4 ms·
>Because saying that is stupid since Apartheid is the source of these problems? Other African nations that didn't have Apartheid or similar institutions have s
by HideousKojima 3y ago
>Because saying that is stupid since Apartheid is the source of these problems?
Other African nations that didn't have Apartheid or similar institutions have similar economic and political results. And even the one sub Saharan nation that didn't experience colonization, Ethiopia, isn't screaming ahead of its neighbors economically or otherwise. Its GDP per capita is slightly ahead of Uganda's and fairly far below Kenya's.
- pc86 3y agoKnowing approximately nothing about Ethiopia, is there any generally accepted (or at least considered) reason for this? It's landlocked but has rivers, climate and geography seems sufficiently diverse to support industries. Is it completely devoid of natural resources or something?
- enterprise_cog 3y agoThere has been a state of civil war there for decades.
- cmh89 3y agoIt's really hard to form stable, wealthy countries in general. Countries that have developed in the last 60 years tend to have strong authoritarian leaders and the favor and interest of Europe and the United States. Ethopia does have natural resources but it doesn't have a strong central government, partly because the warring factions want control of the resources. Places like UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar had strong dictators before they developed the petroleum industry. African states that have oil tend to be too weak politically to resist outside interests taking the wealth by paying bribes and funding warring factions.
- enterprise_cog 3y agoMost of Africa has been colonized in one form or another for centuries. Which is just as harmful to a nation as systems like apartheid. Also what point are you trying to make here? You seem to be implying a common cause for these results. Care to explicitly state it?