are still huge ethnic divides. What they need is a series of good monarchs across the continent to consolidate culturally but that will take at least 100 years even if they start today.
I like how "Ill equipped to handle their problems, natural resources, etc" is just skipped over. Other people, on every other continent has overcame their issues, and this video doesn't describe why but just what happened when other cultures rocketed past them in history. I was expecting better.
It's all such a mystery. Humanity still has no clue. Not from history. Not from observation. No matter how much the problem is studied. We will never be able to identify the root of the problem.
My brother in Christ, disease, lack of water, bad soil, political corruption is a rough set of problems to overcome. It's like trying to form a functional country in Mad Max.
How do they have any more disease or bad soil than, say Vietnam or Uzbekistan, or Colombia? Africa has some of the best soils in the world, problem is underutilization of fertilizes. Disease is a lame cop out.@@anal3544
You flat out state that European colonists weren't going to have Europeans doing the labor in the Americas but in fact, European indentured servitude was extremely common in this period.
@@VMohdude- depends on the place and time. In Canada and USA there were relatively few slaves (even in the south, there were far more white laborers than slaves). This is flipped in the Caribbean with the vast majority of the populace being enslaved.
Well, I was going to say tribalism is a big factor, but so many beat me to it. So, I will simply say selfishness is a grand factor, fueled by tribalism. Instead of "all for one and one for all", there is "all for me, and none for you". Such division of thought makes for a weak nation in a continent of nations. It would make me happy to see all rise up and reach their potential. So much senseless suffering. Botswana looks to be leading the charge on development, so I wish them success.
African nations have been described as "kleptocracies" where different tribes and groups have taken it i turn to thieve and asset-strip and purge opposition, until another group takes its tuen in chare, ribnse and repeat!
@@reignman30so I’ve seen this hinted at a few times in the comment section, and I’m genuinely curious what you mean by this? What is this other explanation? What is this video dancing around? Would you mind explaining this to me?
Why is anyone surprised about economic issues in Africa? They never built advanced civilizations the way they did in Europe and Asia. Go back hundreds of years, there were great developed cities in Asia and Europe, while everyone in Africa was living in the jungle. They just evolved with more primitive lifestyles. If Europeans never came to America, the Native Americans wouldn’t have built big cities and developed great technology. Their lifestyle has always been living off the land. There’s nothing wrong with that, it’s just a different style of life. I don’t know why people are scratching their heads trying to figure out why they aren’t just like us.
@@The_Reality_Filter This video is extremely incorrect in every way search up “how economic explained gets African history wrong” this video I actually missinformation
On the population thing. The trajectory of Africa's population is nuts: 1700: 61 million Africans (10% of the global population) 2024: 1464 million Africans (18.5%) 2100: 3900 million Africans (38%)
@@loneIyboy15this is the dumbest thing I have ever read on the internet, like seriously 😁 . Most african countries were vast rural before independence . For instance more than ninety percent of the tarred roads in nigeria was constructed after our independence . What of access to electricity , clean water and medicine . Mehn you are either filled with hate or ridiculously ignorant
Tyranny, greed and corruption of a nation's leadership has always been a barrier to lasting success for any country without a doubt. This was true in Africa as well even before the colonials arrived. But that isn't really the root of the problem. Authoritarian regimes can, for a time, create a reasonably prosperous and orderly society (e.g. China). When Western colonial powers left or were overthrown, one set of shackles was often simply replaced with another (e.g. South Africa). In addition to the corrupt governments many African nations have the additional hurdle of widespread and systemic religious and ethnic discrimination especially in regards to education (e.g. Nigeria). Most African nations will never realize their full potential so long as they (the people and their leaders) continue to choose to segregate themselves along religious and tribal lines.
I have one big problem with your summation. There was no choice for multi-ethnicism. If we compare ourselves to europe. You see that they only became multi ethnic in the last hundred years while have having mostly the same religon (eg. Belguim was a catholic and language split from the protestant the Nederlands). African countries can have not only religious, language and Lifestyle barriers, but also resource and power imbalances that were enforced during colonialism (eg. Hausa in nigeria are 60-90 of the african giants military. Thus military coups tended to have an hausian islamic undertone.). The country also interact with a world that doesnt want development but extraction of the continent.
The claim that Africa’s poverty stems from local strongmen exploiting resources and institutions is overly simplistic and misleading. While it’s true that corruption and governance issues exist within African nations, the narrative often fails to address the larger, systemic factors at play. European and multinational corporations play a significant role in perpetuating Africa’s economic struggles by exploiting its natural resources for their own gain. Rather than local leaders, it’s these external entities that wield significant power and influence over Africa’s economies. Whether it’s the extraction of diamonds, cocoa, or various minerals and metals, Western companies have historically dominated these industries, often at the expense of local communities. For example, in countries like Ivory Coast, French companies control vast swathes of land, ports, and logistics, reaping immense profits while leaving little behind for the people of the region. Furthermore, the legacy of colonialism and ongoing neo-colonial practices cannot be ignored. Many African nations continue to grapple with the repercussions of centuries of exploitation and extraction by European powers. Even in the post-colonial era, these dynamics persist, with multinational corporations continuing to siphon off Africa’s wealth for minimal compensation.
Asia. Same issues different result. Historical injustice is not unique to Africa. Africa's inability to move forward is. Culture is the issue. Lack of long term planning and failure to act for the good of the society rather than the individual.
If leaders could say “you get your company to work here, and you guarantee my people development like what you have in your country then we good. But instead the “tip” goes to the personal pocket 😂😂😂
Investing in Africa is just not worth the risk for most. The governments are too unstable and corrupt to trust to do as they say they would get done. The leaders just figure it’s easier to just take the money, shut down or take over the business and run it to the ground. The place has great potential the people just need to see the larger picture.
@@fadbtx yeah its usually just racial bias...The continent is ready for the investment I can a bunch of nations where its good but people in the west still hold on to these barbaric ignorant beliefs about the African continent.
Investors don't care about corruption. In fact they're more than happy to take part in that corruption if it will bring them profits. Which it generally does.
the big three are very stable but highly corrupt, corruption and conflict are the number one things too affect the all the countries on the continent by quite some margin certainly not colonialism.
@@loganmedia1142 until the government nationalizes your business and takes it for themselves. You do the work and put up the money and they just take it away leaving you with nothing. Some will take that risk but many won’t.
I visited Jos in Nigeria in the 70s at different times. Each time it had grown. Now it is transformed with a university, several hospitals, museum, many businesses, good roads.The British kicked it off.
You’d be surprised how the endemic corruption problem is pretty much identical in non-African countries like Lebanon, Pakistan, Tukmenistan, Colombia, Peru, Uzbekistan, Sri Lanka, etc
yes, counties that are also down bad. what's your point. Sri Lanka is probably in a worse state than most African countries, but not all the countries in the region are in the same boat as Africa.
Every developing country has had high corruption, and developed countries are hardly corruption-free. Corruption is just this vague airy thing people wave their hands at to explain anything bad about their country. It's also a convenient one size fits all explanation, with no attention paid to the specific circumstances and context of that country. But no, it's never that simple. Reducing corruption happens alongside development, it isn't a prerequisite for it.
The chart (13:38) showing the majority of enslaved Africans going to the 13 colonies is blatantly wrong. Britian, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain and other European countries dwarfed the 13 colonies both in numbers of slaves and the time period over which they were imported.
Nigeria's oil money is distributed into the many accounts of Nigerian politicians in London banks. Citibank was the deposit center for Abacha, about $3 billion.
Thank you, I’m so tired of hearing Africa is the poorest country. If the money made from oil was circulating within the economy we wouldn’t be poor. There is one problem and one problem only corruption. We have the resources, we have the labor and we have the entrepreneurship, we just have politicians that have chosen to partner with the west to keep us poor and keep the money.
MIT is not needed to realize that Africa is populated by Africans. Asia is doing great after colonialism, so do most other nations in Europe after wars and hardships. Demography is key.
I got feeling that tropical diseases were limited to Africa and that they didn't exist in tropical part of present day Latin America and in tropical South Asia and Oceania. Didn't malaria, for example, exist outside of Africa too? And were dangerous animals also living only in Africa? As i read, lions lived in Asia and Europe too before they were wiped out of there. Elephants live in India too and there is subspecies of tiger - bengali tiger and many poisonous snakes (cobra...) in India. South America had their own dangerous animals too (dangerous fish (piranha), poisonous snakes, large cats,...
Malaria existed in the US. That is why we needed African labor for plantation work. Native Americans and Irish workers kept dying since they don’t have sickle cell. Africans have sickle cell and are more immune to malaria due to that genetic adaptation. The Europeans didn’t pick African slaves for convenience. They would’ve used Irish or Slavic people as they usually did in their human rights abuses. They used Africans due to their immunity from malaria
I don't see the point in making arguments like these. EE's argument is like a pizza and your argument is like taking a topping off and calling that topping a pizza. Bringing up cases of Malaria in other parts of the world just ignores other aspects EE argued.
@siliwhizincorrect they filled it in with their own biases This video is extremely incorrect in every way search up “how economic explained gets African history wrong” this video I actually missinformation
The first breakthrough is learning to trust one another. This can be stated as, good institutions lead to economic success. Or, it can be stated in its older form: Love your neighbor as yourself.
A lot of the reasons spelt out in this video for why Africa is so poor often sound more like excuses. Many European countries for example are also land locked but have access to international markets. A book called Dead Aid by Dambisa Moyo is a great read that addresses many of the questions.
Many "landlocked" European countries are not in practice landlocked, because it is easy to transport goods on the large rivers like the Rhine and Donau. For example, even Switzerland and Austria has some large ports. There is not actually a single European country that does not have ports with ocean access because of all the deep rivers across the continent. This is not the case for the vast majority of landlocked African countries
They are advanced NOW, for most of history those landlocked European countries have been sh*tholes. The only exception is Switzerland 🇨🇭 who is a very special case.
100% incorrect. Every country has corrupt politicians. The difference in developed countries is they have strong institutions and culture that limit the damage that corrupt politicians can do.
One comment that stood out in the video but did not get enough attention was that in Botswana they have "stable well defined property rights". Without that, you will have a difficult time accessing the financial market, since property is often the initial source of collateral you can offer in exchange for a loan to more rapidly improve your situation in life. Corruption, underdeveloped infrastructure, and thereby limited access to efficient markets, as well as free exchange of ideas and education is missing in many place, mainly because of corruption and corrupt leaders. Leaders with a well developed moral compass is likely the one thing that has to come first for this crazy cycle of bad outcomes to end.
As an African ( from Kivu DR Congo) this was extremely informative but extremely depressing. Our generation and the next will have to be extremely creative to find solutions to our issues
@@danstewart2770 They do not understand the farming techniques, lack the education, and the application of equipment itself. Historically Africans are bad farmers because game was so populous the tribes were formed and based around hunting. Meanwhile European advancements saw techniques in farming continue to evolve and "modernize". This is an extremely simplified answer but it is kind of the root of the issue.
@@keshi5541 Far majority of Sub Saharan Africa was. Northern Africa and some of the more developed areas in West Africa is different. There is a reason why they did not even have the wheel in most of Sub Saharan African societies when they were first contacted by Europeans. The farmland is also generally not great. This is why they never developed large scale agriculture meanwhile it took over Europe. Africa was still extremely tribal and they were hunter gatherers. How about you make a substantiated claim other than you're wrong?
You correctly point out that Australia has the same severe limitations in Africa that prevented civilizations developing there. And yet today, it is one of the world's richest countries in the world. It's almost like something dramatically changed there in recent centuries. Oh I wonder what it could be making the difference with Africa? Will we ever get to the bottom of this mystery....
@@masudnakhooda2436 except the small number of natives... Who funnily enough can't live in houses even if you give them free. They trash them, they don't understand them.
weird phrasing to say how the resources in Africa work against the people living there as if it's some spectre of circumstance and not intentionally created, i.e an end result of the sustained imperialism Africa faces because of the sheer resource wealth it holds and the endless holes of influence any number of outside economic partners can have in volatile and impressionable markets in countries that might have weak constitutions, etc. For example, in a country where officials are corrupt, money is flowing, etc, like, they're not just skimming tax dollars. You can bet western businesses that do business in the country, like mining or energy conglomerates, are a part of that greasing, and have been since even the independence in the post-ww2 era for most of these countries as their industries themselves were still wholly reliant on western partnerships. Even with independence, a nations mining industry may have been wholly monopolized by one or two or three western companies, or maybe the countries biggest shipping and transport hubs were operated by outside companies, etc, and like today, said companies would very much be involved in regional and country wide corruption and likely also involve themselves in lobbying schemes. The corruption endemic to these countries is literally part of the larger global flow of capital by extension, and is just in-groups finding people they can incorporate into that cooperation and keep the fleecing going in favor of private profits. Are these corruption schemes themselves often weighed down by the incompetence, tyranny, nepotism etc of the partners businesses are working with? Absolutely? But modern africa is literally on the map how it is, the nations how they are etc because of how western nations partitioned them, mostly arbitrarily, except for maybe Ethiopia. Nothing in Africa today happened in a vacuum, it happened as a direct result of imperialism, including the massive gaps in quality of living, minority rule, those same endemic corruptions that see power entrench around specific groups in general in a country, countries with weak constitutions that don't support organized legal oppositions, etc, coupled even more so that all the corrupt officials running these countries....hide their wealth overseas in the West, in real estate and other speculative things, intertwining their corruption even further with other elements abroad. Theres a back and forth between stakeholders in the economies african goods go to and the stakeholders who control those economies / industries in Africa and the end result absolutely lends itself to sustaining and entrenching those corrupt circles that strip the continent of its wealth - the *whole* world literally needs resources from Africa, it's very intentionally that those goods are being extracted and exported as cheaply as humanly possible, because international business desperately benefits from that turbo-cheap extraction regardless of it's value and work hard to maintain that status quo. Africa has remained 'behind' because africa saw no benign development by outside agitators in the first place across the 1800s through to the end of the colonial era and those outside agitators maintained inroads to maintain those circumstances as best they can regardless of what the people in those places actually need or want. If you literally cannot talk about the circumstances people have arrived in without acknowledging it was through contact with your civilization that delivered them to those dire circumstances, probably something intentional within those interactions delivered those circumstances, then. Africa is contemporary to the story of industrialized societies and the export markets have maintained a tight control and influence over Africa as a result. Africa's resource wealth is immense and worth immense value, hence driving down the cost of extracting that, regardless of how evil the person youre paying off is to maintain that status quo, kinda becomes how capitalism interacts with that market. It absolutely exploits the vulnerabilities a lack of regulation brings.
Ah, another use of faux intellectualism trying to just blame the white man to relieve responsibility from those who have been in control for a long time and who have yet to resolve the problem...not to mention that these issue predate imperialism. There's no doubt that imperialism played a role in shaping the countries in Africa. Fortunately it played no role whatsoever in shaping any other countries in the world, correct? There was literally no imperialism in Europe, right? No, this is clearly a combination of some of what you said (lingering corrupt foreign entities [not all of which are "Western"]), and a massive cultural mentality of tribalism and warlording. Take what you want, relationships be damned. It's so painfully evident here in South Africa. The current government was given every opportunity to have an extremely successful country, but decided instead to get in bed with corrupt foreign Indian and Chinese entities, granting government tenders to family members for 3-10 times to prices while there was no experience or competence. All the while, vilifying anyone in the media who isn't black. No...this is obviously cultural primarily. It's naïve and bigoted to think that Africans are so incompetent that they CAN'T get out from the former boot of colonialism...a boot that was removed a long time ago. Do you not think that African people can stand on their own two feet? Must everyone just make excuses for them? That's the real bigotry here. Make them take responsibility for it. Skin colour is irrelevant. This is cultural. A culture of greed, violence and destroying whatever you can't take is what's to blame here.
Africa is not how western nations partitioned them. Its literally by tribal land ownership and treaties. Which is why political figures there rotate based off ethnicity as opposto political beliefs because each tribe refuses to truly trust any others with national power Its also why they’re insanely corrupt and were unable to develop themselves with third party action for a millennium. You can’t blame everything on muh imperialism bro. Ireland, Puerto Rico, Cuba, phillipines, and singapore prove most of africa has a cultural problem with wealth development
Did they factor IQ disparity in their analysis as a possible contributor to the sustained violence, poverty, and cultural failure over known African history? At all?
IQ has been known to have a correlation with levels of literacy, access to early childhood development education, amounts of nutrition available to children etc. What point are you trying to make?
@ it seems obvious to both you and I that IQ very likely plays a part in the historic depravity of sub-Saharan Africa. My question was, did the people consider that when assessing potential causes for this horrific reality?. Africa has had ample demonstration of viable and highly beneficial, technology and ideology, which has benefited a huge majority mankind. Yet when given control of their government, it appears that they immediately revert back to the barbaric, cruel and genocidal disposition which exemplified their history for thousands of years. As such, recent circumstantial issues; colonialism, slavery, exploitation, really can’t adequately explain the continuity of the present with the ancient past. That was the point of my question, obviously.
@@christianmutiga301 so, there are circumstantial elements which affect our bodily development, no question about it, however, no matter how good the nutrition, education, literacy, there will remain a disparity of white to black NBA players. Organs have a ceiling beyond which circumstance cannot benefit. Poverty, cruelty, and empathy all are dependent upon mental function, of this there is no dispute, the only question is -to what extent- . In the US, the most violent area in any city is 100% predicted by the density of the Black population. Why? and how could any answer NOT address the brain function which is at least partially dependent on genetics?
I don't know how to put this. Let me start slowly. Before the French Revolution, a corrupt monarchy taxed the French citizenry. A Revolution deposed this government. Subsequently, thousands of Frenchmen were executed on allegations of dishonoring the evolution. Read on the Bolshevik Revolution and the subsequent porgroms. Or Hitler. Or American troops in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Predominantly white groups, led by white men. I would never argue that white men are historically depraved and predisposed to maniacal massacres of their own, and other races. Because I understand that institutions, and ideology, are the vessels of violence. If I was to claim so about white men, it would be a racist conclusion. You sir, are racist against Africans.
In Sub Saharan Africa, beautiful cultures have thrived. Violence and conquest has hurt the continent, but so has it hurt humanity. Claiming that Africans are predisposed to barbarism is the logic the slave owners of USA, the colonial officers of the past century uttered to justify their OWN DEPRAVITY. To attempt to calm the cognitive dissonance of coming from a culture that spoke so highly of lofty virtues of democracy, while they represented the worst of it. I am African.
Kinda cant believe how little depth there was on the agriculture argument, when agriculture is the basis of civilization. The reason other regions developed, was they had a staple crop, and their lands would expand more west - east thus having a more similar weather for these crops. Africa is larger north - south which means a lot more climate zones where different staple crops are needed.
@@twelvestitches984 hmm you do know that the hard work is only in harvest and planting seasons and the rest of the year you get to lay about. Right? But exactly my point was how climate affects whether a culture adopts agriculture (and this becomes more complex as a society)
@@franbalcal My point is that hunting is much easier than planting, watering, harvesting, and storing crops. So what if crops produce more, it's more work. Africa is poor because of laziness, not the climate. Climate does affect whether you adopt agriculture or not but Africa is not the Antarctic. If they built dams to store more water they would be able produce much more than they do but that would take a lot of work.
Imagine prompting it to show a picture of a typical colonizer in 19th century Africa😂 they should've let us have fun with it for a little longer just for the memes, LOL
I understand that one can not build rail tracks through mountains nor sand deserts but they had over 100 years to build some. Even their roads are terrible. The Romans build bridges >1k years ago.
Go to our sponsor betterhelp.com/ee to get 10% off your first month, and talk to a licensed therapist today.
how did you comment before the video was uploaded?
i love when my therapist sells my data to the highest bidder
you guys need to get another sponsor.....
Having such a shady sponsor is not a good look. You guys need to be more careful who you go into business with.
Still hocking this scam? That's disappointing.
I moved to Kenya for a job, curious about living on the continent. I thought I understood corruption, but corruption in Africa is on a whole other level.
can you give some examples or something?
When Moi stole EuroBond over 3B$.
NYS Scandal Ann waiguru I mean there's a lot I can't even finish@@taivalmaa2251
2000 years of corruption?
@@taivalmaa2251just look up state capture in South Africa
I would agree but corruption can be just as bad in rich countries.
Better help was exposed for being a scam a few years back
we're here for the macro, not the therapy
He's gotta pay the bills somehow
@@asdfghjkl3003 because there are no other sponsees than a company that sells peoples info they give in therapy and doesn’t even have real therapist?
How is it a scam?
@@Moe5Tavern Not a scam but they got exposed for selling personal data of their customers to 3rd parties. And this is really personal data, being your mental health and all.
Why is Africa Poor?
Thumbnail: Not What You Think
Video: Exactly what you thought
LOL
MIT is advocating genocide.
@@rayguistina3314 People who annoy you.....
@@rayguistina3314
All that has a more fundamental underlying reason: Culture. The prevailing customs and way of thinking that people are brought up to and what they learn from their own society.
The amount of greed and corruption within the peoples of a nation varies enormously from nation to nation, and this is not something that's something innate. It's something that people learn, grow up into, by learning from and emulating other people in their surrounding society. In other words, the prevailing culture of the country. If everybody they grow up with is selfish, greedy and corrupt, then you instinctively learn from them, start emulating them, and become greedy and corrupt yourself. (In a twisted way, it makes a kind of sense: "Why should I be honest and fair, as this only leads to everybody taking advantage of me and screwing me over at every turn?" In a twisted way it kind of acts as a form of self-defense mechanism. You won't be taken advantage of if you, too, are as greedy and corrupt as everybody else.)
The only way to change this is to change the prevailing culture. But that's not something that can just be done overnight. You can't just go there and force people to change their upbringing at gunpoint.
@@rayguistina3314 I disagree absolutely.
The reason is obvious, the African people are not sharing enough motivational quotes on FB.
I blame the heat. Notice how most rich countries are located in cold climates, and most poor countries in hot climates.
So, it's both not sharing enough motivational quotes on FB and the heat.
@@cashewnuttel9054 untrue because south east asian countries are rich and so is southern china when they're hot countries + gulf countries too
@@smithavivian8741The gulf has oil and China & SE Asia share motivational quotes on TikTok.
Pretty sure they are joking and being sarcastic.@@smithavivian8741
😂😂😂
Residing in Zambia, Africa, for the past 30 years, I've never experienced conflict or war. It's rare to even see a police officer with a gun where I'm from. My realization is that it's corruption that continues to impede our progress and perpetuate poverty. Until our leaders prioritize the development of our nations over personal gain, obstacles to progress will persist. While external forces significantly contribute to corruption, which further reduces access to resources and capital that we need for development we must eventually take responsibility for addressing and combating these issues.
Did life for the average not improve in those 30 years?
@@1wun1 yesnt
Yep. It's always corruption at the heart of economic failure. Just ask Russia.
Remove middlemen, remove corruption.
Corruption is a symptom of too many middlemen, they get tempted by the chance to take advantage of their gatekeeper position.
@@1wun1 I’d say it improved for a few. We still have half the population living off $1 a day. Which is crazy considering we export so much copper and are the largest producers of emeralds. Very few have benefited. To top it off we now have an IMF loan that is chocking the country. It’s the fault of our leaders for the misuse of funds. Inflation is higher than ever.
I live in Ghana and what I've realized was the missed opportunity when Nkrumah was overthrown. He had his way of steering through the obstacles of international affairs. He created a lot of factories that collapsed after his overthrow.
The problem now we face is the devaluing of the cedi against the dollar which makes costs go high because we mostly import with the dollar. Our exports, unfortunately, don't exceed our import demand and so the cedi continuously depreciates. Ghana needs to do more exports and it is challenging because we need to find the market for our products. Worst of all, most of our products exist in other countries and so penetration is costly as a lot of money has to go into expensive marketing.
Kwame suffered the same fate as other intellectuals turned leaders like Trotsky who was outmuscled by Stalin. I've been to Ghana about ten times but only during Jerry John who did what he could but, as technically a coup leader, international cooperation was difficult.
"Africa Must Unite!" -- KN
@@GB-ez6geTrotsky and Stalin are not the best examples as they almost completely agreed on everything except one detail.
That being whether it was time to export communism to the world or continue to solidify its growth within Russia.
Trotsky wanted to go on an offensive war and bring communism to all of Europe while Stalin did not.
That’s literally the only major difference in their ideology.
@@darth3911 Please read what I wrote before commenting. It does not state that Stalin was an example. The "example" (really, metaphor) was Trotsky, in his capacity as an intellectual. Their political views and actions are irrelevant to one being an intellectual and the other being forceful. (Whatever their disagreements, Stalin thought them severe enough to assassinate Trotsky while exiled in Mexico.)
But why it collapsed? I don't know reason but it baffled me few years ago and i don't remember country but they decided kick out white farmers but they didn't take over and work fields for whatever reason and result was famine.
I can bet you 1k dollars that the CIA had a hand in the overthrow of Nkrumah. The same Americans who destroy our best leaders gather themselves in their ivory towers (which they built with ivory they stole from us) to discuss why we are poor. Insult to injury! Why is every nation around America that is not dominated by Caucasians, war torn and poor? Why is Mexico poor? Why is Panama poor? Why is Columbia poor? Why is America so rich and everyone else so poor? Americans shouldn't be talking about other peoples poverty. Their government is the cause of a lot of it.
I am from Botswana. It's all true. We're winning. Things really work. Not perfect, but it works. There's a very clear upwards mobility, complimented by our fairly functional education and justice system. I love my country man, and I lived in the States for most of my 20s.
A great example for the rest of the continent. Africa has so much potential 🙏
@@Craicfox161 Only a few thousand years more guys!
@@Craicfox161 One very big asterisk has to be placed next to Botswana as an example of what other African countries should strive for. Botswana is a huge outlier when it comes to demographics in Africa, more than 75% of Botswana's citizens are Batswana, it is literally the land of the Tswanas. Plus they were never really colonized in the traditional sense of the word, the British didn't conquer them and the agreement to make it a protectorate came after the rulers conflicts against the Boers encroaching on their land, and fortunately the British were also fighting the Boers at that time so the Tswanas basically became an important ally to the British in keeping order as well as the Boers under control, so not only did the core leadership structure never fall apart and lose legitimacy, one could argue it gained more legitimacy even after the British left, which made it impossible for any legitimate challengers to power. This is the same reason why the only truly stable countries in the Middle east are all Monarchies, because that's the best way to maintain stability. With that stability, even if it was poor the first few decades after independence, the country developed with the few resources it had. So, in summary, Botswana had three very important things going for it, that IMO, no other Sub-Saharan African country has - Stability, a strong and legitimate leadership structure and well-maintained, strong institutions arising therein.
Rwanda has decent stability and low crime today, and I would say has one
of the best chances in Africa@ArawnOfAnnwn
I should add that Botswana's history also lends itself towards democracy much more easily. There was never an absolute ruler, only one with the buy-in of the various tribal chiefs. In some ways it could even be compared to the Holy Roman Empire, albeit that comparison is reaching. Point being that it historically didn't lend itself to full-on tyranny.
The lack of critical engagement with the quoted paper is glaring
Yup clearly this video is just a cash grab, uncaring for the foolish and outdated belief systems it puts on display to the public.
Honestly his channel has been this way for years. It's low effort low quality trash wrapped up to look smart when it's not.
It's just enough usually to convince his viewership that he knows what he's talking about.
@@AxiomaticAssumptionsyet somehow you’ve followed according to yourself “for years” !?
@@rusbea.2279 i come back every now and then to check, sometimes compare information and ideas.
thing is though despite the fact his information can be very wrong it does change how people think, he does not have a small sphere of influence and I think its good to keep tabs on where people get their info if you can.
@@rusbea.2279also doesn't actually offer up any counter arguments or explanation of HOW they didn't engage with the report
Tagline is “not what you think” - but it’s corruption and leadership - exactly what people think, no?
No. Ask "why" are corruption and leadership a problem? Is there some underlying reason for it?
@@saaah707 Don't dig any deeper. The answer is not politically correct, and must never be spoken of.
@@jeandutoit1413It's not politically correct to point out the effects of colonialism?
@@jeandutoit1413 In a nutshell. Intellectual dishonesty is the most destructive form of corruption.
@@saaah707 Tribalism is one reason. Europe had it too. Still does to a fair extent, but after slaughtering each other for a thousand years they've grudgingly decided to co-operate a bit.
The irony of an Australian saying bad farmland and geographic isolation made Africa poor...
we all know the real reason. ZA seemed to do just fine in the less politically correct era.
@@earth9531 what is ZA
@@MohamedAli-nf1rpSouth Africa....but I'm not sure of how they're fine
@@earth9531South Africa has the worst gini coeff of any country in the world. Before apartheid, there was a huge wealth gap which obfuscated the overwhelming poverty that was widespread. This has not changed: it’s just slightly less determined by race.
You can't compare Africa with Australia because it's less populated and has abundant resources that share with just 25 million people.
Better help has been a known scam for a while, they keep getting in trouble but fines are cheap to pay off rather than raise their business practices.
Yep very shady. I'm glad i have sponsorblock
EE also promoted Masterworks which is another known scam. They don't care about their audience.
And there is zero chance he actually uses it. Just a lie like the rest of this video.
Seems like they expanded their advertisement massively. I hear about this scam everywhere now.
it's not really a scam, they did have shady practices but it's not like they didn't offer people therapy and it's still cheaper than therapy generally is out of pocket.
Did you guys even read the study your quoting?
Fr they got everything absolutely wrong and spreading misinformation
“how economic explained gets African history wrong” does a good job clarifying
No they didn’t . They just skimmed through
@@napomoloi4197 Where is the difference?
economics.mit.edu/sites/default/files/publications/Why%20is%20Africa%20Poor.pdf
Did you ? Where is the counter argument ?
@@DemonZest literally take a sec
Nice vídeo but I missed the point. Is the ground breaking MIT conclusion that countries with less stable or robust institutions are harder to develop? The video is called "MIT Study reveals why Africa is still poor" and then kinda reveals what everyone already knows.
The only 'groundbreaking' thing about that study would have been that it was produced by MIT profs...
The Berlin conference and the doctrine of discovery. Still in effect!!
@@ththim7785
mUh wItE fAuLt
While having the most backward culture in the world
Howwwwwww did you arrive at the word "EVERYONE" ?? are you literally implying that "EVERRRRYONE ALREADY knows, including 13 year old kids and 17 year old kids" ??
@@TebogoMotlhaleno babies and infants didn't know. You are the smartest troon around
About 20 years ago a (white) work colleague cycled from the UK to the very south of South Africa. He wrote a book about his experiences. ''Why Africa will never win the World Cup.'' Although he met some good people on the way he encountered endless corruption. Almost every border crossing involved some form of bribe. He got arrested in Zimbabwe because he foolishly cycled past Mugabe's Palace. A kindly Police Sergeant allowed him to leave in the dead of night with the advice; ''get over the border asap.'' He set off with optimism but returned sadly chastened.
I wonder if their taxes are lower than the US, which would make bribes their taxes
The palace road was probably the best road of that town, to his credit.
Africa will however win plenty of world cups... might not be soon, yet it will happen
Nothing against cycling long distances and across borders as I've done it myself but I can't think of a better way of flaunting Western ways than going for a multi-national cycling exploit in Africa, where almost no one does that except perhaps a handful of Westerners with a definite apetite for risk and no concept of what it means to be white in Africa. Also, no concept of what it means to do highly noticeable things that locals would never do, which applies to anywhere in the world. I know of two cases of white guys cycling Africa with the obvious exact same results. It's just a stupid insensitive thing to do as a white guy.
@@TROGULAR10000
This sounds like a distraction. He describes the endless corruption they found in governments across a continent (which he could have just as observed by other modes of transportation, not just bicycling), and then you respond by calling cycling through Africa a "stupid insensitive thing to do". So the smart, sensitive thing to do would be to avoid Africa, and thereby not encounter the corruption which locals have no choice but to endure? Somehow it's the "insensitive" cyclists' fault that Africa is what it is today?
I work in Algeria, where the amount of red tape to get the simplest of tasks completed means that the simplest of tasks usually don't get completed.
That's interesting. Too much Red Tape I find is almost always overlooked when assessing the struggles of many industries and in Algeria case as you say, the struggles of nations.
@@hrthrhs bureaucracy, which is directly linked with poor quality of normative frameworks (i.e., poor quality of legislation) is always overlooked by economists, probably because the price that we all pay for red tape is incalculable, it has to do mostly with lost opportunities, while economists want to see measurable and quantifiable losses/profits. High time, perhaps, to engage a little more in qualitative analysis.
If i had to guess, this means you're not paying the baksheesh to get things done
Where would the money to pay bureaucrats come from if it wasn't for red tape.
@@rincwind666 baksheesh isn't a thing in my industry
Thomas Sowell wrote extensively about the geographical challenges facing the continent of Africa: high altitudes and steep coastlines ill suited to ports, largely unnavigable, shallow rivers flowing into the interior, etc. Most of this has been known for years.
”corruption have been known to happen” was a understatement if I ever heard one 😅
Actually Colonism, have you seen what France has being doing in Africa???
@@calicoesblue4703 is it as bad as what africans have been going to france? france hasn't been influential since napoleon died.
@@jaewok5G Is it as bad as how Europeans have been doing to all of Africa???
@@calicoesblue4703 where? in a given year 10x as many people leave africa as arrive.
@@calicoesblue4703 You said the same thing again. Who do you think you are ? Answer questions instead of trying to mock people when you have no skills.
As an agricultural engineer working at ground level since 1978 with government institutions both ministerial and research the greatest problem that many African countries suffer from is the lack of skills, engineers tend to be desk-bound with little or no practical skills, artisans acquire skills but never seem to develop them, content to keep reproducing the same item year after year. This can best be seen in the craft sector where high-quality items are the exception, not the rule, most crafts are rudimentary lacking detail or finish. Research institutions produce products that already exist in the marketplace of better quality and at a lower price but are kept alive by governments to show they do research however they are never subject to an audit so it is impossible to access their contribution to the national economy.
i couldnt agree more
Well said
So real entrepreneurship and innovation would help solve the issues?
@@arewecrazyyetYeah the government don't encourage them enough to be an entrepreneur nor prepares for capitalism
You mean lack of intelligence to practice higher skills, don't you?
Tribalism is also probably one of the biggest challenges holding back Africa. Dictators on down to regional governors and lowly civil servants are more likely to help their tribe than help the overall population or national interest.
from what I heard from my friend who's from Ghana, this seems to be the problem there. the local leaders will make ridiculous laws making life difficult
That's an old post-colonial problem. It's still present but this criticism is often overused to explain away problems, even in nations which have been modernizing quite a bit - where's it is really doubtful whether these inter-ethnic biases are really still a major factor.
I would be careful not to generalize about it. Especially since this particular criticism has its origins in European colonialist excuses for "why the Africans can't govern themselves.". That's not what you seem to be saying, but I promise you others still do on occasion.
The other colonial trope that has an ounce of truth to it, but gets overused? "It's a problem with the culture.". Most people recognize what's wrong with that one. (Uhh. Which culture? Where?) 😊
Even if tribalism of "culture" is a barrier in some places, the way out of that is to build strong institutions and traditions of governance and civil society.
I think the biggest problem is the transfer of value. If the value that a country produces through unequal exchange (the main mechanism of value transfer, but by no means the only one) is constantly flowing out of their economy, they simply lack the resources necessary for economic development. What flows back in the form of foreign aid is only a fraction of what flows out. The production of many African countries is at the beginning of the value chain, the least profitable part of the chain. However, the big profits are only realised in the final processing steps and the final sale.
@@Robespierre-lI lol always blaming colonialists won't do you good, look at Southeast Asia, they were colonized the longest by foreign powers but they're thriving economically.
Also true of the middle east. I lived in Iraq for a while and everyone said the same thing - the new democratic institutions are basically just proxies for the tribes and clans to compete with one another, while the old dictatorship allowed them to unite under common interests. Although the younger generation, and especially the Kurds and minority groups, despise Saddam, they are very nostgalic for the old autocracy.
I recommend viewers watch Soma Academy’s video covering why what EE says in this video is incorrect and not factual in regards to African history and historical economics. I don’t blame EE for not knowing African history as it is not his domain, but she really debunks his misconceptions here.
I do blame EE: they make videos with millions of views, on important topics, for profit. You actually have a moreal responsibility to do your homework and not propogate lazy misinformation imo. And this is a recurring problem too. But that's me, maybe I'd be bad at being a youtuber lol
@@Muzikman127 I agree with you completely. Channels like this that deal with history, geopolitics, and other sensitive information need to be more responsible and held to a higher standard.
History is just for information. Development is a point for today and the future. These videos are only for entertainment, not solving any issues or developing anywhere. There are better sources to check as the Global Competitiveness Report.
*I* blame this guy. He's a lapdog for Western hegemony. There's far better economists out there
⚪️🗑
The graphic at 13:43 is misleading. Only about 10% of enslaved Africans went to the "13 colonies" in North America. The vast majority went to South America and the West Indies.
...and islamic world !
Actually, the figure transported to NA was 400K for the whole duration of the trans-Atlantic transportation period, out of the total of ca 14 mln.
People forget slavery was everywhere and that the Arab world actually brought slaves from Africa for a longer period of time than the Americas did. Slave markets were there until the 1960s.
@@alexneigh7089??? That doesn’t mean it’s not 10%
Mauritania was the last nation to outlaw slavery-that was in 1983. But, the anti-slavery laws are loosely enforced, and slavery is still widespread-as it is in other similarly situated African countries.
One very big asterisk has to be placed next to Botswana as an example of what other African countries should strive for.
Botswana is a huge outlier when it comes to demographics in Africa, more than 75% of Botswana's citizens are Batswana, it is literally the land of the Tswanas. Plus they were never really colonized in the traditional sense of the word, the British didn't conquer them and the agreement to make it a protectorate came after the King's conflicts against the Boers encroaching on their land, and fortunately the British were also fighting the Boers at that time so the Tswanas basically became an important ally to the British in keeping order as well as the Boers under control, so not only did the core leadership structure never fall apart and lose legitimacy, one could argue it gained more legitimacy even after the British left, which made it impossible for any legitimate challengers to power. This is the same reason why the only truly stable countries in the Middle east are all Monarchies, because that's the best way to maintain stability. With that stability, even if it was poor the first few decades after independence, the country developed with the few resources it had.
So, in summary, Botswana had three very important things going for it, that IMO, no other Sub-Saharan African country has, Stability, A strong legitimate Monarchy and well-maintained, strong institutions resulting from that stable and legitimate monarchy.
In addition their population is way lower than the available mineral resources, which were discovered after independence (very important). And the mineral sector is in a public-private partnership, unlike the fully privatised ones in the much poorer countries.
It it's also to remember that Botswanan president that put the country on path to prosperity was originally supposed to be the king of Botswana, and after getting kicked out for racism reasons, he returned and became a president instead. Eventhough its is a republic it is still in some sense a legitimate monarchy.
@@sasi5841Umh no. The Khama's were never supposed to be "Botswana's ruling family" They are the tribal chiefs of their own ethnic group. Botswana has multiple ethnic groups, many of which, don't recognize the Khamas as rulers. Botswana is a representative democracy, and to be honest with you, most Batswana within the below 40 cohort despise them. Source, I am a Motswana. There are glaring inaccuracies in your analysis.
You've missed one of the largest factors in Botswana's success. Botswana NEVER had an absolute monarchy. Monarchs in Botswana had to gain consensus with other tribal chiefs and advisors before they made policies. They could not act as absolute monarchs and push through unpopular and arbitrary policies for their own benefit. This made their integration with democratic norms and human rights smoother than other sub-Saharan countries.
@@loetomagang1438 It is good to hear from an opposition source in Botswana. It would be interesting to hear more. As an exSA white I have been to Botswana but most of what I know I have read. I want Africa and Africans to get ahead and realise their potential. Many African countries could learn a lot from Botswana.
Only thing Africa lacks is good leadership! Botswana is clear example of how good leadership can change the country
As a Nigerian, I absolutely agree with you, friend. We have other issues like bad geography and climate but good leadership and political structures and institutions can negate all of the other issues.
Stop saying it’s about good leadership when Europeans and Americans have assassinated leaders, sponsored coups and terrorist organizations, and use other forms of political meddling which have made all regions of Africa struggle. Everyone wants to focus on what Africa is doing wrong. But nobody wants to talk about how France has the 4th largest gold reserve but no gold mine, and yet holds 90% of the gold from 15 African countries, some of which don’t have their own gold reserves. Let’s talk about how many of the industries extracting resources from Africa are European, American, and Chinese businesses that give little profit or benefit to the countries and local people. Good leadership gets you assassinated bc there’s too much money flowing out of Africa. Almost all of the resources needed to build electric cars are on that continent and this is the moment they should be benefiting but instead we have children in lithium mines
@@katnicole7274 No, let's not talk about _how,_ let's talk about _why._ The discourse you describe is a discourse of grievance and acrimony, not a discourse about understanding and solutions. Africans will not be fooled by such talk forever.
@@katnicole7274 I know the West has assassinated some leaders, but as far as I know they have all been corrupt or communists. So there has been no loss to the country.
I don't know the French neo-colonial empire too well, so no comments there.
@katnicole7274 you can have a shitty dictatorship, and still have a S. Korea.
Thank you so much for making this video. As an African myself (Nigerian, specifically) it always annoys me when most people only attribute Africa's current problems to "colonialism or racism", effectively removing personal responsibility of us Africans, and ignore more important factors like geography, climate, socioeconomic systems, political unity, culture, and leadership. Thanks for focusing on those areas.
Biafra woupd come
@@biafra13743 friend, I don't care. We have so many wannabe secessionists in Nigeria, it's not funny anymore. Oduduwa nation, Arewa separatists, Biafra separatists, Sokoto caliphate fanatics, Fulani insurgents etc. The simple reality is that these groups have very little support or clout, even among their own tribes. They can't sustain themselves without the nation and they know it but choose to remain delusional.
Both can be right at the same time.
Ignoring foreign interferance whilst only highlighting corrupt African leadership is no better than Ignoring corrupt African leaders whilst only blaming foreign interference.
Your all the same just shilling for different sides.
@@AYTM1200 both can be right at the same and one can be more responsible for the problem than the other, also.
@@biafra13743not funny at all.
“Why nations fall” is one of the most interesting book I’ve ever read. Glad you guys made a video dedicated to his paper.
Is it? Why? :)
IQ and the Wealth of Nations
So is Guns, Germs, and Steal. Both amazing reads
Me too
I read "Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches" a little over 20 years ago and I still remember the point the author made about cultures and why they do things.
There's a reason why most of my African friends have no plans of living in Africa. I'm paraphrasing, but one guy told me "imagine me going back and telling people 'hey we should follow traffic rules and make stop lights.' Everyone would look at me like I was crazy." And that's a small example of how culture and nurture means much more than geography. You have pockets of places with awesome cohesion, property rights and education, but it has to reach a critical mass to be safe from total annihilation.
This kind of culture is a result of corruption, If only half the people have to follow the rules and the other half has a connection in the government or can bribe and get away with a lot of things, people will start to hate the rules and they will lose all respect to them, and with enough time people will start to see it as the norm since that all they know their whole life, specially when the rules are not even enforced properly or fairly
Yea u made this whole things up, and Africa is a huge diverse continent
@@Bell_plejdo568p my buddy from Nigeria, neighbors from DRC, met someone whose family is threatened if they go back to Sudan, talked to an ambassador from Ghana and I think Uganda was the other guy. Like this isn't hidden information. Granted all of these people were no longer living in Africa, so maybe their bias is skewed, but that's the point. People that want a certain way of life (property rights, self determination, education) are going overseas, so everyone left are more intrenched in their ways.
"how culture and nurture means much more than geography"
EXCEPT the Africans IN the western world -- who are benefitting (and taking advantage of) what the WESTERNERS have built -- did not and DO NOT believe "hey we should follow the rules" unless they are continuously and continually "forced" to do so! They have come to a different "geography" and changed hardly at all! ALLLLL the years of living in a different "culture and nurture" has NOT changed Africans into people who desire to -- and CAN -- live in a different culture and nurture!
EVERY "African group" living in EVERY other 'culture and nurture' has an exceedingly HIGH of out-of-wedlock, no-fathers-present, birth rate. EVERY single one. It's PART of their culture and nurture. It exists in Africa, it exists and every African group across the planet. The exceptions do NOT prove the rule! (I'd point out: in the 1920s and 30s in the U.S -- when the African family structure was FORCED to live within the (then-extant) "rules of (White/western) society" -- they had actually a LOWER divorce rate than White/Westerners. Once that force was let up -- they mostly returned to the 'African culture and nurture' of reproduction without marriage, which has only increased since then.
@@Avalanche-Ice1950 OUTRAGIOUS. I'm shocked...
You must never speak of these things again
I lived with an African girl who said she'd love to move back and try help her country, but anyone who tries to help through the political system would be jailed or happen to pass away for the SLIGHTEST hint that youd cause problems.
I am South African, and South Africa stands out amongst most of the African Nations as the most "developed", or used to be. Here - and to some extent I would say in most european settled regions (colonialism implies that the wealth was being shipped away, not utilised in country, which is what happened here) - the european conquest broke the inhibiting authority of local rulers that you assert prevented widespread development. In South Africa, it was replaced by a National Authority that, while still authoritarian and oppressive, DID develop enormous amounts of capital - railways, harbours, airports, mining, schools, hospitals, roads, dams, which benefitted everyone, even if the ruling whites under apartheid benefitted more. It doesn't make it right, but an oppressed South African had much better access to healthcare, education, transport, employment, clean water and food than an oppressed NON-South African. The tragedy is that when democracy was introduced - which should have been a wonderful thing - , the new leaders didn't maintain any of the practices or principles that had made the region prosperous. They didn't continue with improving or developing the infrastructure, education, etc. Instead, all they did was exhaust the capital that was previously developed and re-distribute wealth into non-sustainable social aid programmes, which kept their voter base loyal. The result is that any good that came from the suffering under the decades of oppression has been lost. It was all for nothing. They took the silver lining from that dark cloud, cut it into pieces so small that it blew away into the wind as dust. Now we have failing infrastructure, no electricity, no water, no functioning local authorities, 40% unemployment, a collapsing tax base, a prohibitively expensive international credit rating, and no light at the end of the tunnel. Africa is poor, because it insists on doing things its own way. And that way doesn't work, if your goal is to develop along the lines of other non-african industrial and post industrial nations. Other regions of the world - notably South East Asia, embraced industialisation, academicism, national planning etc. etc. and still retained their regional/ cultural identity. But in Africa rejection of "The West" is part of the mindset, and is a rallying cry for the leadership, who drive around in Mercedes Benz's wearing Armani suits. Africa will remain poor, until Africans decide that that rejecting the practices of the wealthy isn't what makes you a real African.
This is what happens when you don't have to fight to develop yourself. European nations that have been built up by centuries of hardship now find themselves with leadership that don't have any clue of how the nations wealth was achieved and are set on squandering it to purchase a voting base using taxation of those who actually work to keep building that wealth.
Explain estonia then. Most of it's wealth was taken away by Russians same with development. After getting out of soviet union they growth was growing with insane numbers. Same with Poland. The "muh colonialism" is just excuse.
@@Tespri That some countries could rise above the hurdles erected by colonialism does not imply that colonialism is not an overwhelming impediment. Estonia and Poland are where they are despite their colonial/oppressive past, not because of or uncoupled from it.
@@debarshidas8072 Finland as well.. Hong Kong after British rule... Singapore after british rule. In fact it seems that the general trend is that only colonies in Africa are incapable to "overcome this hurdle".
It's just overwhelming excuse and cope mechanism.
@@debarshidas8072 Finland as well.. Hong Kong after British rule... Singapore after british rule. In fact it seems that the general trend is that only colonies in Africa are incapable to "overcome this hurdle".
It's just overwhelming excuse and cope mechanism.
I have a hard time with the argument that a main reason for lack of technology adoption was erratic tyrants. Europe and Asia were both absolutely filled with despots, tyrants of all kinds, hordes of barbarians like the Huns and Danes who pillages and burned down places, yet people still developed commerce and metallurgy.
Agreed. Widespread corruption may be a better argument. Nothing can get done if there’s absolutely no trust 🤷♂️
That not only what he said was the cause . He said the fact that the land in a Africa was big, people could easy leave their communities and settle somewhere else with out the oppressive leader thus they did not developed a sense of nationalisation to come together and fight back.
Its in the jeans
As a South African, I always got the idea that Africa's greatest problem (at least where I am from) seems to be that the chiefs and king is too often still seen as infallible, or unchallengeable... there have never been a revolution against their hierarchy structures as there was in Europe... it was more of a softening, but never a complete rejection. The lack of adoption of tech for the greater good is also mindboggeling... there appear to be traces of this tech-rejection that precedes European influence on the Southern part of the continent.
You missed what he said, couple the tyrany with the land and the environment allowed groups to escape and set up their own communities and be virtually isolated from the rest preventing ideas they learnt from being spread. Europe never really had that problem, all the natives of the european countries today mainly derive from 1-4 ethnicities. And about metallurgy you should look into how slaves from the carribean helped in the industrial revolution theres a guardian article about it.
Im an African and to me its very obvious why we are still a poor continent. Look at the stark differences between north and south Korea, the stark dofferences that existed between East and West Germany. What im trying to say is that African leaders are hopelessly making the wrong choices generation after generation. It all boils down to governance.
grow up and see the truth, they are just greedy and shortsighted, just as most south american leaders, they love american or european money on their pockets they buy mansions on italy while their people still have no roads.
Europeans did terrible tuff in the past but they managed to have enough thinkers that changed the continent, this isn't happening on africa
Interesting though that even East Germany in 1989 was a fairly well-developed and rich country compared to most African countries today, despite having literally been a democracy for only about 10 years of its existence (and those 10 years, the infamous 'Weimar' years, weren't exactly famed for their economic stability)
South Korea also is controlled by a wealthy corporate elite.
China was once as poor as Africa, and now it's one of the most developed nations in Asia and above the global average.
What they all have in common is mass education, together with planned and enforced industrialisation targeting the export market. That is the most successful proven method of economic development in the modern world.
Remove middlemen, remove corruption.
Corruption is a symptom of too many middlemen, they get tempted by the chance to take advantage of their gatekeeper position.
I mean look at history, every African leader who sort to do what was best for his people, was overthrown or killed by foreign governments leading to the leaders we have today. So you can’t just say it’s bad governance when the people don’t even get to choose who governs them.
Just a thought!
@@jbjaguar2717 Leaders that actively sought to improve the country vs leaders that did not.
You need a study to figure out why? Have you ever looked at their average IQ? Up until contact with Europeans and colonization, sub-Saharan Africa had been stuck in the Neolithic age for centuries with no written language of any kind. Ge'ez in Ethiopia was introduced with Yemeni Semites. Swahili was brought by the Arabs. They had never discovered metals. They had never figured out sailing. They had never even invented the wheel.
I love hearing about how diversity in African countries is the reason why they remain poor and underdeveloped; however, the same people are quick to point out that diversity is a strength anywhere else... just not in Africa. There is so much dissonance, and I bet these people don't even realise it.
Africa is super developed
I'm probably one of the people you're referring to, at least tangentially. However, I don't claim that diversity is the problem in Africa, but statements of mine (and perhaps others arguing in a similar way as I do) might be mistaken that way. What I'm saying is this: Countries in Western and Central Europe had favourable conditions for development, such as being able to develop and industrialize on their own terms and not being subject to any form of colonialism or forced liberal market reform. Most of them chose the way of the language or ethnicity based nation state, but there's also Switzerland, for example, which chose a different route, which, for the time, was quite diversity embracing.
The problem with colonies is that the way they're organized, the economic structure and power structures, is for extraction by colonizers. They're (very likely) not what the people in the region would build if they could structure their societies on their own terms, if they could go through their own process, their own societal negotiations and conflicts, like Europe once did. That, however, is almost impossible in the current environment, with multi-national corporations teaming up with western governments and their international organizations (e.g. the IMF and the World Bank) to stabilize an environment that is conducive to extraction, and international law and diplomacy set up in a way that make it very hard for countries to reform themselves, or even develop away from the European nation state model.
Yes, in numerous cases, the lack of such an independent process surfaces as strife between ethnic groups. However, that is, at least in part, a symptom of a region greatly disrupted by colonial extraction, both in times of traditional colonialism, and (neo)colonialism. Even conflicts that are rooted in pre-colonial structures are exacerbated in a situation where people now have to make do in the results of colonial oppression - and, on top of that, they are conflicts that never had a chance of being resolved on the people's own terms, using the vessels of their own, organically developed civilizations.
The root of the problem aren't these surface level symptoms, however, but the lack of an organic process for a region to "find itself", so to say. Looked at from the surface, it may seem like a diversity issue, but it really isn't.
Also, in cases where a country is ruled by a government that discriminates against some ethnic groups, and doesn't take into account that some groups might have been dealt a particularly bad hand by past oppression, or worse, engages in direct oppression, violence or even genocide, that's neither a colonial (albeit, of course, being a (neo)colony doesn't help having sound political structures) issue nor an issue of diversity, but moral bankruptcy of those responsible. Blaming diversity in those kinds of situations isn't even a surface-level mistake like in the case of symmetric tribal conflicts, but simply a cheap excuse for a bigoted political agenda (or the very concept of having such an agenda when using Africa as a proxy token in Western political discourse).
@@christianknuchel We all know you took the time to provide this answer; however, I will not similarly return the favour. I appreciate the effort, which is only designed for the viewers and not as an answer directly to me. On the other hand, your reply, in my opinion, is just a more sophisticated way of throwing an insult, which is also okay, as I would not have expected otherwise.
I'm afraid I have to disagree with many levels that Africa or most African countries do not have the power to change their course. Unlike other countries throughout history, they didn't have to "invent the wheel" (like the Spanish had to for the Incas - to talk in your "colonialist" language; obviously, there is a lot more than the mere wheel here as it goes profoundly into what a civilisation can achieve). Africa is entirely responsible for their well-being, and they have the power in their hand; they choose to deal with Russia and China these days and appear perfectly happy with it.
You must have some form of selective memory when referring to European countries having time to develop, or you must not know history. I must remind you of the recent two world wars that have led to unimaginable destruction and loss of both human and material capital. Even before that, Europe was not peaceful or united, as can be noticed in a brief history review. No, my friend, no one had time to do anything; it was a simple game of survival of the fittest, which is perfectly fine at a cosmic level as we are not yet playing outside this game. We either move forward, or we will be forgotten.
As a background, I was born in a diverse communist country (remember, USSR was very diverse), and I lived more time in extreme poverty than in decency. I did not blame anyone for my misfortune. At no time in our previous history did one have more power to change his own fortune than today (with some minor exceptions - not Africa).
but countries in europe have figured out a way to actually work together to be great. ex. europe warred against one another. however, when it came time to slice up africa, they worked together to make that happen so that they could all prosper. africa does not work together to be great and prosper. if they did, they have good roads that linked east to west africa, north to south, etc. to facilitate commerce throughout the continent.
@@dumarudolf3976 I didn't mean to imply that Europe didn't have strife, but that it had the opportunity to develop on its own terms, as it was the first region to emerge global empires. There's a huge difference between symmetric conflict in the way that Europe had internally, and being subject to perpetual oppression.
To make a long story short: Europe (and I'm counting the US and Australia as European countries here) won the game for the current political era, it's just that its power projection's gotten a bit more subtle over the past 70 years, which is why some people believe that colonialism is over, even though it's not.
As a bit of background for me: As you might have guessed from my earlier example, I'm Swiss. Your rhetoric reminded me very much of discourse I've heard before, including in my own country, where people find excuses to argue against people from other places joining our society. However, Switzerland was founded on people speaking different languages and from different denominations of Christianity, which, as you know, had been at war with one another at various points in History, joining together and making a country. If there's hypocrisy there, it's people who claim themselves to be patriots, but who oppose immigration of people from different places.
That issue is even more pronounced in US discourse, a country that was founded on global immigration outright, and US discourse has a lot of influence on the political discourse on the internet, and even local politics - at least over here.
Personally, I don't care much about whether diversity is a strength or not. What I care about is the *fulfillment* of the individual, and if people come closer to that fulfillment by means of immigration, so be it. However, it doesn't stop there: Anti-immigration arguments are also used to target refugees, their rights and their chances of being granted asylum. This even leads to things like teenagers who are in the middle of an apprenticeship (!) getting deported back to their country of origin. People who have started to integrate, to build a life! Children with hopes and dreams. Just people, like you, me, everyone else. But because of a mix of nationalist bureaucracy and xenophobic bigotry, they get theirs destroyed - people who've already gone through so much, who were just starting to rebuild. And then there's the inhumane treatment, and sometimes even murder, of refugees before they even get here.
Besides the Humanist aspect, I also believe that it's important for the world to interweave and not separate, to facilitate a better understanding of one another, and make it less likely for monstrous views of people from other parts of the world to become widespread. It also begets cultural exchange and expands a society's social horizon and flexibility. Also, I've always loved the cultural bounty of the world, and have had a cosmopolitan mindset pretty much my entire life. I like living in an international place.
This is the biggest intellectual gymnastics stretch I've seen ever! Both Africa and Latin America could have some of the wealthiest countries on earth, but have been continuously mismanaged and riled with corruption.
they think short term not the long game
@penderyn8794 😂
Evolutionary protocol.
Did we watch the same video? His whole point was that strong and inclusive institutions are conducive to prosperity while corrupt and extractive ones lead to the situations we see in SA and Africa.
Same thesis by Acemoglu and Robinson in their book.
@penderyn8794Colonialism is always the excuse. Malaysia was a former British Colony and it has a higher GDP than the UK.
"Adoption of the wheel was limited in Africa, because Africa was ruled by regional kings with unchecked authority, unlike Europe." is a hilariously out of pocket "theory."
@@happyjack8613 because wheels don't work very well in the rough, humid terrain of central Africa.
We can see from toys that Africans absolutely understood the concept of the wheel, it's just that in Africa carrying by hand, using pack animals and especially using boats was far more efficient.
The whole video just reeks of ignorance and lazy research
@@euanstokes2828 After watching documentaries from Africa, I have to agree with you.
@@happyjack8613 It's orders of magnitude easier to just carry something on your head or on your animal or on a boat than to drag a wheelbarrow through uneven heavily-forested muddy or rocky terrain. Why are you being so dense?
@@shawnmendrek3544 yep, remember in Medieval Europe wheel-based transport fell mostly out of use after the Roman road system fell into disrepair. Carts require very well maintained roads.
Did the video mention French looting?
As an ex South African, and who studied that part of Africa from the inside, can I suggest having a very close look at Botswana. There are a number of very important differences to other African countries, first being mainly a single tribal group. A lot depended on one man, Seretsi Khama, but his policies remind me of Norway.
I am a Motswana. Are you smoking crack? Mainly one ethnic group? You are actually mad, we have over 20. We just don't go to war with one another and only have dialectic differences in our language.
I envy you because you can say "as an ex South African".
I lived as a white SAfrican, pulling my weight, but privileged. It was not a hard life unlike most Black SAfricans. I did consider that I had paid my way, but it was time to leave and let the country be run by indigenous people. All power to them, I long for them to take their rightful place in the World.
@ebaab9913 my parents migrated to SA from Mozambique. I was born in SA but I've never felt like this is home, I never felt welcomed. I'm not impressed with the leadership or how things are done. I look forward to the day I leave. Whatever opportunity I can find, I'm taking it. I'm so fed up with the way things are done on this continent.
Nation states do not equal prosperity.
Born in Africa and living in Africa, I can tell you, but in my country, I can not say anything because I will be called a racist and coloniser if I do.
Not owning their own short falls and looking to place the blame on past generations is the name of the game for our leaders.
You should be the leader, bro. You're a real one.
True. It’s all about leadership
Mismanagement, corruption, greed is destroying Africa
I mean if you're going to blame black people for being black as a white person yeah people will call you out for being racist
Odd, I thought racism is about power structure and minority components!
Whites shouldnt be racist to blacks in Africa with this, was US left word police wrong? What a shock
something I never learned in school is that an almost negligible amount of slaves were brought to the 13 colonies. They mostly went to Brazil and the Caribbean.
yet the Dahome wantd to continue slavery and fought the Brits who gfoought to end it@@talonhax8336
I hope you also learned that the reason this is true is because of the absolutely staggering numbers sent to Brazil and the Caribbean. In addition, I hoped you learned that one of the things that made slavery in the US uniquely evil was a forced breeding program and that this multiplied the enslaved population in the States immensely.
@@talonhax8336 Thats flat out false.
@talonhax8336 actually they were among the first. Slavery still exists in many African countries and it existed in Eastern Europe and Asia into the 20th century. Americans are brainwashed to catastrophize our history of slavery as though it was more uniquely terrible than it was. What's unique about it is how it was denied constitutional legitimacy and later started a war to end it.
@@jaredbaker7230that wasn't unique
0:30 America and Ecuador do, however, have shockingly similar election dynamics... I was appalled by Abdala Bucaram's populist Elvis-singing campaign somehow bringing him victory, when the only reason he wasn't in jail is that he was running for President, as he'd fled the country on drug and corruption charges. That could never happen here in America, right?
"Africa has less productive land" then the main colonial settlers economic activities were agriculture and mining the had huge plantations of sisal,cocoa,coffee,and cotton in Tanzania for example the Germans built railroad the agricultural reasons. Most TH-camrs who talks about Africa poverty have never been into Africa 😅
The wheel thing is shocking
But did that form of agriculture destroy the soil? And do Africans own the land or do Western (or East Asian now) corporations own it?
you need to see Europe and the American plains to understand what real agriculture is. I'm Kenyan and geography is a much bigger problem than you think it is. in comparison to Europe and USA, we don't have any arable land in our country.
Those aren't grains. You can't feed yourself with those.
I think he explains what he means really well. Have you stopped the video the moment he said that?
I'm a simple man, I see Betterhelp, I click dislike.
Good that not everyone has forgotten this
Based
Glad to see someone with a functioning brain
And he still gets his resources from MIT lol
I recommend using sponsorblock then
Literally just because the selective pressures present in Africa have not generated populations with excess ability to engage in abstract thinking and problem solving.
Any other explanation is just beating around the bush or trying to distract from the truth, if not outright disinfo.
The party of science am-I-right?
Every person commenting is as wrong as the video. Africa is "poor" for only one reason, and this reason can not be stated, even though it would be 100% true. Africa is full of people who will never be "not poor", let's just put it that way.
Poor Switzerland: Cut off from the sea, lots of mountains, ...
High IQ people will succeed in any environment. Low IQ people will fail in any modern environment.
well its dependent on economically stable neighbours though, hence wealth creates wealth
@@1terminatorr
Must be why South Africa and Rhodesia were so successful with whites in charge and then collapsed once blacks took over.
I saw what you did there!
🤦♂️🙄
I believe the primary issue is the myopic perspective and extreme levels of corruption throughout the continent. Africans are their own worst enemies. We see the same issue in the nations born of its diaspora, such as Jamaica and Haiti, where my immediate ancestors come from. Corruption exists in all countries, but in other places, the elites at least recognize that the peasantry needs SOMETHING. In Africa and throughout the Caribbean, they horde everything.
No, it isn't that elites recognize that peasants need something--it's that they can't stop the "peasants." A wannabe tyrant won't be a tyrant if he fears the people will kill him at the very moment he oppresses them. If the people are sufficiently able to succeed without the govt, then the govt lacks certain power to keep them from succeeding.
Rights, success, are things that people secure for themselves--they are never given by those in power. Waiting on a dictator to give them is futile and foolish.
African governments 👎👎
African people ❤️🎉🎊 consistently some of the nicest, hardworking folks I’ve ever met.
@@meowmix-t7n isnt the african government or any government created by its own people? are we adults or children and always everybody else is at fault except us lol
But we can't talk about why that is the case
People who annoy you.....
Long ago the Economist published a piece called The Chief Problem with Africa - in a nutshell, Africans see their leaders as divine and beyond reproach. As a South African, I can say this problem is still alive and well. It is rooted in mentality and other factors are simply ancillary.
It's a reflection of the circumstances when people are so preoccupied with their own challenges that keeping up with politics takes a backseat.
I'm Namibian, and I agree.
I think when I ponder the state of political participation our society I often neglect the fact that Apartheid was a very recently lived experience for the majority of our people. When the only thing that matters to you is escape from a system like that, I suppose it's easy to gather religiously around the leaders of the struggle against it, and it thus makes sense emotionally that this reverence lingers in the public consciousness. Nevertheless, it's immensely disheartening to talk to the people who remain proud supporters of leadership just to find out that they are all largely unhappy with the performance of leadership. For them, voting is not an expression of political interest, but rather a ritual they have to celebrate freedom. To them, the democratic process is not one where people participate in decision making. It's just a celebration of the end of Apartheid.
In a sense, it's just the legacy of the style of participation of non whites (especially blacks) are used to. It's inertia
south africa is a fantastic example of degradation - in the 90s, it was still classified as a developed economy in financial markets; it had one of the top #10 rail networks; world's best energy supplier; world's best tax collector.
all the democratic gov needed to do was build & expand on this incredible infrastructure.
.....it didn't.
That's the first time I hear this. Let alone about South Africa.
you guys need to get rid of the ANC ASAP!
How are you still using better help as a sponsor?
I wish countries like senegal were discussed in this video only because it has always been politically stable and peaceful but it's still very poor. All the foreign investment benefit those already in power and many say the west African currency is one of the biggest reasons it's remained poor.
the west keeps the african continent poor. look there are inherent problems but the strategy is there
The currency is not the main reason Senegal is not thriving at all. Ivory Coast and Benin have the same currency but they have better economic growth annually than many country in the world. Senegal has strong institutions, but it is less economically attrative to investors than Ivory Coast for exemple. Mainly because it lacks natural ressources (cocoa, gold etc.) and its agriculture is very unproductive. That's why when they have the choice, private investors go to countries like Ivory Coast instead of Senegal.
You should look into FrançAfrique and the réseaux Foccart. It’s about neocolonial relationships between France and its ex African colonies. Although it does not tell the whole story as to why Africa is underdeveloped (geography also plays a big role in it as presented in the video), it shows how Western powers, especially France, have dominated African countries in the post colonial era. Basically rigging elections to install leaders favourable to France and acquire control over thei natural resources. So yeah, corruption again. Kinda sad that the involvement of France was not mentioned in the vidéo, they really dominate some part of Africa economically and politically
Anyone else despise those shorts that start with "its not what you think"
The reason they do, that is not what you would think.
@@lkytmryan lol
I used to hate those because usually it was the most obvious thing then I blocked shorts on youtube vanced app so no more suffering
Well, it is exactly what we think but nobody's allowed to say it.
@@justanerd414 I thought the youtube vanced app ceased since youtube struck it down? Is there another download link somewhere else?
Sahara is a problem as a barrier? Why is not Australia and New Zeeland poor? Why would fertile lands not lead to development/civilization in Africa but it did in China, Egypt, India, Eufrat/Tigris? I didn't get the reason, Malaria? There used to be malaria also in Europe. Bad infrastructure is not a "reason", the question is why don't they build infrastructure.
_"Bad infrastructure is not a "reason", the question is why don't they build infrastructure."_
That is a question. It's not like any nation had their infrastructure ready. Every nation had to build their basic stuff and foundations first, so they could then develop further. The basic steps of development.
@@tubetorpedo They're not capable.
It's called 70 IQ.
@@xpusostomosit’s almost like there is an incredibly simple and obvious difference that explains everything we see. I hope one day our best researchers can tease out what that is!
clearly that's how bad this video was that you didn't get a good understanding of what makes Africa different. Having people who speak 500 different languages in one country makes it virtually impossible to achieve many things. Having leaders who try to make the countries more independent from their former countries being assassinated, then installing puppets who give special contracts to special European interests becomes exactly why Africa looks like it does today. Africans are not in control of their own resources as Burkina Faso showed how they charged an extremely low price for Uranium and once they pushed the French out they charged 100x the price, which was more near the standard. Africa is poor because of Colonialism and the Neo-Colonialism that pursued thereafter. Everything he's emphasizing in this video makes very little sense. When most of the world was industrializing and building infrastructure, the only part of Africa that was being built was where Europeans lived within Africa. If you notice how colonies built railroads, they built it with the intent to ship goods from inner Africa to ports with the intent to transport materials outside of Africa to Europe. Talking about entrepreneurship and other things he mentions is complete nonsense.
There is a much better video from the channel history scope that goes into detail about colonization and how that impacts Africa to date.
I think part of the issue with Africa is also that it's demographics are uniquely fractious, perhaps owing in part to its geography. Very hard to have high levels of social trust when your ethnic group is constantly competing for resources for every other ethnic group. This after being placed in a country with people you don't like.
In order to create prosperity, you need order. To create order you need a strong government and functional institutions. In order to create these, you need your people to agree on societal issues. In order to achieve this you need to create a relatively homogenous society, OR a tolerant society. This is where xenophobia and tribalism comes in. This is why africa is poor.
Not to mention you need a government that people trust. Strong or weak if the people don't trust the government then it makes things very hard.
You don't need any government for prosperity. People have traded goods and services long before they were even farming.
@@worldofdoom995 At the very least, trust in the government and it's power to enforce legislation are intrinsically linked.
Functionally, they are the same: Power - even in an autocracy - comes from public support. Democracy is the art of winning over the opposition by means of persuasion and negotiation, rather than by force.
The popular captain will have no trouble enforcing his rule, even if he is a bad captain and his ship ends up sinking.
People tend to think about the past colonial empires of absolute monarchies and dictatorships as all-powerful, oppressive institutions... Yet governmental institutions in the developed world are more powerful than they have ever been in human history.
This is why democracies are allowed to prosper in a fundamentally kleptocratic world. Only a state that has the *potential* to take absolute control of a society has the authority to impose a functional democracy.
This is why countries like the nordic nations have been doing so well, despite being dealt a relatively poor hand, geographically: They have some of the highest levels of trust in the government in any country on the planet.
@@MrCmon113 Yeah, and they weren't prosperous for it. They were literally wanderers hunting for their next meal.
@@MrCmon113 An uncontrolled market leads to corruption. Without a powerful government, how do you pass and enforce economic laws to curtail the inevitable perversion of wealth?
This is precisely what has caused so many ex-colonial states to become oligarchies, in my opinion. I observe it to be true. The underlying causes appear numerous and convoluted, and i recognize i am unqualified to evaluate them - Let's make sure that our leaders do so as well, and ask the proper authorities for help on these issues and how to solve them.
There is no place for ego in politics ☀
This video shows how difficult it is to speak openly and honestly about Africa’s reality without putting your shoe in your mouth.
Is that shoe a Nike?
You don't have to "put your foot in your mouth", read my comment up top. That is Africa's reality...@pukavoket.
Africa's poverty is due to lack of white colonizers.
The Bell Curve doesn't lie...
@@The_Reality_Filter I am definitely in agreement with you. And I understand the importance of manipulating the circumstances of populations in order to maintain the beliefs preferred by certain members of society.
The cultural issues are huge. A friend lived in a village in Kenya that was split by a stream. When it rained, the village was split into two by the high water and simple commerce could not take place between the two sides. He suggested that they move some rocks around to provide stepping stones so that during some rains they could still cross the stream. No one wanted to do this. "Our father's never did that," was the main reason given.
Culture comes from genetics.
@@jfkst1not really
But... Zimbabwe was the "Bread basket of Africa" and South Africa has some of the most productive farms in the world.
Skip the ad 2:39
😂
All hail sponsor block!
pin this comment.
Not all heroes wear capes 😂
You're a saint
Videos like this have become harder to watch since I began noticing the rampant use of vague stock footage on TH-cam. It makes me appreciate shows like Forensic Files or Air Disasters that produce their own reenactments based on specifics of the story.
Not everyone has the budget or time for that, as long as it gets the message across I am more concerned with what he is saying.
Yea it’s filled with misinformation and nosense
@@bojangles2492 Yeah, but sad part of this story is, the channel covered this topic like one or two years ago and is more basic this time around. It's like if he can't find any better topics or other countries are just not clickbait enough.
I agree on this topic. In many cases I would prefer just a static screen with information than random clips that may be close to the subject, but still obviously stock photo. I just feels a little off and takes my focus away. This video I was manly listening to, instead of viewing though.
@bojangles2492 and not everyone should make videos.. its just laziness really. Especially the ones who strictly use AI.. I can't stand then, and block every page I come across, especially if you use clickbait titles.
If people remain poor, labor remains cheap the minerals remain cheap. Maybe the beneficiaries of African minerals want these people to be poor. They probably want there is political instability. If a small conflict ridden country like Israel can flourish so can Africa.
Exactly!
As I write this, the US has tens of thousands of "covert operator" troops deployed throughout Africa, overthrowing governments and crushing any local movement which opposes neo-colonialism. We know this from recently declassified Pentagon documents obtained through FOIA. This video skips such "inconvenient facts."
This channel and University Economics departments are in the same category as "Political Science" and "Russia Studies" and "China Studies" and "Africa Studies" departments--they exist to indoctrinate students with ruling class propaganda and misinform them about how the real world works. Most professors in these departments routinely make wrong predictions and fail to predict huge events. Meanwhile, plenty of honest commentators outside of academia routinely get the same things right without getting any credit from mainstream academia or mainstream news media.
Gary Stevenson does a great job of explaining this phenomenon:
th-cam.com/video/EwB5ihGu4Jw/w-d-xo.html
If the societies worked it would be a lot easier to get the resources
@@xpusostomos "If the societies worked" is an empty propaganda phrase. Until 15 years ago, Libya had a society which worked for average people better than most societies--people got free education, free medical care, free electricity, very cheap gasoline, reduced price automobiles (government covered half the cost) and housing was a guaranteed right--the government gave all newlyweds an interest-free loan to buy a house. Then the US/NATO sent their spies and troops into the country, started a huge civil war, killed the leader, and Libya is now a disaster zone.
This kind of thing happens over and over again, and US/NATO news media blame it all on the Africans while keeping quiet about the role of the US and NATO nations' interference.
@@illarionbykov5246 So the US/NATO orchestrated the mass protests against Gaddafi, even though everyone was so happy and prosperous? Or you're asserting that the protests were just made up too?
@@SheonEver I am "asserting" nothing... I am merely reporting facts well established by a library's worth of hard evidence. Do some online searches on "Color Revolutions" to catch up your understanding of modern geopolitical methods. You will learn such "AstroTurf" Color Revolutions have been in development ever since the "Velvet Revolution" of the late 1960's and have been carried out in dozens of nations over the past half century--usually, but not always, successfully. Ge.o.r.ge S.o.r.o.s own official website boasts of his financial role in many of these revolutions.
One concept: Premature democracy. All of Europe went through cultural consolidation far before it became host to several nations that were democracies. The continent is still cultural unconsolidated. Democracy cannot function while there are still huge ethnic divides. What they need is a series of good monarchs across the continent to consolidate culturally but that will take at least 100 years even if they start today.
So where's the link to the MIT study?
Too busy shilling his product to provide source.
I mean he gave you the title and the authors, use google
Daron Acemoglu & James A. Robinson - Why is Africa Poor?. Google it 😮💨
You have google you know.
@@knusperkeks2748 Google it.
The video drones in the background while I feast on comments 😂
nom nom nom.
Weirdos
😂😂 comment section is where its at... gobble on sister
I like how "Ill equipped to handle their problems, natural resources, etc" is just skipped over. Other people, on every other continent has overcame their issues, and this video doesn't describe why but just what happened when other cultures rocketed past them in history. I was expecting better.
It's all such a mystery. Humanity still has no clue. Not from history. Not from observation.
No matter how much the problem is studied.
We will never be able to identify the root of the problem.
My brother in Christ, disease, lack of water, bad soil, political corruption is a rough set of problems to overcome. It's like trying to form a functional country in Mad Max.
How do they have any more disease or bad soil than, say Vietnam or Uzbekistan, or Colombia? Africa has some of the best soils in the world, problem is underutilization of fertilizes. Disease is a lame cop out.@@anal3544
Actually, I was expecting the video to never even come close to mentioning the real problem, and I was right.
@@viggotannhauser7251 what is the real problem
Clicked video
Saw betterhelp sponsor
Closed video instantly
You flat out state that European colonists weren't going to have Europeans doing the labor in the Americas but in fact, European indentured servitude was extremely common in this period.
Not as common as using Africans
Muslins used to use africans as slaves way before europeans@@VMohdude-
Relatively speaking, they weren't doing much or as much horrible labof
@@VMohdude- depends on the place and time. In Canada and USA there were relatively few slaves (even in the south, there were far more white laborers than slaves). This is flipped in the Caribbean with the vast majority of the populace being enslaved.
@@VMohdude-and your supporting data is?
Well, I was going to say tribalism is a big factor, but so many beat me to it. So, I will simply say selfishness is a grand factor, fueled by tribalism. Instead of "all for one and one for all", there is "all for me, and none for you". Such division of thought makes for a weak nation in a continent of nations. It would make me happy to see all rise up and reach their potential. So much senseless suffering. Botswana looks to be leading the charge on development, so I wish them success.
Seems to me that I heard today that Botswana has a bunch of elephants for sale.
African nations have been described as "kleptocracies" where different tribes and groups have taken it i turn to thieve and asset-strip and purge opposition, until another group takes its tuen in chare, ribnse and repeat!
I can think of another explanation
?
The real reasons are not discussed...
Yeah the party of science sure does love to ignore uncomfortable truths.
@@reignman30so I’ve seen this hinted at a few times in the comment section, and I’m genuinely curious what you mean by this? What is this other explanation? What is this video dancing around? Would you mind explaining this to me?
@@fadbtx colonization
Why is anyone surprised about economic issues in Africa? They never built advanced civilizations the way they did in Europe and Asia. Go back hundreds of years, there were great developed cities in Asia and Europe, while everyone in Africa was living in the jungle. They just evolved with more primitive lifestyles. If Europeans never came to America, the Native Americans wouldn’t have built big cities and developed great technology. Their lifestyle has always been living off the land. There’s nothing wrong with that, it’s just a different style of life. I don’t know why people are scratching their heads trying to figure out why they aren’t just like us.
You're mean
@@blacklyfe6881 The truth is always harsh
@@بدر-ن7ر don't lecture me
"Not what I think, well, I would guess corruption, I wonder what it actually is...
Oh
Exactly what I thought it was."
The Bell Curve doesn't lie...
@@The_Reality_Filter This video is extremely incorrect in every way search up “how economic explained gets African history wrong” this video I actually missinformation
On the population thing. The trajectory of Africa's population is nuts:
1700: 61 million Africans (10% of the global population)
2024: 1464 million Africans (18.5%)
2100: 3900 million Africans (38%)
Exactly. Africa is nowhere near as poor as it was 200 years ago. The videos' title is misleading.
😂😂😂 I guess African women have a special taste to their men
Keep in mind they'll start making less kids as they industrialise and less hands on a farm. Other developed nations followed the same trend
@@loneIyboy15this is the dumbest thing I have ever read on the internet, like seriously 😁 . Most african countries were vast rural before independence . For instance more than ninety percent of the tarred roads in nigeria was constructed after our independence . What of access to electricity , clean water and medicine . Mehn you are either filled with hate or ridiculously ignorant
@@loneIyboy15 This is just not true save for a few warzones.
Tyranny, greed and corruption of a nation's leadership has always been a barrier to lasting success for any country without a doubt. This was true in Africa as well even before the colonials arrived. But that isn't really the root of the problem. Authoritarian regimes can, for a time, create a reasonably prosperous and orderly society (e.g. China). When Western colonial powers left or were overthrown, one set of shackles was often simply replaced with another (e.g. South Africa). In addition to the corrupt governments many African nations have the additional hurdle of widespread and systemic religious and ethnic discrimination especially in regards to education (e.g. Nigeria). Most African nations will never realize their full potential so long as they (the people and their leaders) continue to choose to segregate themselves along religious and tribal lines.
A lesson for us?
I have one big problem with your summation. There was no choice for multi-ethnicism. If we compare ourselves to europe. You see that they only became multi ethnic in the last hundred years while have having mostly the same religon (eg. Belguim was a catholic and language split from the protestant the Nederlands). African countries can have not only religious, language and Lifestyle barriers, but also resource and power imbalances that were enforced during colonialism (eg. Hausa in nigeria are 60-90 of the african giants military. Thus military coups tended to have an hausian islamic undertone.). The country also interact with a world that doesnt want development but extraction of the continent.
@@AaronOmole They started out with kings and rulers. Colonialism neither caused it nor exacerbated it.
The claim that Africa’s poverty stems from local strongmen exploiting resources and institutions is overly simplistic and misleading. While it’s true that corruption and governance issues exist within African nations, the narrative often fails to address the larger, systemic factors at play. European and multinational corporations play a significant role in perpetuating Africa’s economic struggles by exploiting its natural resources for their own gain.
Rather than local leaders, it’s these external entities that wield significant power and influence over Africa’s economies. Whether it’s the extraction of diamonds, cocoa, or various minerals and metals, Western companies have historically dominated these industries, often at the expense of local communities. For example, in countries like Ivory Coast, French companies control vast swathes of land, ports, and logistics, reaping immense profits while leaving little behind for the people of the region.
Furthermore, the legacy of colonialism and ongoing neo-colonial practices cannot be ignored. Many African nations continue to grapple with the repercussions of centuries of exploitation and extraction by European powers. Even in the post-colonial era, these dynamics persist, with multinational corporations continuing to siphon off Africa’s wealth for minimal compensation.
Thank you! This is what I was looking for.
Asia. Same issues different result. Historical injustice is not unique to Africa. Africa's inability to move forward is. Culture is the issue. Lack of long term planning and failure to act for the good of the society rather than the individual.
If leaders could say “you get your company to work here, and you guarantee my people development like what you have in your country then we good. But instead the “tip” goes to the personal pocket 😂😂😂
Thank you man! I was appalled by the shallow analysis that was presented in the video
@@richardsheppard3961 isn't culture the same as ways of people so you could just say the people are the issue?
The diversity in their countries should help since its obviously our biggest strength
Lol
haha! That's funny.
LoL!
Diversity of robbers a pillagers and scammers.
African countries have no more diversity than other countries
It's a bit weird because there is another video on this channel investigating why Australia is rich when in fact it shouldn't be.
Ha... Ignoring the obvious, Australia is full of Europeans and Africa is full of Africans.
The native Australians have about as many entrepreneurial skills as the native Africans.
Does anyone have a clue as to what the reason is?
@@friendlyfire7861no one can say
@@JKnksrsly🤔
Investing in Africa is just not worth the risk for most. The governments are too unstable and corrupt to trust to do as they say they would get done. The leaders just figure it’s easier to just take the money, shut down or take over the business and run it to the ground. The place has great potential the people just need to see the larger picture.
Sitting on a box full of gold and saying that it is "not worth it"...
@@fadbtx yeah its usually just racial bias...The continent is ready for the investment I can a bunch of nations where its good but people in the west still hold on to these barbaric ignorant beliefs about the African continent.
Investors don't care about corruption. In fact they're more than happy to take part in that corruption if it will bring them profits. Which it generally does.
the big three are very stable but highly corrupt, corruption and conflict are the number one things too affect the all the countries on the continent by quite some margin certainly not colonialism.
@@loganmedia1142 until the government nationalizes your business and takes it for themselves. You do the work and put up the money and they just take it away leaving you with nothing. Some will take that risk but many won’t.
I visited Jos in Nigeria in the 70s at different times. Each time it had grown. Now it is transformed with a university, several hospitals, museum, many businesses, good roads.The British kicked it off.
You’d be surprised how the endemic corruption problem is pretty much identical in non-African countries like Lebanon, Pakistan, Tukmenistan, Colombia, Peru, Uzbekistan, Sri Lanka, etc
yes, counties that are also down bad. what's your point. Sri Lanka is probably in a worse state than most African countries, but not all the countries in the region are in the same boat as Africa.
Every developing country has had high corruption, and developed countries are hardly corruption-free. Corruption is just this vague airy thing people wave their hands at to explain anything bad about their country. It's also a convenient one size fits all explanation, with no attention paid to the specific circumstances and context of that country. But no, it's never that simple. Reducing corruption happens alongside development, it isn't a prerequisite for it.
@@ArawnOfAnnwn really so Russia ‘isn’t developed’ and keeps tumbling in blatantly corrupt authoritarian regimes last 1,000 years?
Exactly!
But here are people claiming genetic inferiority. Racists!
Add India to that list
The chart (13:38) showing the majority of enslaved Africans going to the 13 colonies is blatantly wrong. Britian, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain and other European countries dwarfed the 13 colonies both in numbers of slaves and the time period over which they were imported.
Nigeria's oil money is distributed into the many accounts of Nigerian politicians in London banks. Citibank was the deposit center for Abacha, about $3 billion.
Thank you, I’m so tired of hearing Africa is the poorest country. If the money made from oil was circulating within the economy we wouldn’t be poor. There is one problem and one problem only corruption. We have the resources, we have the labor and we have the entrepreneurship, we just have politicians that have chosen to partner with the west to keep us poor and keep the money.
Yeah, it's largely the US/Europe bleeding wealth.
Geography is a problem. Difficult to build roads. Lacking navigable waterways. Terrible coastline for ports.
I've seen every explaination possible, yet no one talks about Africa's IQ and racial differences.
MIT is not needed to realize that Africa is populated by Africans. Asia is doing great after colonialism, so do most other nations in Europe after wars and hardships. Demography is key.
South Korea was in ruins, without food, without (natural) resources. Something about working (hard)....
Something about having an average IQ over 50.
@@pirateray6715or 109ish actually. That's why you're car, phone, TV are made in this tiny backwater country
I got feeling that tropical diseases were limited to Africa and that they didn't exist in tropical part of present day Latin America and in tropical South Asia and Oceania. Didn't malaria, for example, exist outside of Africa too? And were dangerous animals also living only in Africa? As i read, lions lived in Asia and Europe too before they were wiped out of there. Elephants live in India too and there is subspecies of tiger - bengali tiger and many poisonous snakes (cobra...) in India. South America had their own dangerous animals too (dangerous fish (piranha), poisonous snakes, large cats,...
It's the soft bigotry of low expectations, which always comes up in face of factual evidence.
Malaria existed in the US. That is why we needed African labor for plantation work. Native Americans and Irish workers kept dying since they don’t have sickle cell. Africans have sickle cell and are more immune to malaria due to that genetic adaptation. The Europeans didn’t pick African slaves for convenience. They would’ve used Irish or Slavic people as they usually did in their human rights abuses. They used Africans due to their immunity from malaria
I don't see the point in making arguments like these.
EE's argument is like a pizza and your argument is like taking a topping off and calling that topping a pizza.
Bringing up cases of Malaria in other parts of the world just ignores other aspects EE argued.
@@thinkbetter5286oh, i am sorry. i already found that but forgot to publish a correction here.
I know for a fact that malaria was a thing in medieval England. It was also present in Germany, close to the rivers.
Please change the thumbnail to: "Exactly what you think", it saves lots of everyone's time.
You must be disappointed 🙂
This video is extremely incorrect in every way search up “how economic explained gets African history wrong” this video I actually missinformation
@siliwhizincorrect they filled it in with their own biases
This video is extremely incorrect in every way search up “how economic explained gets African history wrong” this video I actually missinformation
The first breakthrough is learning to trust one another. This can be stated as, good institutions lead to economic success. Or, it can be stated in its older form: Love your neighbor as yourself.
A lot of the reasons spelt out in this video for why Africa is so poor often sound more like excuses. Many European countries for example are also land locked but have access to international markets. A book called Dead Aid by Dambisa Moyo is a great read that addresses many of the questions.
Many "landlocked" European countries are not in practice landlocked, because it is easy to transport goods on the large rivers like the Rhine and Donau. For example, even Switzerland and Austria has some large ports. There is not actually a single European country that does not have ports with ocean access because of all the deep rivers across the continent.
This is not the case for the vast majority of landlocked African countries
Things sound like excuses when you aren't willing to listen
They are advanced NOW, for most of history those landlocked European countries have been sh*tholes. The only exception is Switzerland 🇨🇭 who is a very special case.
@@NulledSeriesnope. He's right
@@Spacemongerr interesting. and what is the excuse for the ones that border the oceans?
Corrupt politicians can totally destroy any hope of progress.
corrupt politicians are backed by people who tolerate/advocate for corruption. they do not germ from ex-nihilo.
Specially when they are put in place by western powers
100% incorrect. Every country has corrupt politicians. The difference in developed countries is they have strong institutions and culture that limit the damage that corrupt politicians can do.
@@stochastic42 Also incorrect, developed countries continually plunder underdeveloped countries, they just paint this as willing capitalist exchange.
@@spawel1 Although correct, that point doesn't refute mine.
There is one thing all of Sub Saharan Africa has in common
kek
Average IQ sub 75?
@@CelticSaint Oh yeah smarty pants, explain to me how the most successful man in history (Elon Musk) is African American? CHECKMATE
@@thoughtcriminal-k5lThere's no such thing as 'African American'. It's a made up nonsense term that doesn't actually exist.
All interacted with the west and suffered for it.
One comment that stood out in the video but did not get enough attention was that in Botswana they have "stable well defined property rights". Without that, you will have a difficult time accessing the financial market, since property is often the initial source of collateral you can offer in exchange for a loan to more rapidly improve your situation in life. Corruption, underdeveloped infrastructure, and thereby limited access to efficient markets, as well as free exchange of ideas and education is missing in many place, mainly because of corruption and corrupt leaders. Leaders with a well developed moral compass is likely the one thing that has to come first for this crazy cycle of bad outcomes to end.
As an African ( from Kivu DR Congo) this was extremely informative but extremely depressing. Our generation and the next will have to be extremely creative to find solutions to our issues
If congo stopped being corrupt it will be fine
There's a simple answer to this question (just look at Haiti, South Africa, Zimbabwe), but I'm afraid I'd be banned for saying it out loud
Ah... They're all African race
Exactly
They had no problems with agriculture in Rhodesia….. Zimbabwean can’t relate
That's true. But why do you think it's like that? Why did the Europeans do well, but today, under the local people, agriculture is in such disarray?
@@danstewart2770 They do not understand the farming techniques, lack the education, and the application of equipment itself.
Historically Africans are bad farmers because game was so populous the tribes were formed and based around hunting. Meanwhile European advancements saw techniques in farming continue to evolve and "modernize". This is an extremely simplified answer but it is kind of the root of the issue.
@@number2and3 Generalized an inaccurate answer. Not all Africans are hunter gatherers.
@@keshi5541 Far majority of Sub Saharan Africa was. Northern Africa and some of the more developed areas in West Africa is different. There is a reason why they did not even have the wheel in most of Sub Saharan African societies when they were first contacted by Europeans.
The farmland is also generally not great. This is why they never developed large scale agriculture meanwhile it took over Europe. Africa was still extremely tribal and they were hunter gatherers.
How about you make a substantiated claim other than you're wrong?
This video doesn’t acknowledge that there have been extremely successful African civilizations in the past (like the kingdom of Mali).
You correctly point out that Australia has the same severe limitations in Africa that prevented civilizations developing there. And yet today, it is one of the world's richest countries in the world. It's almost like something dramatically changed there in recent centuries. Oh I wonder what it could be making the difference with Africa? Will we ever get to the bottom of this mystery....
Australia is not landlocked, and its not as hot Africa.
@@aoeu256 are you high or are you trolling?
Austrailia is made of migrant europeans who came from already developed countries, so I don't get what your point is.
@@masudnakhooda2436that is the point... Australia is full of Europeans, Africa is full of Africans
@@masudnakhooda2436 except the small number of natives... Who funnily enough can't live in houses even if you give them free. They trash them, they don't understand them.
As a south african i say less tribalism...more education.
This video is extremely incorrect in every way search up “how economic explained gets African history wrong” this video I actually missinformation
I feel that there is a lot of a sense of entitlement among young South African students. A sense of entitlement can hold a nation back
weird phrasing to say how the resources in Africa work against the people living there as if it's some spectre of circumstance and not intentionally created, i.e an end result of the sustained imperialism Africa faces because of the sheer resource wealth it holds and the endless holes of influence any number of outside economic partners can have in volatile and impressionable markets in countries that might have weak constitutions, etc.
For example, in a country where officials are corrupt, money is flowing, etc, like, they're not just skimming tax dollars. You can bet western businesses that do business in the country, like mining or energy conglomerates, are a part of that greasing, and have been since even the independence in the post-ww2 era for most of these countries as their industries themselves were still wholly reliant on western partnerships. Even with independence, a nations mining industry may have been wholly monopolized by one or two or three western companies, or maybe the countries biggest shipping and transport hubs were operated by outside companies, etc, and like today, said companies would very much be involved in regional and country wide corruption and likely also involve themselves in lobbying schemes. The corruption endemic to these countries is literally part of the larger global flow of capital by extension, and is just in-groups finding people they can incorporate into that cooperation and keep the fleecing going in favor of private profits.
Are these corruption schemes themselves often weighed down by the incompetence, tyranny, nepotism etc of the partners businesses are working with? Absolutely? But modern africa is literally on the map how it is, the nations how they are etc because of how western nations partitioned them, mostly arbitrarily, except for maybe Ethiopia. Nothing in Africa today happened in a vacuum, it happened as a direct result of imperialism, including the massive gaps in quality of living, minority rule, those same endemic corruptions that see power entrench around specific groups in general in a country, countries with weak constitutions that don't support organized legal oppositions, etc, coupled even more so that all the corrupt officials running these countries....hide their wealth overseas in the West, in real estate and other speculative things, intertwining their corruption even further with other elements abroad. Theres a back and forth between stakeholders in the economies african goods go to and the stakeholders who control those economies / industries in Africa and the end result absolutely lends itself to sustaining and entrenching those corrupt circles that strip the continent of its wealth - the *whole* world literally needs resources from Africa, it's very intentionally that those goods are being extracted and exported as cheaply as humanly possible, because international business desperately benefits from that turbo-cheap extraction regardless of it's value and work hard to maintain that status quo.
Africa has remained 'behind' because africa saw no benign development by outside agitators in the first place across the 1800s through to the end of the colonial era and those outside agitators maintained inroads to maintain those circumstances as best they can regardless of what the people in those places actually need or want. If you literally cannot talk about the circumstances people have arrived in without acknowledging it was through contact with your civilization that delivered them to those dire circumstances, probably something intentional within those interactions delivered those circumstances, then. Africa is contemporary to the story of industrialized societies and the export markets have maintained a tight control and influence over Africa as a result. Africa's resource wealth is immense and worth immense value, hence driving down the cost of extracting that, regardless of how evil the person youre paying off is to maintain that status quo, kinda becomes how capitalism interacts with that market. It absolutely exploits the vulnerabilities a lack of regulation brings.
This is, by a large margin, the best comment I've seen in this comment section so far.
Ah, another use of faux intellectualism trying to just blame the white man to relieve responsibility from those who have been in control for a long time and who have yet to resolve the problem...not to mention that these issue predate imperialism.
There's no doubt that imperialism played a role in shaping the countries in Africa. Fortunately it played no role whatsoever in shaping any other countries in the world, correct? There was literally no imperialism in Europe, right?
No, this is clearly a combination of some of what you said (lingering corrupt foreign entities [not all of which are "Western"]), and a massive cultural mentality of tribalism and warlording. Take what you want, relationships be damned. It's so painfully evident here in South Africa. The current government was given every opportunity to have an extremely successful country, but decided instead to get in bed with corrupt foreign Indian and Chinese entities, granting government tenders to family members for 3-10 times to prices while there was no experience or competence. All the while, vilifying anyone in the media who isn't black.
No...this is obviously cultural primarily. It's naïve and bigoted to think that Africans are so incompetent that they CAN'T get out from the former boot of colonialism...a boot that was removed a long time ago. Do you not think that African people can stand on their own two feet? Must everyone just make excuses for them? That's the real bigotry here.
Make them take responsibility for it. Skin colour is irrelevant. This is cultural. A culture of greed, violence and destroying whatever you can't take is what's to blame here.
Africa is not how western nations partitioned them. Its literally by tribal land ownership and treaties. Which is why political figures there rotate based off ethnicity as opposto political beliefs because each tribe refuses to truly trust any others with national power
Its also why they’re insanely corrupt and were unable to develop themselves with third party action for a millennium. You can’t blame everything on muh imperialism bro. Ireland, Puerto Rico, Cuba, phillipines, and singapore prove most of africa has a cultural problem with wealth development
Funny how the "curse" of natural resource wealth hasn't hit, for instance, Norway or Saudi Arabia.
This is hilarious.. if you have nothing (Singapore, post war Korea) , not your fault. If you have everything ( Africa) not your fault.
Did they factor IQ disparity in their analysis as a possible contributor to the sustained violence, poverty, and cultural failure over known African history? At all?
IQ has been known to have a correlation with levels of literacy, access to early childhood development education, amounts of nutrition available to children etc. What point are you trying to make?
@ it seems obvious to both you and I that IQ very likely plays a part in the historic depravity of sub-Saharan Africa. My question was, did the people consider that when assessing potential causes for this horrific reality?.
Africa has had ample demonstration of viable and highly beneficial, technology and ideology, which has benefited a huge majority mankind. Yet when given control of their government, it appears that they immediately revert back to the barbaric, cruel and genocidal disposition which exemplified their history for thousands of years.
As such, recent circumstantial issues; colonialism, slavery, exploitation, really can’t adequately explain the continuity of the present with the ancient past.
That was the point of my question, obviously.
@@christianmutiga301 so, there are circumstantial elements which affect our bodily development, no question about it, however, no matter how good the nutrition, education, literacy, there will remain a disparity of white to black NBA players.
Organs have a ceiling beyond which circumstance cannot benefit. Poverty, cruelty, and empathy all are dependent upon mental function, of this there is no dispute, the only question is -to what extent- . In the US, the most violent area in any city is 100% predicted by the density of the Black population.
Why? and how could any answer NOT address the brain function which is at least partially dependent on genetics?
I don't know how to put this. Let me start slowly. Before the French Revolution, a corrupt monarchy taxed the French citizenry. A Revolution deposed this government. Subsequently, thousands of Frenchmen were executed on allegations of dishonoring the evolution. Read on the Bolshevik Revolution and the subsequent porgroms. Or Hitler. Or American troops in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Predominantly white groups, led by white men. I would never argue that white men are historically depraved and predisposed to maniacal massacres of their own, and other races. Because I understand that institutions, and ideology, are the vessels of violence. If I was to claim so about white men, it would be a racist conclusion. You sir, are racist against Africans.
In Sub Saharan Africa, beautiful cultures have thrived. Violence and conquest has hurt the continent, but so has it hurt humanity. Claiming that Africans are predisposed to barbarism is the logic the slave owners of USA, the colonial officers of the past century uttered to justify their OWN DEPRAVITY. To attempt to calm the cognitive dissonance of coming from a culture that spoke so highly of lofty virtues of democracy, while they represented the worst of it. I am African.
Kinda cant believe how little depth there was on the agriculture argument, when agriculture is the basis of civilization. The reason other regions developed, was they had a staple crop, and their lands would expand more west - east thus having a more similar weather for these crops. Africa is larger north - south which means a lot more climate zones where different staple crops are needed.
Good observation.
Agriculture takes a lot of hard work. Why do that when you can just go out and hunt something then spend the rest of the day sitting under a tree?
@@twelvestitches984 hmm you do know that the hard work is only in harvest and planting seasons and the rest of the year you get to lay about. Right?
But exactly my point was how climate affects whether a culture adopts agriculture (and this becomes more complex as a society)
@@franbalcal My point is that hunting is much easier than planting, watering, harvesting, and storing crops. So what if crops produce more, it's more work. Africa is poor because of laziness, not the climate.
Climate does affect whether you adopt agriculture or not but Africa is not the Antarctic. If they built dams to store more water they would be able produce much more than they do but that would take a lot of work.
@@twelvestitches984Is that right!!!
Gemini AI will never say the answer
Imagine prompting it to show a picture of a typical colonizer in 19th century Africa😂 they should've let us have fun with it for a little longer just for the memes, LOL
What's the answer?
@@BDee3126 They're just built different.
@@loneIyboy15 Its in the jeans
How is that relevant
I understand that one can not build rail tracks through mountains nor sand deserts but they had over 100 years to build some. Even their roads are terrible. The Romans build bridges >1k years ago.
And people build railroads over mountains all the time.
Brazil did exactly that tho in 20 yrs first with gov and then privatized it to make it more efficient
It's a short boat trip from West Africa to Europe... No need for tracks in the Sahara.. just nothing interesting to ship