Church and ministry leadership resources to better equip, train and provide ideas for today's church and ministry leaders, like you.
Get updates from Religion Prof: The Blog of James F. McGrath delivered straight to your inbox
HT Tom Bartley on Facebook
You’d have to have a really, really loose definition of “foreign aid” to claim the U.S. spends a fourth of its budget on it. And preventable diseases cannot be separated from wars&natural disasters. Also, “we give money to Africa and nothing changes” is mostly true, with notable exceptions. There was more improvement in Africa under White rule than after its end. The number of countries that have gotten substantially richer due to foreign aid is zero.
“And preventable diseases cannot be separated from wars&natural disasters.”
The percentage of the Third World at active war is pretty small. And most ‘natural disasters’ aren’t natural at all but products of poor infrastructure and poor resource management.
“The number of countries that have gotten substantially richer due to foreign aid is zero.”
The aim of foreign aid is not to make countries “rich” but to both alleviate death and disease and give countries tools for development (which then do help them get ‘rich’ long term) and aid has demonstrably had real effects in both those areas. Of course not all foreign aid is created equal but that’s a separate debate.
There was more improvement in Africa under White rule than after its end.
Just the kind of bigoted crap we expect from you. Life expectancy in Africa was around 40 in 1960; it is now nearly 70. Are you claiming it was 10 at the start of white rule? Or maybe you don’t count having a reasonable chance of living to 70 as worth having? Maternal mortality has fallen by around 40% in sub-Saharan Africa since 1990 – despite AIDS. Comparisons in terms of GDP are very difficult because of very poor statistical coverage in colonial-era Africa – if you have figures to support your claim, produce them. During the colonial era, effectively no black Africans had any say whatever in who governed them. Now, most former colonial countries have elections – although often very imperfect – and in many there have been peaceful transfers of power.
I’m very confident life expectancy was under twenty-five at the start of White rule. GDP results vary by territory (e.g., Botswana had much better performance than the DRC under native rule), but neither electricity consumption per capita nor RGDP per capita in Africa has even doubled since the end of White rule.
The fact that, on average, White rule helped Africans more than Black rule isn’t bigoted. It’s just the plain truth. Also, I’d much rather live in Communist China or Vietnam than in Democratic Senegal. Note: The stats linked to above are heavily skewed by South Africa. I encourage you check the data out in greater detail.
“I’m very confident life expectancy was under twenty-five at the start of White rule.”
Not LOL. Truth.
The hypothetical population equations proposed in your 3rd link are ridiculous . . using their math the life expectancy of an American in the late 19th century would’ve also been in the 20s.
We have tons of anthropological studies of African tribes who had relatively little contact with the colonizing world. While infant mortality of course is greater, the life expectancy for most was 50 or higher. Concentrating people into urban environments, which was a huge byproduct of colonization, would’ve been responsible for a large number of disease outbreaks in the first half of the 20th century, in addition to the introduction of previously unknown vectors from Europeans.
Define “most”. Judging from
life expectancy at birth in the U.S. in the late 19th century was in the mid-40s -about the same as in modern Botswana, the least corrupt country in Africa, today. Africa always had plenty of tropical diseases-malaria, yellow fever, yaws, sleeping sickness-which lowered life expectancy and made growth of cities difficult in all but North Africa. Even in North Africa, I doubt life expectancy was much higher than 25 before the 20th century except in Tunisia and, possibly, Algeria and Morocco. Besides, the author in the 3rd link did not rely on equations, but “fragmentary records” for his estimate of African life expectancy in the 1930s.
Also, . Africa’s infectious diseases were, on average, much more deadly than Europe’s, and you are severely underestimating by how much African urbanization was a product of increased life expectancy in Africa brought by the introduction of partly-modern medicine by Europeans and successful European efforts against endemic tropical disease.
The quality of your references can be judged by the following in the article you link to in Discover:
Just last fall, the Congolese population was bedeviled by months of Ebola outbreaks throughout its northwestern provinces (2). Currently, the virus is traipsing its way eastwards from Africa, infecting mosquitoes and people in central and eastern Asia
Er, no. Ebola is not spread by mosquitoes, and has not spread into Asia.
(The DRC, of course, was the site of the notorious “Congo Free State”, private colony of King Leopold II. of the Belgians – a fine example of the benefits of white rule.)
Your own third reference notes that few African countries have data that can provide an estimate of life expectancy in 1900, while it is estimated at 30 in 1935-9.
More proof you do not know how to read. In context of the whole article, the mosquito-borne virus is clearly the Chikungunya virus. And did you look at the graph of the HAT cases over time?
What these links are supposed to prove is mysterious, since neither covers more than a fraction of the colonial period. As for your preference for living in China over Senegal – how is that relevant? My point is that a say in who rules you is a good thing – which white rule actively denied, while it has gradually spread under black rule. Do you dispute either of those points?
I say the first point is valid most of the time, but not all, and agree with the second.
Also, Nick, I can’t take you seriously after this (not that I took your leftist lies and pedantry very seriously before). If you actually looked at the Wikipedia chart you referenced (incidentally, the only source you referenced), you would see that African life expectancy today is about 55, not 70. I bothered to look because I’m in Russia now, and realized just a moment ago Russian life expectancy only passed 70 just a few short years ago, and Russians are closer in behavior, life expectancy, and per capita incomes to Black Americans than African Blacks.
Apologies: you are right on the current life expectancy in Africa – I failed to read the x-axis. However, your claims remain unsupported, since your “confidence” that life expectancy was under 25 in Africa prior to European rule is simply not backed by adequate data – you just believe what fits your bigotry.