Effects of colonialism in Sub Saharan Africa

[Lik3]

I have been wondering that because I was watching a show about Christians and what was going on in parts of Africa. I know that believers are being persecuted there. I have also noticed the poverty in that area. This isn't to say that there aren't wealthier Africans, but why is Sub Saharan Africa in general poorer than other parts of the world. Correct me if I am wrong.

Did colonialism play a role as to why much of Sub Saharan Africa is poor? BTW, how did the Europeans go from dealing with the Black Plague to the Renaissance to slavery, racism, and colonialism? Was there anything that colonialism brought to some Sub Saharan nations; what were the negative results of colonialism, if any?

I know that Europeans mostly were the ones who colonized most of the world, but how did the concept of race and slavery begin to change and did that play a role and why does the Western Media in general report everything so negative about that part of the world? Does that happen disproportionately happen there or is it something else?

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Did colonialism play a role as to why much of Sub Saharan Africa is poor?

Sub Saharan Africa was poor before colonialism.

Was there anything that colonialism brought to some Sub Saharan nations;

Roads, schools, hospitals, modern amenities like that. The Gospel of Christ as well.

 

[perplexed]

Is that some sort of joke?

 

[Lik3]

Is that some sort of joke?

 

[perplexed]

I was totally shocked by soldier of the kings response.
I am checking if he was being sarcastic.

 

[Lik3]

I was totally shocked by soldier of the kings response.
I am checking if he was being sarcastic.

Oh. Okay thank you. What are your thoughts about why much of Sub Saharan Africa, if you don't mind me asking? I do wonder as well if there were a few Africans as well as Europeans (and Arabs) benefited from colonialism there.

 

[perplexed]

It depends how you define colonialism, If you just mean Christianity and science then colonialism is great , However that is not how I define colonialism ,

I usually think of the Belgium and the Congo, the results of quick internet
search are given below for your convenience.

"The swift European scramble over African territory took place from the 17th century to the 20th century. The European Kingdoms including France, England and Belgium, took the advantage of the cordial relationship and trust between them and the tribal chiefs and plundered the continent. Among the greediest, brutal and savage, was King Leopold II of Belgium.
Leopold colonized Congo which officially became his personal property in 1876. Under false pretence of protecting the Congolese, the world witnessed the slaughter of men, women and children. Dreaming of becoming the world’s richest king and to supply the demand of rubber in Europe for the auto and bicycle industries, King Leopold set up a reign of terror in the heart of Congo.
To produce enough wild rubber, those who failed suffered the consequences. Leopold’s men held the wives and children of the rubber tappers hostage, until they brought him exactly what he wanted. Those unable to supply his demand had their villages burned down, men were hanged, starved to death and others genital organs were tied.
Children’s hands were chopped off as punishment for late deliveries. While many were calling Leopold a murderer and seeking justice to be hanged, the Belgians were covering up his crime. There is no doubt that King Leopold II is the moral forebear of Adolf Hitler, responsible for the death of 10 million people, during his exploitation of the Congo, between 1870 and 1900.
The rebellious rubber tappers who tried to fight Leopold’s men were quickly defeated and many fled to hide in the bush. Leopold told his men to go after them in the forest, giving them instructions to bring the right hand of every killed victim as a proof. How can the world go free and Jesus Christ who hasn’t committed any crime carries the cross alone? Instead King Leopold facing punishment for his crimes, he was hailed as a great humanitarian king with statutes, monuments and streets named after him."

 

[JohnLocke]

Some of the reasons why Sub Saharan Africa might be poorer than the United States:

Lack of: resources particularly : arable land, potable water, fossil fuels, ferrous metals, infrastructure particularly roads and oceanic harbors, corrupt or otherwise ineffective governments, a common language, shared beliefs about basic civility, ineffective rule of law.

 

[Oafman]

Some of the reasons why Sub Saharan Africa might be poorer than the United States:

Lack of: resources particularly : arable land, potable water, fossil fuels, ferrous metals, infrastructure particularly roads and oceanic harbors, corrupt or otherwise ineffective governments, a common language, shared beliefs about basic civility, ineffective rule of law.

How can you draw up such a list without referencing the overriding cause for pervading poverty across the developing world: The subjugation of women?

Where women exist solely to breed, poverty follows. The only exceptions to this are where there is an abundance of natural resources (eg KSA).

I'm sorry to have to say it here, but one of religion's biggest crimes is the subjugation of women (all the major religions are guilty of it, because they were all created by men. Not by Man, but by men).

 

[Percivale]

How can you draw up such a list without referencing the overriding cause for pervading poverty across the developing world: The subjugation of women?

Where women exist solely to breed, poverty follows. The only exceptions to this are where there is an abundance of natural resources (eg KSA).

Do you have evidence for that? I'm against the subjugation of women too, but the only correlation I can think of between that and the economy is in the opposite order: greater wealth in a country leads to more freedom for women. Or do you know of countries that were previously poor but gave women freedom, and then became wealthy?

I'm sorry to have to say it here, but one of religion's biggest crimes is the subjugation of women (all the major religions are guilty of it, because they were all created by men. Not by Man, but by men).

Most religions improved the status of women at the time they originated, and women have generally been vital to religions' early spread. It's just that we've moved farther toward women's freedom than people thought possible back then. Indeed, the level of equality women have now was not possible back then, because before modern medicine, the birthrate required to keep a population stable or growing was too high to allow many women careers outside the home.

 

[Percivale]

I suspect one of the main reasons Africa is poorer than other parts of the world is that there is more disease there. That may be what set them behind technologically compared to Asia in the colonial period, which gave them less ability to cope with colonial powers, and it also probably discouraged Europeans from settling there, which would have boosted the region's economy, so the Europeans just extracted resources instead, which hurts the region economically.

 

[Lik3]

I was totally shocked by soldier of the kings response.
I am checking if he was being sarcastic.

Oh.