Quote: (03-14-2017 04:44 PM)Fast Eddie Wrote:
Quote: (03-14-2017 03:09 PM)frenchcorporation Wrote:
Quote: (03-14-2017 01:23 PM)wi30 Wrote:
Has there ever not been mass starvation and famine in Africa?
Yes, before white people turned up. Same goes for India. Europeans arent going to solve a problem they caused, and are still causing.
Most people dont know that Winston Churchill caused a famine in India that killed millions. The sooner European countries leave Africa to their own devices, the better for Africa. But there's too much money at stake for that to actually happen.
True, but only because prior to the arrival of the Europeans, African population density was never able to exceed levels enabled by Africans' own endogenous technological and organizational skills.
When the Europeans arrived, their superior agricultural and organizational techniques allowed an explosion in the amount of food produced, which removed the Malthusian limits Africans previously faced and allowed the African population to explode.
Then when the Europeans left/were booted, the Africans found themselves in a pickle. They were now at European levels of population density but without the Europeans, they were struggling to maintain the civilizational infrastructure required to maintain that density level.
So are the Europeans to blame? Depends how you look at it. Any Africans who end up dying of starvation because European technology enabled African populations to exceed levels Africans are capable of sustaining on their own would never have been born in the first place were it not for the Europeans.
If we look at historical population patterns, we can see that African population was more or less stuck at ~50m for centuries. It then exploded to close to a billion in less than 150 years after Europeans established a heavy presence on the African continent. In other words, 950 million Africans alive today owe their very existence to the evil Europeans "fucking up" Africa.
![[Image: ja3O.jpg]](http://i.picresize.com/images/2017/03/14/ja3O.jpg)
And it's not just Africa, obviously. 90%+ of the "people of color" alive today are alive only because of the evil white man they love to hate so much.
"European levels of density"....?
Where did you learn that?
Africa is largely empty, it has some if the lowest people per hectare levels around. Only North America and South America are populated more sparse (Australia does not count in this context).
Even going by country it is obvious the place is largely empty:
^^
These dense countries such as Egypt, Nigeria, all largely empty. First Egypt, the country is a dust bowl with 90% of the population living along the Nile, and the vast majority of the areas of the three largest cities. Nigeria, is the same size of India, double the size of California, and the country is largely empty.
It's threads like these which raise my eyebrows. We had a thread not too long ago where basics information was unpacked about the unforgiving continental area.
Africa is a vertical place, add to these sparse populations and political lines that make no sense over actual tribal lines (What are European countries? Are they not mostly tribal groupings? Aside from Belgium that has a mix of 2-3 various tribal groups, and Spain with this tribal quirks and some spillover in border areas most parts of Europe have homogenous tribal lines as their political boundaries). All those factors create a toxic mix. The vertical factors limit the ability create systems of scale. Climate and soil changes fluctuate and you have to have various agriculture methods for sustenance. The sparse populations make service delivery for (inept) Govt more challenging and costly; the tribal lines create the inability for arbitrary political lines to govern.
One example on trade...
The one reality from colonisation is that it completely fucked up natural trade and movement routes. When the British and Dutch came in, for example, they built ports and industry outposts that could easily feed into those ports. It did not matter if the certain tribes had important ports in other regions. They both wanted ports that could quickly ferry in boats in and out and link into this already established trade routes, this made lots of sense for them, but it did not make any sense for many African tribes as it disrupted already established local trade patterns. Lagos is a good example. A swampy city that was only made important by the British. Each Tribe has its historical commerce and trade outposts prior that were centres of each tribes economies for thousands of years. Lagos was just plopped onto a map and made important over the last 60 years where it has grown from a city of not even 1 million to one of the largest cities in the world at 21 million. This would have never occurred in a natural setting. Lagos is a swamp that would have only grown in importance relative to the Oil, no different as Houston to the USA, or Calgary to Canada, but it would have never been its chief city centre.
So people need to understand the piece before attempting to even put together a puzzle.
For the OP South Sudan is a shithole, an experiment of the USA to power block China by splitting the nation to embolden the radicals. It is the same usual suspects who face famine in Africa. Largely dry desert populations who have no business being clustered where they are.
It is all good though, the more misconceptions of Africa keeps skittish people away. No cucks ever go there. It is still a land for the true adventurers and it is the last place on earth to offer true opportunity you can literally trip over and stumble upon. Much of the globes opportunity is picked over or in the hands of oligarchs. In Africa you literally can stick your hand in the ground and strike gold.
Everyone continues to think Africa looks like this:
When more of Africa is coming along to looking like this: