Is geography the reason why African countries aren't as developed as European countries?

[uncharted]

What's the truth? I have a copy of Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel" but have not read through it yet. Is his conclusive stance, "geographic luck", the answer?

“In short, Europe’s colonization of Africa had nothing to do with differences between European and African peoples themselves, as white racists assume. Rather, it was due to accidents of geography and biogeography—in particular, to the continents’ different areas, axes, and suites of wild plant and animal species. That is, the different historical trajectories of Africa and Europe stem ultimately from differences in real estate.” - Jared Diamond

[Swordsmyth]

Life is complex, many factors affect everything, culture had a lot to do with it too.

RACE had/has very little to do with it, there are differences between the races but they don't make one better than another, every race has it's advantages and disadvantages.

[euphemia]

There are many people groups in Africa--meaning different language and culture. If Africa had not been colonized, it is possible it would have developed differently and with less conflict.

[r3volution 3.0]

What's the truth? I have a copy of Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel" but have not read through it yet. Is his conclusive stance, "geographic luck", the answer?

“In short, Europe’s colonization of Africa had nothing to do with differences between European and African peoples themselves, as white racists assume. Rather, it was due to accidents of geography and biogeography—in particular, to the continents’ different areas, axes, and suites of wild plant and animal species. That is, the different historical trajectories of Africa and Europe stem ultimately from differences in real estate.” - Jared Diamond

That's true.

Sub-Saharan Africa's geography (poor domesticates, the Tse Tse fly, etc) made for low agricultural yields.

...which led to low population density.

...which slowed or even prevented state-building.

...which made for higher rates of violence/less secure property rights.

...which retarded development.

When the Europeans arrived, they built states, with all the advantages that entails, via more secure property rights, and Africa began to develop more rapidly. However, those colonial states were always financed from Europe, by European taxpayers: the African taxbase being too poor to support them. So, when the Europeans left, those states collapsed, or at least became highly dysfunctional, unable to maintain order within their own territories. Hence the semi-anarchic, development-retarding condition of Africa today.

[euphemia]

Western-dominated geography is part of the problem. As I said upthread, there are many people groups in Africa--each with its own language and culture.

Europeans are used to drawing lines along natural boundaries like mountain ranges and rivers. Doing this in Africa put warring people groups in the same country over the same rule. They continued to fight it out, and that's why those parts of Africa remain largely undeveloped.

[XNavyNuke]

What's the truth? I have a copy of Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel" but have not read through it yet. Is his conclusive stance, "geographic luck", the answer?

If it's still in plastic wrap, take it back to the store and get you money returned.

XNN

[r3volution 3.0]

Europeans are used to drawing lines along natural boundaries like mountain ranges and rivers. Doing this in Africa put warring people groups in the same country over the same rule. They continued to fight it out, and that's why those parts of Africa remain largely undeveloped.

Yes, that's also a factor. African states post-colonialism were bound to be very weak, but irrational borders certainly put additional pressures on them, which they were ill-equipped to handle. I might add, while some of these ethnic/religious tensions go back millennia, the end of colonialism didn't just unleash them, it actually heightened them. The colonial regimes were all non-democratic; the post-colonial regimes were all either democracies or populist dictatorships. Under the latter, the masses became more politically awakened and more invested in group politics than they'd been before. Tribalism is innate in human beings, but mass politics makes it worse.

[The Northbreather]

Europe was lucky to have been spared destruction by the Mongols. Pure luck that the khan died and the empire fell apart.

Europe was far behind the Chinese, Muslim cultures at the time who were in a high period before the Mongolian forces nearly erased them from history.

This original "privilege" can likely be faulted to Genghis Khan....

[Swordsmyth]

Europe was lucky to have been spared destruction by the Mongols. Pure luck that the khan died and the empire fell apart.

Europe was far behind the Chinese, Muslim cultures at the time who were in a high period before the Mongolian forces nearly erased them from history.

This original "privilege" can likely be faulted to Genghis Khan....

The terrain and weather patterns of Europe would have prevented the mongols from progressing to far into Europe, it blunted their early probes and would only have gotten worse for them the farther west they got.

Their armies were dependent on plentiful fodder and open terrain for strategic maneuvers.

So we are back to geography again.

[Chester Copperpot]

What's the truth? I have a copy of Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel" but have not read through it yet. Is his conclusive stance, "geographic luck", the answer?

“In short, Europe’s colonization of Africa had nothing to do with differences between European and African peoples themselves, as white racists assume. Rather, it was due to accidents of geography and biogeography—in particular, to the continents’ different areas, axes, and suites of wild plant and animal species. That is, the different historical trajectories of Africa and Europe stem ultimately from differences in real estate.” - Jared Diamond

they may have been far advanced of us in super ancient days before a great cataclysm and then us lesser advanced civilizations who were better prepared for such times got the jump on them.

[The Northbreather]

//

[The Northbreather]

The terrain and weather patterns of Europe would have prevented the mongols from progressing to far into Europe, it blunted their early probes and would only have gotten worse for them the farther west they got.

Their armies were dependent on plentiful fodder and open terrain for strategic maneuvers.

So we are back to geography again.

Maybe.

Maybe they could have robbed all they need to eat and feed the horses.

Their scouts beat europes elete forces.

[Swordsmyth]

Maybe.

Maybe they could have robbed all they need to eat and feed the horses.

Their scouts beat europes elete forces.

Europeans did not have as many horses as the mongols because they couldn't produce as much fodder, so Europe's terrain couldn't produce enough fodder for them to steal, and Europeans had begun to use scorched earth tactics against them which would have made things even worse.

Their armies reached their limits in the middle east because the desert couldn't produce enough fodder as well, the Mameluke's victory might have only been temporary if they could have supplied a larger army.

[The Northbreather]

The terrain and weather patterns of Europe would have prevented the mongols from progressing to far into Europe, it blunted their early probes and would only have gotten worse for them the farther west they got.

Their armies were dependent on plentiful fodder and open terrain for strategic maneuvers.

So we are back to geography again.

Maybe.

Maybe they could have robbed all they need to eat and feed the horses.

Their scouts beat down elite European forces and they had already proved they could cross mountains and deserts...

[Swordsmyth]

Maybe.

Maybe they could have robbed all they need to eat and feed the horses.

Their scouts beat down elite European forces and they had already proved they could cross mountains and deserts...

Was this in reply to this?:

Europeans did not have as many horses as the mongols because they couldn't produce as much fodder, so Europe's terrain couldn't produce enough fodder for them to steal, and Europeans had begun to use scorched earth tactics against them which would have made things even worse.

Their armies reached their limits in the middle east because the desert couldn't produce enough fodder as well, the Mameluke's victory might have only been temporary if they could have supplied a larger army.

Or was it a double reply to the first comment?

[The Northbreather]

Browser kicked me out and I thought I lost the last of my post...