4 ms·

When I say "extreme poverty" I am referring mostly to modern conditions in sub-Saharan Africa. I was under the impression that hardly anyone lived in such cond

When I say "extreme poverty" I am referring mostly to modern conditions in sub-Saharan Africa. I was under the impression that hardly anyone lived in such conditions in 1800. Of course I am aware that there were plagues and famines and caste systems and so on, but I would be surprised to learn that 1/7 of the population lived the way that 1/7 of the population lives now, basically without enough food or water as a part of daily life. Wikipedia says, "In 1820, the average European worker earned about three times what the average African did. Now, the average European earns twenty times what the average African does."

pdonis 14y ago
I was under the impression that hardly anyone lived in such conditions in 1800. How do you think people lived in sub-Saharan Africa in 1800? Living at bare subsistence level is exactly how almost all humans who have ever lived, lived. Wikipedia says, "In 1820, the average European worker earned about three times what the average African did. Now, the average European earns twenty times what the average African does." That's not because Africa has gotten poorer. It's because Europe (and America) have gotten enormously richer through huge increases in productivity. As in, now 1/7 of humanity gets to live in "first world" conditions, in--wait for it--Europe and America.
- georgeorwell 14y ago
  > That's not because Africa has gotten poorer. Do you have any references for that claim? My understanding is that whereas (sub-Saharan) African people by and large used to be farmers and were generally able to grow enough food, drink enough water, build adequate shelter, and make enough clothes, that since colonization (which got going in earnest in 1880) the continent was basically shoehorned into modern industrial society and that now many Africans are dependent on whatever foreign aid they can get and are no longer self-sufficient. What I'm saying is that if you went to Africa in 1800 I don't believe you would see today's stereotypical child in rags with ribs sticking out of his chest and a swollen belly, but again, if you have a reference that says colonization (or its later rejection) did nothing to change poverty in Africa it would be interesting to read it.
  - yummyfajitas 14y ago
    Do you have any references for that claim? Wikipedia summarizes the conventional view. Africa's GDP increased 2x since the mid 1800's, Europe's increased by 20x. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(P... See this book to see roughly how these estimates are computed: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/9264022619/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=9264022619&linkCode=as2&tag=christuc-20 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/9264022619/ref=as_li_ss_tl?... What I'm saying is that if you went to Africa in 1800 I don't believe you would see today's stereotypical child in rags with ribs sticking out of his chest and a swollen belly... And if you go to Africa in 2012 you probably won't see this, although it was quite common worldwide in the 1800s. If you want to see this, you basically need to go to a war zone, the bush, or maybe Zimbabwe.
  - pdonis 14y ago
    since colonization (which got going in earnest in 1880) the continent was basically shoehorned into modern industrial society and that now many Africans are dependent on whatever foreign aid they can get and are no longer self-sufficient The lack of self-sufficiency in Africa, where it exists, is not a product of colonialism; it's a product of post-colonialism. It's not politically correct to say so these days, but you can see from the Wikipedia page that yummyfajitas referenced that Africa's GDP was basically constant until 1820, then grew at an increasing rate up until 1973, and is now tapering again. I.e., it grew fastest under colonialism. What stopped the growth was that when colonialism was stopped, nothing workable was put in its place; instead Africa was handed over to corrupt dictators who had no ability to or interest in governing properly.
    - georgeorwell 14y ago
      If we're going to measure things in GDP, I believe that the disparity matters more than the hard numbers, which is why I pointed out that the former ratio of 1:3 is now 1:20. There's another factor too: if you just have a plot of land that is able to provide food, water, clothing, and shelter for yourself without any actual registered trade you actually contribute nothing to the GDP. My understanding is that this self-sufficiency was basically destroyed by colonists. If GDP has grown, which means the sub-continent is largely more productive now in capitalist terms, and therefore self-sufficiency levels have not changed but rather increased, why is it so dependent on foreign aid when it wasn't - as far as I am aware - in 1800? Also, while post-colonialism obviously left the place in ruins, I think it's quite clear that you can't have post-colonialism without colonialism. I guess at the end of the day I don't consider poverty to be measured in dollars and cents but in actual day-to-day quality of life, and I have a hard time believing that for the percentage of the population living in "extreme poverty" (less than $1.25 per day - note that dollars and cents matter more when you don't have other ways to provide for yourself), things were as bad when they had their own land and were self-sufficient. Unless you have something that clearly says, "No, life there has always been hell." It's not that I'm unwilling to believe something different, it's just that I want to hear it from someone who really knows about the history of how people lived at the time.

pdonis 14y ago

I was under the impression that hardly anyone lived in such conditions in 1800. How do you think people lived in sub-Saharan Africa in 1800? Living at bare subsistence level is exactly how almost all humans who have ever lived, lived. Wikipedia says, "In 1820, the average European worker earned about three times what the average African did. Now, the average European earns twenty times what the average African does." That's not because Africa has gotten poorer. It's because Europe (and America) have gotten enormously richer through huge increases in productivity. As in, now 1/7 of humanity gets to live in "first world" conditions, in--wait for it--Europe and America.

georgeorwell 14y ago
> That's not because Africa has gotten poorer. Do you have any references for that claim? My understanding is that whereas (sub-Saharan) African people by and large used to be farmers and were generally able to grow enough food, drink enough water, build adequate shelter, and make enough clothes, that since colonization (which got going in earnest in 1880) the continent was basically shoehorned into modern industrial society and that now many Africans are dependent on whatever foreign aid they can get and are no longer self-sufficient. What I'm saying is that if you went to Africa in 1800 I don't believe you would see today's stereotypical child in rags with ribs sticking out of his chest and a swollen belly, but again, if you have a reference that says colonization (or its later rejection) did nothing to change poverty in Africa it would be interesting to read it.
- yummyfajitas 14y ago
  Do you have any references for that claim? Wikipedia summarizes the conventional view. Africa's GDP increased 2x since the mid 1800's, Europe's increased by 20x. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(P... See this book to see roughly how these estimates are computed: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/9264022619/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=9264022619&linkCode=as2&tag=christuc-20 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/9264022619/ref=as_li_ss_tl?... What I'm saying is that if you went to Africa in 1800 I don't believe you would see today's stereotypical child in rags with ribs sticking out of his chest and a swollen belly... And if you go to Africa in 2012 you probably won't see this, although it was quite common worldwide in the 1800s. If you want to see this, you basically need to go to a war zone, the bush, or maybe Zimbabwe.
- pdonis 14y ago
  since colonization (which got going in earnest in 1880) the continent was basically shoehorned into modern industrial society and that now many Africans are dependent on whatever foreign aid they can get and are no longer self-sufficient The lack of self-sufficiency in Africa, where it exists, is not a product of colonialism; it's a product of post-colonialism. It's not politically correct to say so these days, but you can see from the Wikipedia page that yummyfajitas referenced that Africa's GDP was basically constant until 1820, then grew at an increasing rate up until 1973, and is now tapering again. I.e., it grew fastest under colonialism. What stopped the growth was that when colonialism was stopped, nothing workable was put in its place; instead Africa was handed over to corrupt dictators who had no ability to or interest in governing properly.
  - georgeorwell 14y ago
    If we're going to measure things in GDP, I believe that the disparity matters more than the hard numbers, which is why I pointed out that the former ratio of 1:3 is now 1:20. There's another factor too: if you just have a plot of land that is able to provide food, water, clothing, and shelter for yourself without any actual registered trade you actually contribute nothing to the GDP. My understanding is that this self-sufficiency was basically destroyed by colonists. If GDP has grown, which means the sub-continent is largely more productive now in capitalist terms, and therefore self-sufficiency levels have not changed but rather increased, why is it so dependent on foreign aid when it wasn't - as far as I am aware - in 1800? Also, while post-colonialism obviously left the place in ruins, I think it's quite clear that you can't have post-colonialism without colonialism. I guess at the end of the day I don't consider poverty to be measured in dollars and cents but in actual day-to-day quality of life, and I have a hard time believing that for the percentage of the population living in "extreme poverty" (less than $1.25 per day - note that dollars and cents matter more when you don't have other ways to provide for yourself), things were as bad when they had their own land and were self-sufficient. Unless you have something that clearly says, "No, life there has always been hell." It's not that I'm unwilling to believe something different, it's just that I want to hear it from someone who really knows about the history of how people lived at the time.