Geography and Africa's underdevelopment

[Nilotic]

I don't subscribe to Thomas Sowell's worldview, however, I found his geographic explanations for Africa's lack of development pretty convincing.

Here is the video below:

 

[J-Rasta]

Thanks for posting it.
I will definitely look into the video.
The man has an interesting insight.

 

[Basra]

I don't subscribe to Thomas Sowell's worldview, however, I found his geographic explanations for Africa's lack of development pretty convincing.

Here is the video below:

it is interesting. The Video claims because Africa is NOT sea ferrying continent or people, it has contributed to their stagnancy. That Africa is mostly inland and not exposed to many water inlets, which has caused African cities not growing to major world cities like the ones in Europe. It is true the bigger port you have and the more water inlet your country has, the more ilbaax and ahead of the inland people u r. U r several steps ahead of them. it gives u the opportunity to venture outside your world and interact with outside world. Think Somalia and Nigeria both have healthy inlet of water ports. That is why are they smarter than average Africans.

 

[Shimbiris]

People really underestimate geography. It would always annoy me when I saw people on Anthropology forums deriding mostly nomadic cultures like the steppe Indo-Europeans and Turko-Mongols, peninsular Arabs or even the nomads of East Africa. Exactly what do you expect them to do? Most of that land, especially before modern technology, was completely useless for anything other than pastoral nomadism. For the environment they lived in the Scythians, Mongols, Arabs and even groups like your own ancestors did pretty well for themselves.

 

[Apollo]

IMO, culture and institutions are way more important than geography.

West vs East Germany during the cold war, North vs South Korea currently, Nogales USA vs Nogales MX prove this.

Why Nations Fail by Acemoglu is a much better book and theory than Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond.

 

[NordicSomali]

IMO, culture and institutions are way more important than geography.

West vs East Germany during the cold war, North vs South Korea currently, Nogales USA vs Nogales MX prove this.

Why Nations Fail by Acemoglu is a much better book and theory than Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond.

true , landlocked countries can be poorer but they don't have to be chaotic or undemocratic
either coastal areas have no excuse for underdevelopment, in particular our Somalia that have the entire Asia at its door

 

[Shimbiris]

IMO, culture and institutions are way more important than geography.

West vs East Germany during the cold war, North vs South Korea currently, Nogales USA vs Nogales MX prove this.

Why Nations Fail by Acemoglu is a much better book and theory than Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond.

The savage Germano-Celt learned much when he adopted Roman law and custom. Yes indeed.

 

[Nilotic]

People really underestimate geography. It would always annoy me when I saw people on Anthropology forums deriding mostly nomadic cultures like the steppe Indo-Europeans and Turko-Mongols, peninsular Arabs or even the nomads of East Africa. Exactly what do you expect them to do? Most of that land, especially before modern technology, was completely useless for anything other than pastoral nomadism. For the environment they lived in the Scythians, Mongols, Arabs and even groups like your own ancestors did pretty well for themselves.

Exactly this!

People that are bridled by geography are unlikely to reach the heights of those that had favourable conditions at hand; also, isolated groups are almost always comparatively backward in political, economic, scientific-technological, military and even social terms.

 

[Apollo]

When Moldova joins the EU either via merging with Romania or on its own while Ukraine doesn't, it will prove the cultural/institutional theory.

Especially over a time horizon like 50 years.

 

[Nilotic]

IMO, culture and institutions are way more important than geography.

West vs East Germany during the cold war, North vs South Korea currently, Nogales USA vs Nogales MX prove this.

Why Nations Fail by Acemoglu is a much better book and theory than Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond.

I definitely agree that culture and the institutions of a State are the biggest determinants, however, we've only recently been able to address geographic limitations and environmental conditions through the use of technology; think of all the lands that were unsuitable for agriculture before the use of phosphate + ammonium.

African Countries are still largely individual States rather than institutional States -- and this I think is one of the reasons why they're so unstable. Culture is undoubtedly the greatest determinant and African Nations are in a sorry state when it comes to culture.

 

[Shimbiris]

When Moldova joins the EU either via merging with Romania or on its own while Ukraine doesn't, it will prove the cultural/institutional theory.

Especially over a time horizon like 50 years.

I'd have to read the books you've recommended in order to sincerely debate you on this but for now I'll just that there's more to it than just institutions. Think about the opportunities immediately afforded to you when you region becomes a part of the United States versus belonging to a poorer Latin American country that is consistently sabotaged by the US whenever it gets any kind of hold on power. Being part of the EU will mean than just having better laws and outlooks. It will also mean more opened up trade and overall opportunities.

 

[HiraanBorn]

It's because of that damn ocean of sand called the Sahara that blocked Sub-Saharan Africa from interacting on any meaningful level with the rest of the old world. Africa, in general, is not an easy continent to live in with its tropical diseases and lack of good river systems (except for the Nile, Niger and maybe Congo river).

 

[Shimbiris]

I definitely agree that culture and the institutions of a State are the biggest determinants, however, we've only recently been able to address geographic limitations and environmental conditions through the use of technology; think of all the lands that were unsuitable for agriculture before the use of phosphate + ammonium.

African Countries are still largely individual States rather than institutional States -- and this I think is one of the reasons why they're so unstable. Culture is undoubtedly the greatest determinant and African Nations are in a sorry state when it comes to culture.

I hate to say it and I only say this because I got it from various Africans themselves on forums over the years but the issue is that most African countries are fake countries. That is to say that they are propped up colonial states that are usually not based on any historical kingdoms or ethnic boundaries.

Look at Nigeria or Kenya as prime examples and Somalia and Ethiopia as opposite examples where one exists based on the dominant local ethnicity and their own lobbying for independence and the other is based on the borders and acquisitions of an actual historical empire. In contrast, there is no real cultural or historical basis for why a lot of African countries like Nigeria or Kenya should even exist, though ironically even countries like Somalia and Ethiopia are hilariously fragmented nowadays.

Anyway, I've seen for many years how some types online from some of these countries will argue that their own home country like Kenya shouldn't even exist and they, as a Kikuyu for example, feel no real kinship with their fellow countrymen who are Maasai or Somali or Swahili or whatever and you can't blame them. Africa would benefit from some border restructuring, me thinks. Perhaps some of these politicians would care more if there was a real country they truly felt was theirs they in turn felt loyal to. Would at least make nationalism easier to inspire.

 

[Apollo]

@Nilotic @Shimbiris

Tbh, it is a mix of both, early on in human history it leaned heavily towards geography and local biology, but nowadays the thing that is the biggest factor explaining relative wealth vs poverty is IMO almost exclusively institutional.

PS. Institutional doesn't mean only laws, but also the entire culture and actual implementation/execution of laws. Many former colonies got Western laws, but the corruption level and implementation (rule of law, actual power of regulations) is totally different from the West.

 

[Nilotic]

I hate to say it and I only say this because I got it from various Africans themselves on forums over the years but the issue is that most African countries are fake countries. That is to say that they are propped up colonial states that are usually not based on any historical kingdoms or ethnic boundaries.

Look at Nigeria or Kenya as prime examples and Somalia and Ethiopia as opposite examples where one exists based on the dominant local ethnicity and their own lobbying for independence and the other is based on the borders and acquisitions of an actual historical empire. In contrast, there is no real cultural or historical basis for why a lot of African countries like Nigeria or Kenya should even exist, though ironically even countries like Somalia and Ethiopia are hilariously fragmented nowadays.

Anyway, I've seen for many years how some types online from some of these countries will argue that their own home country like Kenya shouldn't even exist and they, as a Kikuyu for example, feel no real kinship with their fellow countrymen who are Maasai or Somali or Swahili or whatever and you can't blame them. Africa would benefit from some border restructuring, me thinks. Perhaps some of these politicians would care more if there was a real country they truly felt was theirs they in turn felt loyal to. Would at least make nationalism easier to inspire.

I wrote something similar months ago

African States are entirely fictional; the tribes are the real Nations and it's the tribes most of us owe our loyalty to; there is no patriotism in Africa.

@Shimbiris

I agree with you about the fictional nature of our Nation-States, however, I disagree with you regarding the solution; it would be absolutely disastrous if we tried to redraw the borders; that Pandora's box should remain hermetically sealed because groups have moved in and about those borders since they were drawn up.

The solution (and its process) is going to be terribly frustrating and painfully slow, but I think it's far more preferable to continent wide India-Pakistan splits; we should do the best to build the Nation-States we have now.


Equitable political representation, economic distribution and proper education could go a long way to engendering patriotism.

There should be islands of wealth all over the continent if politicians from dominant groups truly identified with their ethnic groups...

..I don't think it would matter because Africans operate from a philosophical deficit and nothing would fundamentally change if they fragment into smaller, homogeneous States.

 

[Nilotic]

@Nilotic @Shimbiris

Tbh, it is a mix of both, early on in human history it leaned heavily towards geography and local biology, but nowadays the thing that is the biggest factor explaining relative wealth vs poverty is IMO almost exclusively institutional.

PS. Institutional doesn't mean only laws, but also the entire culture and actual implementation/execution of laws. Many former colonies got Western laws, but the corruption level and implementation (rule of law, actual power of regulations) is totally different from the West.

This is precisely why I think it would take decades to create new cultures that are not only philosophically and ethically coherent, but also superior; African Nations are corrupt because Africans are corrupt; the poverty almost neccesitates the corruption, but a dearth of ethical and political philosophy is the biggest culprit.

All of this reminds me of Clifford Hugh Douglas and his notion of 'cultural inheritance'; 'cultural inheritance' extends to science, economics and production.

 

[Shimbiris]

This is precisely why I think it would take decades to create new cultures that are not only philosophically and ethically coherent, but also superior; African Nations are corrupt because Africans are corrupt; the poverty almost neccesitates the corruption, but a dearth of ethical and political philosophy is the biggest culprit.

All of this reminds me of Clifford Hugh Douglas and his notion of 'cultural inheritance'; 'cultural inheritance' extends to science, economics and production.

Honestly, Somalia in particular mostly fucked up by betting on the wrong horse and proceeding to also piss off said horse. The horse being the USSR. We would probably be a lot better off today if Afweyn had the foresight to bet on the Americans like Khaleejis did. But who knows, they might have eventually fucked us over anyway like they have with most of their Arab republic satrapies. But most of those niggas like Saddam or Gaddafi were asking for it and making too many antagonistic plays against the West.

 

[The alchemist]

@Nilotic @Shimbiris

Tbh, it is a mix of both, early on in human history it leaned heavily towards geography and local biology, but nowadays the thing that is the biggest factor explaining relative wealth vs poverty is IMO almost exclusively institutional.

PS. Institutional doesn't mean only laws, but also the entire culture and actual implementation/execution of laws. Many former colonies got Western laws, but the corruption level and implementation (rule of law, actual power of regulations) is totally different from the West.

Correct, geography had more say in the past (it still does a lot, of course) now the quality of institutions is more crucial than anything, one can argue. But then we have to say, these successful nations expanded their influence and power in so many ways throughout modern history that has made it hard for people that inherited difficult geography to facilitate something synthetically more functional because they are locked in these human-made structural forces and power dynamics that are part of a global phenomenon. Not only that, Africans have inherited and created negative cultures around power practice and the lack of respect for the institutional functionality, where traditional forces and tendencies did not mature well with the complexity of the modern world and the need for a coherent layered framework building formation, yet are still highly merged in a manner that is dysfunctional on the formal political landscape.

There are different types of approaches to how one can recognize where the root of the problems around this lies. One of them is definitely how Western systems were adopted prematurely without any real insight into how the new systems should practically apply, or never cared to find out how to integrate organic dispositions for a tailormade political process to allow for a natural paradigm shift. You have to remember, the only reason these Western systems were mainly encouraged was their effectiveness in how it gave the West a lot of reach of influence; there was never any respect, concern, or altruism involved.

 

[World]

IMO, culture and institutions are way more important than geography.

West vs East Germany during the cold war, North vs South Korea currently, Nogales USA vs Nogales MX prove this.

Why Nations Fail by Acemoglu is a much better book and theory than Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond.

That may be the case today, but before the industrial revolution I would say geography was much more important.

 

[Apollo]

That may be the case today, but before the industrial revolution I would say geography was much more important.

Mainland China vs Taiwan

Singapore vs Malaysia

Rwanda vs Burundi

Lots of natural experiments.

The institutional factor is massive nowadays.