Support
Ask your question
Search
Visual Collection
Popular Questions
- What's a happy life anyway? latest post by jem049 | 25 responses
- If we produce enough food to feed ever... latest post by compton | 162 responses
- Why do we lie to ourselves? latest post by Rhotick | 7 responses
- What life experiences could have inspi... latest post by wbm | 35 responses
- where do we come from & what we are do... latest post by thedoc | 14 responses
Popular Topics
Most active users
Films
postings
 
Angaangaq Lyberth: Elliot, what an interesting question you pose to all of us in the world. And I pray that you will be able to hear what I think about that particular question. Yes, if life began in Africa how come it is less developed? No, it’s not less developed. It is developed highly, it’s just that the economics of that development did not arrive at your doorstep. It’s not part of your life. It’s in the pockets of very few of those who are developing that very incredible continent. It does not really matter any more the question about where the mankind started. We now know that it did not work the way we did it. So when you look at the development and say that the western world is really advanced it did so by taking the resources of your country. And you were kept in silence and not being part of the development. Did you hear my answer? I hope you understood what I’m trying to say that it is so important to realize that Africa is not less developed. Africa is highly developed it’s just that the development of results have not come home to you. |
Anthony Arnove: The question raises a question that mistakes the question of why states today are in the position that they're in. The reality that states are in the position that they're in today are on the basis of their position in the history of the development of the human species. It's not an anthropological question. It's a political question. It's a historical question. In fact, what we see repeatedly if you look in history, is that civilizations that at particular moments have created some of the most remarkable achievements in human history, had those achievements literally destroyed or wiped out through conquests; through colonialism; through imperialism; through war. If you look, for example, at the history of British Colonialism, you see the British effort to suppress development in India; to suppress development in Africa. There was a conscious de-development, under-development of the countries of Africa, of the countries in Asia that were colonized; in the countries of Latin America that were colonized. And Africa, in particular, suffered from that colonial legacy; suffered from the conscious pillaging of those societies for their resources; the conscious exploitation of their workers in such a brutal way that the workers were, in essence, disposable. The Belgium conquests of the Congo is a particularly brutal example of the understanding that the workers were disposable; that they were not human; that they can be killed in the process of extracting their labor; and that the economic calculations of the population, the approach of the colonizers to the population meant that there was no concern that hundreds of thousands; in fact, ultimately more than millions were being murdered, were being slaughtered in order to aggrandize the wealth and power of people like King Leopold in Belgium. So, it's a question of history. It's a question of conscious under-development of those countries, and it's a problem that continues today. It's a problem that we continue to have to confront today. |
|
by Anuradha Koirala | 0 votes | 
|
Anuradha Mittal: I don’t think it’s about the African countries that they are least developed, or they are not developed as the Western states, and we have to question the meaning of development. It is true, Africa is a continent which gave birth to humanity, but it is also a continent which is incredibly rich and that has been its worst problem. It has been conquered, it has been pillaged, it’s been raped, it’s been colonized; and that colonization continues even today which prevents the people of Africa from being able to have governments which actually represent their wishes. Instead, you have the interference of Western countries which still want to continue the form of colonization that we have seen in the past. We know about the English colonization, we know about the French, we know about the Belgium; and now you have a new kind of colonization which is of the corporations from the Western countries who continue to pillage Africa as a continent. And the projects that come to Africa in the name of development need to be questioned. These are projects who displace people, which reject the way of life, the indigenous way of life, which bring in technology which does not work. So, it’s a whole myth when we think that the people are hungry or poor in Africa or Africa is a basket case. No. Even when there has been starvation in countries like Ethiopia, food has been exported from there. So, the real issue is one of colonization that continues even today. |
Ashok Gangadean: I think this question, very interesting, turns on the question of what does developed mean and whether or not life originated in Africa? Let’s assume it has originated in Africa. The evolution of cultures over millennia, it is clear that if it can really enter not from the prejudices of so called western cultures, if we could step out of the lens of western cultures and go into the mental ecologies of the peoples of Africa and to their different world views and life worlds, we will get a very different understanding of what developed means. So, what is developed from the point of view of say Western, American, European standards? The Western standards may not be developed from the point of view of a whole human being living in the concept of an integral community where the values of deep dialog and mutual honoring of one another and of nature and the whole ecology. From the point of view of the measuring standards of global wisdom, African traditions may be seen to be more developed or so called third world countries that are usually from an economic point of view seem to be underdeveloped or undeveloped compared to first world countries, may be reversed from the point of view and standards of spirituality and wholeness and true humanity. So, I would like to reconsider this question and recast it and ask a question back to the questioner or the question. What do we mean by developed, truly developed? And, can it be the -- say, certain indigenous people around the planet are highly developed spiritually, holistically from the human standards whereas people who may have more economic development and more material wealth and material standards of living, they’d be highly underdeveloped from the point of view of these human standards of integral whole being in harmony with nature? I think that would be a good question to pose back to this question. |
Audrey Kitagawa: I think we really need to look at this fundamental question of who purports to own the earth. And when we understand objectively that Africa is one of the world's wealthiest continents, it has everything that man desires, it's wealthy in gold, platinum, diamonds, oil, timber, then how is it that the world's wealthiest continent should also have the world's poorest people as well as most of the conflicts that are going on in the world today? In sub-Sahara Africa, over 100 million Africans face conflicts every day. So when we understand that there are huge interests in the world that compete for these natural resources for which Africa has been abundantly blessed, there is a connection that we have to make as to the poverty of the people, the wealth of the land, and be observant as to where this wealth is going. And since it's not going into the hands of the people in Africa, not the people in the villages, not the people in urban areas, who don't have sufficient shelter, clothing, or food, we have to ask where is the wealth of Africa going to. So we have to be able to see the connections of what is going on today in the world that has really oppressed the people of Africa, put them in position of extreme conflict, loss of lives because of conflict, and also ask the question why is it that the wealth of Africa is not going into the hands of the African people themselves. |
Benjamin Fahrer: I said this before in the previous answer is, it's commonly coin. Today, we are on the cutting edge of ten thousand year technology. Those things are undervalued and look down as primitive or barbaric by these colonizing cultures. Those that colonized Africa, sometimes means are barbaric or not civilized. These cultures are actually highly developed. The village system is very complex. So, first we must ask is what is the development? And if it is a colonizing culture placing their development or their ethics and principles and their practices upon another culture that we feel is less developed than that is a very egotistical way to approach a culture. If we came to a culture very differently, we approach the situation very differently, where we had a mutual respect for these cultures, and what they have to offer it would be a very different world. And then I would say that Africa states are actually more developed in some ways to the western states. Because what type of development are we talking about? The African village may look less developed, like I said to the western eye, it is at certain levels. It is also very very diverse, very diverse; rich in culture because relationship with the earth is extremely developed. It is our lack of development with this relationship with the earth that the western states need to take up on. |
Benson Venegas: Evolution is not a preconditions for development. Was a Native American less developed when we were assaulted by the Europeans? When a lot of these European was running away from poverty? Looking for new opportunities? Is the people in Africa less rigorous, less reflexive, or have less practical capacity to solve their own problems? That's not truth. So, the point is that, if we have this thought, probably we creating a sense, or belief, that some - a group of human being, because of evolution reasons, [they are] on top of the pyramid. And, this is not truth. Every country has their own capacity. Every nation, every continent, they have their capacity to build on their own strengths, on their own capacity, on their own indigenous knowledge, and also to really create possibilities in their countries if they're allowed so, and they really can use their natural resources in the best way. So this is the challenge that we're facing right now. And, I would like to say on this aspect that I consider that evolution is not a precondition for development. |
|
|
by Beverly Schwartz | 0 votes |
|
|
Currently video only.
|
by Bianca Jagger | 0 votes |
|
Bianca Jagger: Answertext will be available soon. |
Bill Joy: There’s many historical factors why African states are less developed, I think. The first is where are the roots of the economic system that we have today came from, the industrialization which occurred in Europe, didn’t spread as much to other areas of the world such as Africa, the kind of trade that was going on in Africa was limited, the continent’s very large, the resources were exploited but the people were not brought up and brought in to the industrial manufacturing system because of things like the distance involved and moving the goods from Africa. I think colonialism also put an overhang and prevented the kind of natural development. And when the colonial powers pulled out they left a vacuum which when mixed with the tribal issues in Africa where tribes are often spread between across borders that were artificially put in by the colonial powers. All these factors combined, and many others which I’m sure others are much more qualified to speak to than I am, combined to limit the development of Africa. What we need now I think is better education in Africa. We need to include Africa in free trading systems. We need to invest in development and addressing the dire issues in Africa like debt and AIDS and by doing these things I think we can help Africa do much better in the 21st century. by Bill Joy |
Bora Cosic: Darwin’s theory has certainly its fundaments in the knowledge Darwin obtained but for me its poetic metaphor. The development of the African continent, which unfortunately was very difficult and still shows the suffering of its people until today, has no direct ties with the scientific fundaments Darwin created. This is similar with a child born in a family without heritage. So the Africa of today and the Africa during human history have nothing to do with the idea that human live began on that continent. Things like this happen, just as they happen in many of smaller environments, for example small families. by Bora Cosic |
Brian J. Weller: Well, this is a – this is a very tricky question. If we – if what we mean by development is economic development in the general Western sense of that word, then maybe yes, Africa maybe is less developed. But in so many more ways Africa is much more developed than many, many other continents around the world. You think about Africa and its development. What development by the way means, to unwrap, to de-velop. In much the same way as a bud is unwrapped to release the flower. So what is the true flower of Africa? When I think of that, when I feel that, I think of living in balance with the natural world. Living in true community. Living in tribes. I think of the music of Africa, the rhythm of Africa, the art of Africa. You could say many ways Africa is the heart of the world, and in that respect maybe it is the birthplace of civilization. I feel that Africa is who’s showing us the way. It’s the most beautiful continent and it’s been suffering so much pain for so long. It’s been in a sense raped and pillaged by Western imperialism and I hope to God that in the next few years that will fall away. If it does, then we’ll see the full true flowering of Africa as the rhythmic heart of the world. A beautiful, beautiful continent, Africa. |
Catherine David: We have to keep on being nice as I think this question has been asked by a 16 year old boy or a 16 year old girl otherwise it seems racist. Furthermore the question is very generalising because what does that mean, Africa? South Africa is not developed but it's even more developed than the rest of Africa, there are states that function. |
China Keitetsi: I think one of the reasons could be, is colonialism. But, or so, many leaders who have lead Africa have lost. They didn't have patriotism. They lacked patriotism, because if they do have patriotism than they would love their country and if you love your country you wish to do everything good. But in Africa today, no matter how much money they are given from the developed world, only a thousand people are extremely rich and brings this money back to Europe, building all kinds of buildings and hotels. Very much corruption have left Africa behind. Because you find that one man, one President, has money that can fit entire district or three districts. If they can put all the money they get from the developed country and put it in institutions that is meant for, I think Africa would be developed because Africa is very rich. Africa has a lot of food. Africa has a lot of good soil. It is lacking of patriotism and of course, because our dictators, our leaders have not shown us, have not teach us to be patriotism, to be patriotic, and this makes us not care about our country. After our education we run away. We are leaving Africa, running away to go to developed countries. And it's not only developed countries to be blamed, but also the African leaders. They should begin to have Africa on their heart and stop being dictators. And I think they should stop from being long serving president because this is damaging Africa. And Africans are not stupid. It's not -- that's why. But the problem is lack of knowledge, a lack of knowing… |
Constantin von Barloewen: Human life has begun indeed in Africa, if it is based on the theory of diffusion, but according to the research of primates, human beings appeared 5 to 6 million years ago in Chad. One can not forget that Africa slowly developd backwards in old traditions, archaic traditions, so that the industrial revolution never took place there, and the nature and resources were absolutely possessed by the states of the industrial world in the 19th Century. One can not forget that social trust in colonial times was not created. The colonial times were surely imprinted for the African states. When one considers that the Islam has settled in African states, for centuries in Morocco, and also in others part of the world, i.e., there was foreign settlement, there was always the suppression of native cultures, which excluded an early democratization in Africa and the colonial times have played another role, just not allowing this social trust or democratic structures to be established, which did not make any civilian society possible, as it could be developed in the western states over centuries. Only in the past few years, now, Africa has taken a certain upswing, which is very limited, in comparison with the worldwide standard, about 6 per cent of the gross national product in the years 2004, 2005. When one considers that Tokyo has more telephone connections than the entire Subsahara Africa, it is clear nowadays in the year 2006 that “The digital device”, thus the digital gap, is very large, because the digital revolution did not take place in Africa. In addition, the colonial inheritance, the inexistent social trust, the not established democratic structures were surely the factors for the situation of Africa as well. |
Cornel West: There is no doubt that human life and homo sapiens emerged in the great continent of Africa. In that sense, we are all Africans. But, of course, I am an African in the modern sense of being part and parcel of a system profoundly rooted in white supremacy, the vicious notion that black people, brown people, red people, yellow people are less, moreorless intelligent, less beautiful. This is very much a modern construct linked to the emergence of the capitalist mode of production in the 15th century tied to the European invasion of the world in which those nations between the Euro mount us in the Atlantic Ocean beginning in late 15th century, 1492 let’s say, with Columbus encountering the New World, begin to reshape the world and the image of powerful European elite. The white supremacy served as an ideological justification of the stealing of lands of indigenous peoples in New World. The enslavement of Africans in both Africa and the New World, and it made it very difficult for African peoples and African nations to assert their self respect and their self determination, ending up more economically underdeveloped than those European nations who themselves were developed dependent in part on a very ugly exploitation of African people’s labor and the degradation of African people’s cultures. And, yet we hope things will be changing in the future as Africa emerges like a phoenix from the ashes with its resources and we hope plays a role in the democratic globalization on this planet. by Cornel West |
|
Currently video only.
|
by Dedi Baron | 0 votes |
|
Dedi Baron: Answertext will be available soon. by Dedi Baron |
Donato Bayu Bay Bumacas: I am not sure if Darwin is right, but this is one thing sure here. African people did not invent arms and weapons. They didn’t also develop the culture and the attitudes of superiority, which for me meant African states less developed than western states. Western states for me did not only develop in their own, they had been taking lots directly and indirectly of the resources from the third world countries to their own countries. And this is, I think, the reason why the African states as compared to western states did not -- is less developed than western states, is because, as I said, they didn’t develop the value and culture of colonization, compared to the western people; they colonized the third world and get some, most of the resources to their own interest. And for me, those are the things that it has to be considered. |
postings
