Why didn't they become great like Europe and Asia?

Smdh i fuckin hate wypipo

You didn't build those pyramids 'groid.

better than subhuman birdshit honkey architecture

7/10 for all the effort

Lack of navigable rivers, tropical diseases, lack of easily extractable resources, too many linguistic/tribal difference, the list goes on.

...

Based turkposter

Botswana is actually not doing too bad.

>kingdom of aksum
>christian Ethiopia
i thought those were the same entity

...

Honestly a lot of westerners traded with africans because even with superior weapons it was hard to navigate let alone survive the wildernes
Slavery was encouraged by Black african kings

most of the planet is not "great"

>Fucknasty bugs
>Fucknasty spiders
>Fucknasty snakes
>Fuckdeadly land and marine animals
>Fuckubernasty parasites
Those weren't problem for Australians

Australians had Europe as a starting point.

>Measuring the worth of a civ by how shiny their buildings were
What are you, a magpie?

I'm on weird loop with this. On the one hand this used to annoy me seeing this posted every day.
Now I just laugh at the thought of some guy saving pictures of Africa and thinking of new ways to ask the same question.

Is this accurate?

>I'll show them all the white man is superior!

Jews arent a race tho

Bingo. The "great" civilisations of Asia, Europe and the Middle East didn't develop in a vacuum, they all took the things worth taking from their neighbors and had their own forms of government, culture and technology borrowed from in term. Africa was simply too isolated for it to reach European standards.

They were like the Amerindians, set back civilization wise, sub Saharan Africa was mostly comprised of tribes with some ancient tier kingdoms.

Europe was already advanced under roman rule and after christianization and feudalization of central and Eastern Europe the entire continent was absorbed into western civilization which led to the exploration age and global dominance.

Jews are both a race and a religion.

low iq

How come there was never a African Rome?
>the entire continent was absorbed into western civilization
>the entire continent
Do you understand what the West means?

>implying Europe or Asia is great as a whole.

Wow those Albania feats sure are amazing.

*Every reason except the proven low IQ*

Underrated post. You made me laugh audibly on a busy bus.
Thank you ser.

>proven
The (You) you ordered has arrived.

Imperialism

>US President Barack Obama has given South Africa 60 days to remove barriers to US farm produce or face sanctions in a long-running row over chicken exports.
bbc.co.uk/news/world-afr

>The South African Poultry Association argues that more American chicken on South African plates would result in the loss of 6,500 jobs and threaten the development of black-owned, small-scale chicken farms.
economist.com/news/midd

mg.co.za/article/2017-11-10
>Victims of the EU’s shockingly immoral approach to trade in poultry include, to date, Cameroon, Senegal, Ghana and, more recently, South Africa. As a consequence of a flood of imports, 70% of broiler operations in Senegal closed. In Cameroon, 120000 people lost their jobs. In Ghana, according to the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, poultry processing plants were reduced to operating at 25% of capacity, and feed mills were reduced to 42% of capacity.

>At the 2016 UN General Assembly, Ghana’s President John Mahama claimed that the imported chicken crisis was a key factor for many people migrating from Africa to Europe. Ghanaians who embark on the risky journey to Europe are poultry farmers or entrepreneurs who “sell their shops and undertake the journey because they can no longer compete with the tonnes of frozen chicken dumped on African markets annually”.

>Corporations-foreign and domestic alike- report false prices on their trade invoices in order to spirit money out of developing countries directly into tax havens and secrecy jurisdictions. Developing countries lose $875 billion through trade misinvoicing a year.

>A similarly large amount flows out annually through " abusive transfer pricing", a mechanism that multinational companies use to steal money from developing countries by shifting profits illegally between their own subsidiaries in different countries.

>Jason Hickel, The Divide, 2017, Heinnemann, London

>We have long been told a compelling story about the relationship between rich countries and poor countries. The story holds that the rich nations of the OECD give generously of their wealth to the poorer nations of the global south, to help them eradicate poverty and push them up the development ladder. Yes, during colonialism western powers may have enriched themselves by extracting resources and slave labour from their colonies – but that’s all in the past. These days, they give more than $125bn (£102bn) in aid each year – solid evidence of their benevolent goodwill.

>The US-based Global Financial Integrity (GFI) and the Centre for Applied Research at the Norwegian School of Economics recently published some fascinating data. They tallied up all of the financial resources that get transferred between rich countries and poor countries each year: not just aid, foreign investment and trade flows (as previous studies have done) but also non-financial transfers such as debt cancellation, unrequited transfers like workers’ remittances, and unrecorded capital flight (more of this later). As far as I am aware, it is the most comprehensive assessment of resource transfers ever undertaken.

>What they discovered is that the flow of money from rich countries to poor countries pales in comparison to the flow that runs in the other direction.

>In 2012, the last year of recorded data, developing countries received a total of $1.3tn, including all aid, investment, and income from abroad. But that same year some $3.3tn flowed out of them. In other words, developing countries sent $2tn more to the rest of wthe world than they received. If we look at all years since 1980, these net outflows add up to an eye-popping total of $16.3tn – that’s how much money has been drained out of the global south over the past few decades. To get a sense for the scale of this, $16.3tn is roughly the GDP of the United States

>What this means is that the usual development narrative has it backwards. Aid is effectively flowing in reverse. Rich countries aren’t developing poor countries; poor countries are developing rich ones.

>That’s 24 times more than the aid budget. In other words, for every $1 of aid that developing countries receive, they lose $24 in net outflows. These outflows strip developing countries of an important source of revenue and finance for development. The GFI report finds that increasingly large net outflows have caused economic growth rates in developing countries to decline, and are directly responsible for falling living standards.

theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2017/jan/14/aid-in-reverse-how-poor-countries-develop-rich-countries

>Thank you ser.
*cringes*

When was Madagascar next to Egypt??

The Songhai were pretty cool and had their shit together before contact with the outside world, however they were btfo by a Spanish eunuch and their empire splintered.

>From the 1980s, a different discourse emerged, pushing for financial globalization including international financial liberalization. Three main arguments were offered. First, a net flow of funds from capital-rich countries to capital-poor countries would ensue. This did not happen, but the contrary happened instead, as capital flowed from the capital-poor to the capital-rich. Mainstream economists could not account for this phenomenon and described it as “capital flowing uphill,” instead of revising their economic analysis in light of empirical realities. Meanwhile, the impoverishment of poor countries has actually been worsened by international financial liberalization.
>Jomo Kwame Sundaram (2014) Globalization, imperialism and its discontents,
Inter-Asia Cultural Studies

Before the Jews terraformed the Med

I don't actually think race realist types dismiss the Ashkenazi Jewish average IQ superiority.

>Stronger nations protecting their trade interests is immoral
It's not even imperialistic, there is no conquest, theft, or imposing of external value systems, just incompetence in trade.

>pushing for financial globalization including international financial liberalization. Three main arguments were offered. First, a net flow of funds from capital-rich countries to capital-poor countries would ensue
Literally when has this ever happened?

This is going to be an unpopular answer but the extraction of resources by Europeans didn't really help Africa. The only infrastructure the Europeans built was to enable easier resource extraction. See: Congo.

Fuck, didn't finish. Now I'm not saying that Africans had the technology to extract and use the resources that were in Africa, but if Europeans had a more humane view of Africans and not (wrongly) considered them sub-humans they could have helped Africa along the way and educate the population, build essential infrastructure, etc.

But did the provision of jobs, and the infrastructure necessary to extract resources not give the continent, and the people native to it, a leg up of sorts? Not trying to debate or anything, generally interested in knowing about this topic.

Europe over great period of time became great because of many reasons, including colonialism.
Asia became great because of investments during cold war from both sides.

Asia is great? What the hell ever happened in Asia besides a little cheeky colonialism?

desu most of the stuff we use today are made in Asia.
You know cars like Toyota
Home stuff like Samsung
iphones,androids etc..

Different times. Aksum was around 100-960. Christian Ethiopia probably begins with Solomonic dynasty around 1290 I believe.

In theory yes, but in practice the leg up is to help them join the global economic regime of "free trade" which means opening their markets up so rich countries can get cheap labour and goods.

>It's not even imperialistic,

t.thomas friedman

If by job you mean brutal labour with quotas and punishments if they didn't fulfill the quotas and salaries in food then yes. If they weren't paid in food they'd be paid in company credits, which they could only use in their employer's stores.

Pic related is a good book on the Congo.

To be clear, Aksum was also Christian starting in the 4th century

can someone explain the overlapping borders to me

...

time

Different time periods some are older than others, the Songhai took over Timbuktu and brought the Niger river civilizations under it's hegemony until it fractures back into a number of states.

Not an african expert, so time is an answer, but the idea of the state, as being a place with clearly defined borders, is a very modern one.

James Scott's The Art of Not Being Governed, which covers upland South East Asia is a fascinating book on that topic and others.

*gets conquered by flavor-of-the-century Mesopotamian empire*

>spain had nothing to do with south america

native australians were just as bad off, if not worse than the most isolated african tribes

low iq