This reads as a 'ahistorical' interpretation of events. Is is possible to engage in informed discussion without context? How many centuries did it take for the

This reads as a 'ahistorical' interpretation of events. Is is possible to engage in informed discussion without context? How many centuries did it take for the transition from feudalism in Europe yet there is this kind of 'magical thinking' when it comes to Africa emerging from centuries of rapacious colonialism and are often independent states for just 50 years to somehow be the mirror image of western states rightaway. How does this work? Without explaining this no discussion on Africa can be serious and sincere. And ignorance of the incentives for corruption and the history of plunder in these regions by supporting 'strongmen' and opposing forces of empowerment that continues unabated. And this can be easily confirmed by historical record. How come people like Lula and Chavez are demonized with very little to no dissent in the west and their governments destabilized openly when its them who empowered large number of their populations with social policies rather than just supporting a funnel of extraction by western capitalism. How do institutions and democracy emerge in this environment? Perhaps its best not to have these discussion where simplistic 'explanations' perpetuate a culture of misinformation and prejudice and where the depth to understand the forces at work and historical events is completely absent.