DR Congo Worst Nation?

[Seaton]

that was sarcasm.

What does it taste like?

 

[formerlyfastwing]

Many of the Canadian reserves for natives are basically in third world conditions, not all of them but some are aboslutely dreadful, one chief had to declare a state of emergency recently.

the whole concept of reserves is wrong. the system is broke. i should not have to check in and out with the RCMP when i go to a reserve, I should not be quized on where and who i am seeing. the rcmp told me he didn't want to find me in a ditch.......they are horrible places, at least the ones i have been to in Alta.

 

[nickdnz]

I would imagine Somalia's not there because there probably aren't any official records for it. I don't know how it would be possible to manage to measure the data there. If it were there I bet it would be number 1.

And as for Wales being the worst country, have you ever been to Runcorn

It's not in the recent ones, but the last time it was on the HDI it was ranked 0.284 in 2001, so just below the rating of DRC at 0.286. So there is a good chance it would have been last.

 

[kovana]

Wales is not a country.. So should not be on the list...

 

[LittleGuy]

the whole concept of reserves is wrong. the system is broke. i should not have to check in and out with the RCMP when i go to a reserve, I should not be quized on where and who i am seeing. the rcmp told me he didn't want to find me in a ditch.......they are horrible places, at least the ones i have been to in Alta.

Agreed, the situation in Caledonia in this area of Ontario has been a disgrace as well.

What about your favourite part of the planet Earth FFW? How would Edmonton rank in HDI?

 

[TNT88]

Indeed the white elephant in the room is that the top 15 countries consist of mostly white people and the bottom mostly black people.

There must be a reason for this that goes beyond culture? I mean Haitians were exposed to technology and sophistication in some form, yet they happy to live like they do. Not sure this discussion can happen though, not very 'PC' at all.

BTW South Africa's life expectancy is 52

I think it is more of a "red herring" than a "white elephant". I don't think anyone knows exactly why Africa fails so much, but to dismiss it as genetic would be ignoring the real problems.

 

[User1245]

On the other hand you can look at the list of the top 15 as either being European or Far Eastern, the hot beds of technological, medicinal, scientific, economic and social change in the last two millennia, with the outliers of the US, Aus and New Zealand being countries where many (not sure about NZ though), in fact the vast majority of the indigenous people(s) were killed off, whilst purposeful settlers moved in with all their respective technologies, and were kept in touch with advances in other fields because countries (primarily Britain of course) had vested interests in these countries resources and colonies.

In most cases with colonisation, the technologies brought by the arriving colonisers (stupid auto-correct) were largely denied, kept from or not immediately accepted by the locals, for obvious reasons like mistrust, reluctance to change and ginergenius' favourite, religion. The best example of this is South Africa. The controlling minority were able to do very well for themselves and set-up infrastructure in 'their' population centres which two decades on would put 1st world eastern European countries to shame. Of course if one looked at places like Darwin, one would see a similar pattern, but the country wide affect is negated as the once majority native population was exterminated.

Honestly, for the life of me I cannot see how what happened in Apartheid was as bad as what happened to the Aboroginies and Native Americans. Those were bloody genocides yet in comparison to the stick white saffas get for a regime few had anything directly to do with, those matters are swept under the rug by the global media.

Too right. According to wiki, scholars agree that there were roughly 30-50 million native Americans Pre-Columbus. Now there are roughly 250k left.

If ever there was a case of 'out of sight, out of mind' that would be it. I'm sure the colonizing Australians also had a similar 'colonization rates'.

 

[nickdnz]

Indeed the white elephant in the room is that the top 15 countries consist of mostly white people and the bottom mostly black people.

There must be a reason for this that goes beyond culture? I mean Haitians were exposed to technology and sophistication in some form, yet they happy to live like they do. Not sure this discussion can happen though, not very 'PC' at all.

BTW South Africa's life expectancy is 52

I don't know about that. There are plenty of reasons why "Black" nations are often low on the list.

1. Collinization - Almost all of Africa and indeed Haiti was collinized by either the British, French or Dutch all of whom had some of the largest empires at the time. Many of the attitudes of the nations colonizing were often racist/supremist and did not look to build the nations as a stable and self-sustaining country, but rather as a means of economic produce. Because of this, when empires started withdrawing from many of their colonies, there has been long standing political instablility and corruption. It seems this is also true in other countries outside Africa. You only have to look at some parts of Eastern Europe and Middle Eastern Asia for it to be apparent this is not a racial issue.

2. Resources - Other than oil in parts of Northern Africa and obviously the diamond trade in Southern Africa, natural resources are not generally as available. Other countries with the same problems find a way around this by creating industries which are reliant on being a part of a larger union such as Switzerland, however there isn't really many stable governments in Africa for solid trade relationships to exist and not the natural resources for the countries to flourish without the industries.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Wales is not a country..

Yes it is

 

[TRF_Cymro]

Yes it is

You wonder how some are educated.

 

[User1245]

I don't know about that. There are plenty of reasons why "Black" nations are often low on the list.

1. Collinization - Almost all of Africa and indeed Haiti was collinized by either the British, French or Dutch all of whom had some of the largest empires at the time. Many of the attitudes of the nations colonizing were often racist/supremist and did not look to build the nations as a stable and self-sustaining country, but rather as a means of economic produce. Because of this, when empires started withdrawing from many of their colonies, there has been long standing political instablility and corruption. It seems this is also true in other countries outside Africa. You only have to look at some parts of Eastern Europe and Middle Eastern Asia for it to be apparent this is not a racial issue.

2. Resources - Other than oil in parts of Northern Africa and obviously the diamond trade in Southern Africa, natural resources are not generally as available. Other countries with the same problems find a way around this by creating industries which are reliant on being a part of a larger union such as Switzerland, however there isn't really many stable governments in Africa for solid trade relationships to exist and not the natural resources for the countries to flourish without the industries.

I agree to extent and disagree to some extent.

1) If colonization was so bad to African countries then why is SA the leader of the continent? SA has the most European infrastructure and influence, and those has a higher standard of living.
Ethiopia has the least amount of colonial influence and they've been the one of the poorest since forever. The famine they experiencing is exasperating that problem.

Human beings are a dominant species, this is what makes us the most successful species. Unfortunately we practice dominance over our own kind. Colonization in my opinion helped Africa. The world was always gonna be globalized. Imagine if Africa was only discovered now. Do you think they'd of invented a basic thing like the wheel yet? Or have written language?
There would be no infrastructure of any kind. Whilst I was in Mozambique last year it really hit home. The native Mozambiqeans have done next to nothing since the Portuguese left. You have to see it man. Imagine a 3 lane highway in a city just ending and the rest of the way is gravel road. Old skyscapers turned into squatter camps. Ships have run aground in the harbour just left there! Its crazy.

2) Resources? I think Africa has plenty. Sub-Sahara is extremely fertile too. Also what would a bushman do with a diamond? Diamonds are only valuable because of a perceived value.
A bushman would check out the diamond, bash it a few times to test how strong it is and then promptly start crushing corn with it.

 

[gingergenius]

I agree to extent and disagree to some extent.

1) If colonization was so bad to African countries then why is SA the leader of the continent? SA has the most European infrastructure and influence, and those has a higher standard of living.
Ethiopia has the least amount of colonial influence and they've been the one of the poorest since forever. The famine they experiencing is exasperating that problem.

Human beings are a dominant species, this is what makes us the most successful species. Unfortunately we practice dominance over our own kind. Colonization in my opinion helped Africa. The world was always gonna be globalized. Imagine if Africa was only discovered now. Do you think they'd of invented a basic thing like the wheel yet? Or have written language?
There would be no infrastructure of any kind. Whilst I was in Mozambique last year it really hit home. The native Mozambiqeans have done next to nothing since the Portuguese left. You have to see it man. Imagine a 3 lane highway in a city just ending and the rest of the way is gravel road. Old skyscapers turned into squatter camps. Ships have run aground in the harbour just left there! Its crazy.

2) Resources? I think Africa has plenty. Sub-Sahara is extremely fertile too. Also what would a bushman do with a diamond? Diamonds are only valuable because of a perceived value.
A bushman would check out the diamond, bash it a few times to test how strong it is and then promptly start crushing corn with it.

You're guilty of looking at Africa through European cultural glasses.

Before Europeans (and Arabs) got really involved, Africa was a patchwork of kingdoms and empires - just that they were really spread out. One of the major drivers of technology, culture etc. in Europe has been competition, and if you look at Europe's most creative times, it's been exactly that. The Greeks had to compete with and match the Persians; the Romans the Greeks... post Romans you get the 'dark ages' in the Early Middle Ages because there was a power vacuum, and it's mainly the Arabs who are being innovative. Then the 15th Century develops and Florence, Venice, Rome, France, Spain, England etc. are all competing with one another. Then Imperially it's the Spanish, Portuguese, British and French...

This European competition created systems and technologies which do benefit mankind, in the most basic practical ways. When you view Africa now, and see that some of these systems introduced by Europeans are corrupt/ inefficient etc. (in spite of a wealth of natural resources) then it's easy to think Africans as backward.

BUT. That's only if you think as a European. If you're a bushman living in Botswana (for example), your day to day life is completely different. You judge social relations, the environment, and every other aspect of life in the way that best suits you and your way of life - and in no way does this mean subscribing to the Western view of materialism, self-improvement and individualism.

And who are we to say they are wrong, and we are right? You might think that if it works, then good for them. And so Europeans might view their society as primitive, backward etc. while they might view ours as inherently selfish.

Colonialism disrupted this, and among other reasons this is why much human squalor exists in situations where a group of people who know how to live one way are being forced to live another way, and haven't yet adapted. Eg. Indian reservations, Africa, Aboriginals, Latin America etc. etc. etc.

 

[Seaton]

You wonder how some are educated.

Thomas Eddison invented the light bulb.
yon man with the kite (Afrikaans exam has left my brain in tatters) discovered electricity.
The Great Wall of China is the only man made structure visible from space.
Einstein failed school maths. (And he made the atom bomb)

Worse is that in my experience it is still schools that perpetuate these things.

 

[nickdnz]

I agree to extent and disagree to some extent.

1) If colonization was so bad to African countries then why is SA the leader of the continent? SA has the most European infrastructure and influence, and those has a higher standard of living.
Ethiopia has the least amount of colonial influence and they've been the one of the poorest since forever. The famine they experiencing is exasperating that problem.

Human beings are a dominant species, this is what makes us the most successful species. Unfortunately we practice dominance over our own kind. Colonization in my opinion helped Africa. The world was always gonna be globalized. Imagine if Africa was only discovered now. Do you think they'd of invented a basic thing like the wheel yet? Or have written language?
There would be no infrastructure of any kind. Whilst I was in Mozambique last year it really hit home. The native Mozambiqeans have done next to nothing since the Portuguese left. You have to see it man. Imagine a 3 lane highway in a city just ending and the rest of the way is gravel road. Old skyscapers turned into squatter camps. Ships have run aground in the harbour just left there! Its crazy.

2) Resources? I think Africa has plenty. Sub-Sahara is extremely fertile too. Also what would a bushman do with a diamond? Diamonds are only valuable because of a perceived value.
A bushman would check out the diamond, bash it a few times to test how strong it is and then promptly start crushing corn with it.

I don't think I described my point very well. It actually wasn't meant to be anti-colonial at all. I think what was most damaging to many African nations was the rate of withdrawal. If you look at South Africa, there is still very much a strong European influence on the country. In fact it was only in the last 20 years that the Europeans in South Africa weren't the dominant class of people (I'm not saying that's good). But under that you have the political institutions and infrastructure which the Europeans brought over and which is necessary in the modern world to thrive, still be guided by the Europeans which brought it over (If that makes sense).

So as you said, Mozambique is a good example of basically the Portuguese packing up and leaving Mozambique, without solidifying Mozambique with a capable government and education systems. So when I say the rate of withdrawal, I mean how quickly the African nation was abandoned.

Your point about the wheel. No, they probably wouldn't have. But as gingergenius mentioned, the reason Europe and large parts of Asia flourished was five thousand years of competition (and continual exposure to new ideas and materials from other places). In isolated societies that was never going to happen. It's only geographical location which has forced many European nations to thrive or get conquered.

 

[Me 1]

Human beings are a dominant species, this is what makes us the most successful species. Unfortunately we practice dominance over our own kind. Colonization in my opinion helped Africa. The world was always gonna be globalized. Imagine if Africa was only discovered now. Do you think they'd of invented a basic thing like the wheel yet? Or have written language?

Well, Ethiopia did

 

[User1245]

You're guilty of looking at Africa through European cultural glasses.

Before Europeans (and Arabs) got really involved, Africa was a patchwork of kingdoms and empires - just that they were really spread out. One of the major drivers of technology, culture etc. in Europe has been competition, and if you look at Europe's most creative times, it's been exactly that. The Greeks had to compete with and match the Persians; the Romans the Greeks... post Romans you get the 'dark ages' in the Early Middle Ages because there was a power vacuum, and it's mainly the Arabs who are being innovative. Then the 15th Century develops and Florence, Venice, Rome, France, Spain, England etc. are all competing with one another. Then Imperially it's the Spanish, Portuguese, British and French...

This European competition created systems and technologies which do benefit mankind, in the most basic practical ways. When you view Africa now, and see that some of these systems introduced by Europeans are corrupt/ inefficient etc. (in spite of a wealth of natural resources) then it's easy to think Africans as backward.

BUT. That's only if you think as a European. If you're a bushman living in Botswana (for example), your day to day life is completely different. You judge social relations, the environment, and every other aspect of life in the way that best suits you and your way of life - and in no way does this mean subscribing to the Western view of materialism, self-improvement and individualism.

And who are we to say they are wrong, and we are right? You might think that if it works, then good for them. And so Europeans might view their society as primitive, backward etc. while they might view ours as inherently selfish.

Colonialism disrupted this, and among other reasons this is why much human squalor exists in situations where a group of people who know how to live one way are being forced to live another way, and haven't yet adapted. Eg. Indian reservations, Africa, Aboriginals, Latin America etc. etc. etc.

What you said there actually makes a lot of sense. The competition bit especially.

I think since I basically don't have a culture or strong traditions like many indigenous people I tend to just look at the situation as it is now and what beneficial at present. So I do think it is OK to say to other cultures do this and that rather, as what you are current doing is of little significance.
But then again like you say, it basically drops them in the deep end and creates this ugly class system.