Africa: Home of World's Poorest Countries

[GreenHeart]

Nigeria remains 26th poorest country: UNDP

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Xinhuanet 2002-07-26 01:57:43



****LAGOS, July 25 (Xinhuanet) -- The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) has ranked Nigeria as the 26th poorest country in the world in its 2002 Human Development Report, the News Agency ofNigeria reported on Thursday.

****Out of the 173 countries whose living conditions are assessed in the report released on Wednesday, Nigeria is ranked 148th behind Madagascar and Haiti, showing no change from its ranking in2001, the agency said.

****Since 1990 when the UNDP began compiling the report, Nigeria has been in a slip with four positions, an indication of deterioration in the living conditions of citizens.

****The UNDP was quoted as saying in the report that 27 African countries successively occupy the lowest positions in the ranking with Sierra Leone maintaining the last position it has occupied over the years.

****Just above Sierra Leone in ascending order are Niger, Burundi, Mozambique, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Guinea Bissau and Chad, the UNDP said.

****The African country with the best living conditions is the Island nation of Seychelles, which occupies the 47th position in the ranking. Enditem

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/20...ent_498429.htm



http://www.gmi.org/products/1040.htm...st%20Countries

According to a map (above), Africa, Arabia, and Asia are home to some of the world's poorest countries - "amazingly," also where White people don't live! Isn't this a form of proof that they are inferior to us as a whole? The least "human devoloped" countries are also in Africa, Arabia and Asia, coincidence? I highly doubt it!


http://www.gmi.org/products/1040.htm...st%20Countries

(I'm sure that self termed "inferior slav" will reply to this message saying, how does that prove anything blah blah blah....... eyes: x_ass)

[Ederico]

NordicPower88, do not expect our adversaries of our own Race to accept the fact that Race is the reason for our advancements. They will deny that fact because they are stubborn Egalitarians. Africa is full of resources yet the Negroids cannot make use of them. I wonder what made our Race so great, apart from our Race.

[GreenHeart]

Originally posted by Nazzjonalista
NordicPower88, do not expect our adversaries of our own Race to accept the fact that Race is the reason for our advancements. They will deny that fact because they are stubborn Egalitarians. Africa is full of resources yet the Negroids cannot make use of them. I wonder what made our Race so great, apart from our Race.

I never did expect them to! I know better than that Some people are just ignorant of this fact, and I wanted anyone who didn't know to get the chance to read about it.

[Ritter]

There are so many wars/civil wars in Africa it isn't even funny. Rival clans fight each other and commit genocide agianst each other. They deny food to entire villages starving everyone. AIDS is rampant because they refuse to use condoms, that Europe and USA sends over there. Not to mention the genocide of Whites there too. It is a total curse to be born in any part of that continent.

If Africa sank into the sea, nobody would really care.

[einsatzkommando]

If Africa sank into the sea, nobody would really care.

I would because it would be MAJOR PARTY TIME!!!!!

[anawana]

I would because it would be MAJOR PARTY TIME!!!!!

Let's be realistic now. Yes, it is an undeniable fact that Africa and Asia are home to the world's poorest countries, and that American Indians don't fare too much better as a whole. However,had Africa sank into the sea before the 1500s and European colonialism, history would have been different. European countries benefited immensely from African resources, and the development of the United States was dependent on it.

There were/are comparatively few gold mines in Europe. Most of the gold and precious stones acquired by Europeans over the past 400 years came from outside of Europe: Africa and Asia. The Americas were depleted of gold and silver, and much of the early mining was accomplished through forced labor of the native Americans. In addition to gems and precious metals, European countries received free labor for over 300 years during the slave trade of 1500-1830, which lowered the population of coastal countries and disrupted many communities, to say the least. Had Africa sank into the ocean before 1492, the United States would have developed and became industrialized at a much slower rate than it did.

Africa has had trouble "developing" because colonialism resulted in its rich resources being shipped off to other continents, and its inhabitants being prevented by colonists from owning its own resources. This was most notable during the "Scramble" that occured between 1876 and 1912. Many countries have only regained autonomy within the past 60-75 years or so; South Africa only recently stopped operating under an apartheid system.

Europe is a great continent with a rich history and impressive resume' of wealth, conquest and industrialization. Africa has experienced times of wealth and prosperity too: the civilizations of Ghana, Mali, Songhai, Egypt and Zimbabwe's ruins are a testimony to that. But I think it is reasonable to assume Africa will need the same amount of centuries to recover economically and socially from colonialism and slavery that Africa experienced colonialism and slavery.

[Gerhardt Maritz]

Since the beginning of time Africa was a continent inhabitted by savages.
Nothing! has changed. The savages are just more bloodthirsty and they now wear Versace and Breitling while they plunder, rape and destroy.
Burn Africa, Burn!

[FearingAfrica]

Let's be realistic now. Yes, it is an undeniable fact that Africa and Asia are home to the world's poorest countries, and that American Indians don't fare too much better as a whole. However,had Africa sank into the sea before the 1500s and European colonialism, history would have been different. European countries benefited immensely from African resources, and the development of the United States was dependent on it.

There were/are comparatively few gold mines in Europe. Most of the gold and precious stones acquired by Europeans over the past 400 years came from outside of Europe: Africa and Asia. The Americas were depleted of gold and silver, and much of the early mining was accomplished through forced labor of the native Americans. In addition to gems and precious metals, European countries received free labor for over 300 years during the slave trade of 1500-1830, which lowered the population of coastal countries and disrupted many communities, to say the least. Had Africa sank into the ocean before 1492, the United States would have developed and became industrialized at a much slower rate than it did.

Africa has had trouble "developing" because colonialism resulted in its rich resources being shipped off to other continents, and its inhabitants being prevented by colonists from owning its own resources. This was most notable during the "Scramble" that occured between 1876 and 1912. Many countries have only regained autonomy within the past 60-75 years or so; South Africa only recently stopped operating under an apartheid system.

Europe is a great continent with a rich history and impressive resume' of wealth, conquest and industrialization. Africa has experienced times of wealth and prosperity too: the civilizations of Ghana, Mali, Songhai, Egypt and Zimbabwe's ruins are a testimony to that. But I think it is reasonable to assume Africa will need the same amount of centuries to recover economically and socially from colonialism and slavery that Africa experienced colonialism and slavery.

The Europeans would have developed other means to drive their industries. The Africans living under Apartheid were far better off than the ones who lived far away, i.e Congo, Benin ... one can go on and on.

[Gerhardt Maritz]

Nobody seems to see the povery that exists in Africa in context.
Stating that the countries in Africa is poor is BULLSHIT! Africa has HUGE wealth. The 'poverty' lies in the mind of the African. Wealth is not distributed evenly. Only the political elite becomes EXTREMELY wealthy. These connected individuals do not care about the man on the street. Their streets are in the upperclass suburbs of the cosmopolitan cities in Europe. They use and treat their countries like 'the family business'. Look at Robert Mugabe.
You would not find a poor Mandela, Sizulu or Zuma in South Africa. Patrice Motsepe is on the Forbes list of the 100 wealthiest people in the WORLD. He made it in mining with new money within 15 years. Coincidentaly his mom was the Minister of Mining and Energy during his prosperous rise.
Now for my lesson in mathematics for the day:
1 VERY,VERY rich Caffir + 1 very, very poor Caffir does not equal a poor African Country!
Got It?

[Nordische]

What do you think would happen if Sub-Saharian countries were being governed by a Germanic nation?