Why are countries with Black population so poor?
African is a continent that is incredibly culturally diverse. There are people of all types of ethnicity in Africa and they are not considered to be "black." Africa is made up dozens of countries that are very very different. So in reference to why "black people" are so poor, doesn't make sense because they are not all black. They are not even all African - they are a product of their country. Not a singular race. Just because they are dark skinned doesn't make them "black." That is a term used for African Americans in the US who are very much separated from their ancestors in Africa. Now there are thriving countries and there are non thriving countries. However European exploitation, and decades of racism contributed to some of the countries becoming less developed in the eyes of developed nations. However, poor in capital is not the same thing as poor in spirit. My boyfriend is from Ghana and he was not poor or starving in his country. He had material objects like most others. It just depends on the country and some countries fair better than most. But just because they are lacking in material wealth, in my eyes do not make them poor. Just because some people do not have the same amount, does not mean they have less. You cannot compare industrialized nations to non industrialized nations that suffer from agricultural deficiencies, climates, and pest problems (malaria for example) that does not help to promote industrial advancement. So again, I do not understand your question. Because there is no black population - there is just human beings. Some light skinned and some brown.
Why aren't predominantly black, asian, or arab countries pressured to be "multicultural" as heavily as predominantly white countries are?
Who exerts the pressure exactly? My answer is based on personal opinion only, so I expect to be roundly criticized. The other answers are also based on personal impressions, and I disagree with most of what I have read so far. I welcome comments from those who are more knowledgeable. I wonder where one might find data on this?It seems to me that one source of pressure to be multicultural comes from multinational corporations. When a company wishes to hire or transfer employees to many different nations, they must also maintain consistent policies and procedures. This demands that employees at each location abide by rules about diversity and anti-discrimination. Global corporations must find it difficult to relocate employees and their families to countries that would be unfriendly or intolerant of people from other places. That being said, when the company of my wife's cousin relocated his young family from New York City to Switzerland for five years, that alone was a big decision even though the culture shock would not be the same as, say, relocating to Bahrain, Ghana, Lima, or Singapore. This is a family that would typically experience culture shock if they had to live anywhere but the Upper West Side of Manhattan. My German teacher in college was Swiss and each class was a barrage of snide comments about Swiss superiority to Americans and Germans. I hear that is a common attitude among Swiss.Now, the family returned to the U.S., and I imagine that the culture shock to them and their 6-year-old of adjusting to Miami, Florida would be greater still. Miami has a large Latino population, and Miami Beach has a large aging Jewish population, but I don't find South Florida to be very cosmopolitan, knowledgeable or tolerant of blacks and people of other nationalities. They don't even care for Yankees!
Why are countries with predominantly white population more developed compared to others?
As User-10349999957071132236 says, it's primarily diffusion from a start in Britain. Britain's settler colonies brought the same level of development and kept in close touch so had no problem keeping up with later developments.Industrial economy also diffused from Britain to the rest of Europe. Much has been written about commercial and scientific development in preceding centuries, but the bottom line is they still did not benefit from mechanization until they actually embarked on it. Even the brief barriers of the Cold War made a big difference in development between Eastern and Western Europe. The most backward was Albania which was cut off from both the Western and Soviet blocs.Japan's development created another center of diffusion. Even though China was directly borrowing from the West and soon at war with Japan, the existing cultural similarity and proximity enabled broad-based borrowing. You can still see much commonality in modern East Asian culture, beyond what is attributable to premodern contact.Attitudes towards work and business also have explanatory value, but even well-known differences in these tend to be overcome by direct contact and diffusion. Conversely there have been people who have always been known as intelligent and hard-working, but simply not reached adequately by development yet.Regarding roads and infrastructure, actually many of these in the US are showing their age and need renovation, and this is a huge job because of the volume of existing facilities.
Why are countries with black people 3rd world?
****** , are a separate species of human, human yes but a different species of human . They do not have the same abilities as some of the other species , they have other abilities . I could claim and legitimately so that the NBA is RACIST because of scarcity of white players and under today's law and mores I would be right and win , but the corrupt racists would not allow it even though it is their own argument in reverse . Blacks do not usually administrators, governors make . Not one of their talents , neither are they often found as inventors . They have other skills besides physical and sports , but I am bored with the whole black issue . They need to figure themselves out and stop blaming whitey , because when whitey is gone who next will they blame and they will blame someone , just you watch and see . They are cowards deep down inside and cannot face the truth of who,what they are.
Why is Haiti the only predominantly black Latin American country?
Because they also instituted that everyone in the country was BLACK.According to historical texts the word for foreigner was “BLAN”.So if you lived in Haiti you were and I guess are considered BLACK.This sadly whichever way you look at it is a Black Supremacist ideology.Imagine if you lived in Sweden and they told you as a Nigerian or Pakistani that you are now considered WHITE, that would be considered RACIST and FAR RIGHT. They’d call it the politics of FEAR or DEMAGOGUERY.How different is it to those who claim that UK is solely a WHITE country?After the hard ethnic cleansing of what could be called the French or “White Haitians” in the 1804 Haiti massacre - Wikipedia, Port Au Prince then peacefully annexed what was to become the Dominican Republic it went ahead and helped free the slaves and encourage Spanish White Europeans to leave the country, Unification of Hispaniola - Wikipedia.Imagine a country that maligned or persecuted any other group of people?and then used it as propaganda?The Haitian Revolution was amazing epic in mankind's history and it’s heroism can’t be discounted, however old behavior is being reanalyzed and more scrutiny placed on what was thought settled and cut ‘n’ dry.However, with regards to the original question.These things as well as the political instability helped Haiti become a predominantly black country in the Americas.
Why aren't there any successful black nations in the world?
Having been to Bermuda and some of the Caribbean nations I can say that it is not true that there are no successful black majority nations. Several places in Africa are also pretty nice places to live - I am from there so I know what I am talking about. However, on the wealth and development scale the majority of those countries are lacking compared to western Europe and the other OECD countries.For this I will I assume that your question is genuine and that in your original question you are talking mainly about countries in Africa. Firstly, I thoroughly reject the standard brainwashing line these days - it’s all colonialism’s fault. The only reason I am replying here is because this ‘colonialism’ blaming is just so ubiquitous and so untrue. I come from Zimbabwe and what I have to say is that compared to 120 years ago when there was no written language, no notion of any of the institutions of a modern nation state, no industry, no financial system - in short a savannah with scattered, semi-nomadic, slash-and-burn, illiterate clans living in it, then we have to say that in that short space of time the area - which was made into a country by ‘colonialists’ - has come a very long way.Europe and most of the other OECD countries have had hundreds of years of continuous (and painful, violent and bloody) development of society, culture, political systems, technology etc. etc. etc. so these nations just have a big head start over the newly-created ‘countries’ of Africa. Without colonialism and European colonial development it is quite probable that the people of these African countries would today be living in a far less developed state than they are. Africa has made tremendous strides in a very short space of time, and as the people and cultures develop with exposure to wealth, technology, literacy, law-and-order, the financial system, Christianity etc. then I think the gap in development between these nations and the OECD nations will rapidly become less and less. Particularly since the nations of the west have rejected the Christian underpinnings which paved the way for their development, I think the Christianising nations of Africa may soon be outshining them as the western nations degenerate into a new, savage, confused dark age.
Why is every majorly black country in the world a Third World country?
Clueless Presidents caused by lack of democracy.Israel was formed in 1948 and yet she is so developed.Ghana had a bigger economy than South Korea in 1957. Today South Korea’s economy is 15 times bigger than Ghana.When Robert Mugabe became leader of Zimbabwe in 1980 he inherited a country that other African Presidents could only dream of. Tanzanian President Julius Nyerere saidYou have inherited a jewel in Africa, don’t tarnish itZimbabwe is now one of the poorest countries in the world. The government can’t even provide clean tap water because the water pipes are from before independence 39 years ago.Democracy trumps every political system because only the best get to lead. Mugabe lost the referendum in 1999 that gave him powers to take land owned by white farmers without paying a dime. In 2000 he took the land anyway. This caused the economy to fall to the levels of what is now. In 2008 he blatantly stole the election by swapping results while the whole world was watching. The economy further slipped in the next 9 years.The same can be said about dozens of other African and Caribbean countries which is the only reason every majorly black country in the world a Third World country
Is India still considered a third world country? Why?
Historically speaking, classifying countries as first, second and third world have nothing to do with development or GDP or any other economic criteria but coming to present, the term “Third world countries” is wrongly used in the sense that these countries are misinterpreted as developing or under-developed. This stereotyped thinking has led to some incorrect beliefs.Lets us define these countries.First world countries. After World War II, The Soviet Union gained power and start spreading communism among its neighboring nations. To counter it an “anti communist” organisation was formed known as NATO. Some of its initial members were The United States, The United Kingdom, Belgium, France and Netherlands. These were called first world countries, This political tension between NATO and Eastern Bloc(the Soviet Union and its satellite states) led to Cold war. Since then the definition of NATO has also changed. Now it has become defensive military alliance of “The West” nations.Second world countries. These countries were under the communist rule of Soviet Union. These countries are considered to be in between prosperity and poverty in latest term(same stereotype thinking as first world). These were know as Communist Bloc.Third world countries. During cold war era, the term “third world” defined countries that didn’t aligned with either NATO or Communist Bloc. No economic criteria was used to define them but due to many Third World countries being non-industrialized it became a stereotype to refer poor countries as “Third World”. After cold war ended these term have become outdated and have been misused since. India is currently referred to as Newly industrialized country(NIC) along with China and Brazil.NIC are countries whose economies have not yet reached a developed country's status but have, in a macroeconomic sense, outpaced their developing counterparts.So it makes no sense to refer it as “Third Word”. UAE and Brazil are too part of Third World. These terms “First”,”Second” and “Third” nation made sense during cold war and doesn’t make sense now. Not all third world nation are economically bad.This video explain very well.Footnotes.First World[1]Second World[2]Third World[3]Cold war[4]Footnotes[1] http://First World[2] Second World - Wikipedia[3] Third World - Wikipedia[4] Cold War - Wikipedia