Why dont people in africa have food and clean water?
1. Africa doesn't have good soil to grow Food Crops. 2. They don't have the technology to produce ample crops out of poor soil. 3. Groups like GreenPeace, the Sierra Club, etc. convinced Africans and Asians that GM Seed will "Mutate their Children and kill their Livestock" so they don't grow the Modified Cotton that removes the toxins from the seeds so they can use the cotton for trade and use the seed for bread and animal feed and they don't grow the modified "Golden Rice" that has boosted B Vitamins to stop the malnutrition that has led to millions of deaths in the 3rd world. 4. War, Genocide, Rape, Slavery, Poverty, Substance Farming, War, Genocide, Rape, Slavery, War, Genocide, Rape, Slavery, War, Genocide, Rape, Slavery, War, Genocide, Rape, Slavery, War, Genocide, Rape, Slavery, War, Genocide, Rape, Slavery, War, Genocide, Rape, Slavery, War, Genocide, Rape, Slavery... Norman Borlaug - Greatest Man In 1000 Years. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIvNopv9P... Saved an estimated BILLION LIVES through his agricultural reforms. The 2nd & 3rd world has exploding population numbers but don't have the tech or techniques to produce enough food to properly care for their people. They have little to no environmental policies to stop the pollution of their water, air, and land... A LARGE portion of Africa is so busy murdering, raping, and pillaging to actually build upon what tech and techniques are available. They are a good 100+ years behind the Technologically Advanced Societies and with the amount of inter-country war, it feels as if they will never calm the fu*k down enough to actually mature in to the 21st century. Some parts of Africa are lush and they can provide for themselves... Other parts are barren and at the whim of weather and local politics... Until the people dedicate themselves to BETTERING themselves, they are lost...
Slavery was once a common human practice. It was part of Chinese history. It was part of European history. It was likely part of Mesoamerican history, though much less is known.Slavery is the vice of the civilised people. This is because only a settled culture that practices labour-intensive agriculture can find a use for slaves. The one good thing I can say about the practice is: slaves were often prisoners of war. The alternative to enslaving them was to kill them.Thus: some African societies had slaves. JJ Cohn has already mentioned the Ashante. Also on the list would be Liberia and Ethiopia.It should not be surprising that black people could enslave other black people. Look at Russian history: Russian serfs were slaves in all but name. They looked just as white as their overlords.The problem is that slavery on a massive scale involved outsiders.West Africa, along the coast in Ghana and Senegal: the slave markets where hundreds of people were taken captive and shipped across the Atlantic to America or to Brazil. The conditions were unspeakable. Most of these people died in transit. The survivors were put to work.East and Central Africa: the Arab slavers were doing much the same thing. The island of Zanzibar was once the greatest slave market in the region.By the nineteenth century, slavery on a massive scale had decimated life in central Africa. Explorers such as David Livingstone described the region as a nightmare of empty fields, burned huts, and captives being marched eastwards towards Zanzibar. The greatest single cause for this was slavery.Degree matters. A candle can light the darkness, but a forest fire is dangerous. The demand for African slaves abroad, both in the Americas and around the Persian gulf, was akin to a fire that ravaged and destroyed central Africa, leaving only the savage garden that Dr. Livingstone saw.Some Africans, notably the infaous slaver Tippu Tip, played their part. But they would not have taken so many captives for the slave market if there were not a demand.For the slavery on the massive scale, the blame also lies with the Americans, Brazilians, and Arabs who bought and owned slaves. Because slavery would never have gone so far without them.
People here have wonderfully outlined the historical repercussions, but I'll offer a social and environmental one.Without the Sahara, Africans won't have the world's biggest source of solar energy, so the solar projects in Morocco, Algeria and the projected one in Nigeria may not exist. Closeness to the equator is also a cause for the high temperatures, but the presence of the Sahara is a bigger factor.Moreso, there would be easier trans-African trade. The Sahara separated Africa into two: North and Sub-Saharan Africa. In its absence, there would be easier migration leading to more inter tribal marriages, more knowledge of our neighbors. Trade would also be facilitated, first with the Muslim nations south of the Sahara like: Niger, Chad, Somalia, the Gambia and Mali. Other Western and Eastern African nations would follow suit, before Southern Africa. This, of course, would have made the AU stronger and given the continent a true Pan-African feel.The Sahara gone would mean the existing area would be covered by plant life or settlements, which would have an effect on some cultures today like the Tuaregs. Imagine what they would have been doing now? Probably cattle rearers like the Fulanis. Camels wouldn't be there either.Oh yeah, there probably won't be any pyramids or Sphinx- which would be kind of sad. Basically, it would change Africa entirely.
Was Africa always poor and undernourished?
Poor by modern standards perhaps, but sub-saharan Africans were not always on the brink of starvation. Prior to 19th century colonialism, most Africans lived in very old, established pastoral or hunter-gatherer cultures in which most people lived off the land. The land, not intensively farmed, supported the populations rather well as the people were very good at managing their resources. There did arise some "great" civilizations, such as the Songhai, who developed limited agriculture, iron working etc, but resource production, especially food, remained mostly focused on supporting the populations. Populations remained limited but the land could support them. With the 19th century colonisation of Africa, however, everything changed. European nations introduced "progress." They introduced a cash/market economy and demanded taxes from Africans. The latter forced many to produce cash crops (sugar, coffee etc) rather than food for their families on their land. Many lost their land and had to go to work in large plantations for cash to pay for food. There, they were badly exploited by Europeans eager for profit. Money and resources flowed back to Europe as more and more Africans were hopelessly impoverished. The introduction of widespread cash-cropping also had a devastating environmental effect. Intensive farming and felling of trees in land not suited to it denuded the land. What is now desert in areas such as the Sudan or Ethiopia once was viable land for pastoralism. Even with the end of the colonial era in the 1950s, the damage had been done. Climate change, long term impoverishment, the breakup of age-old cultures and bad management continue to dog attempts to improve the situation. Further, International financial organizations such as the World Bank and the IMF continue to push brutal market economies and cash cropping in Africa. This seemed like a way out, so African nations took out loans in the 1960s and the 1970s. However, the market for cash crops collapsed soon after, so these states couldn't even begin to pay back the debts which then started to mount even higher. Corruption, poverty and free-market ideology have combined to hamper any useful attempts to make the situation any better.
Things Africa is famous for???
I would really suggest you watch the movie Hotel Rwanda. While I totally agree the US doesn't do nearly enough to take care of their own, we are still blessed to live in a country with bounty and where those in need of aide have places to turn to for help. In Africa, not only is such aide nonexistant (not counting what is coming in from other countries), but in addition to starvation and health care from the dark ages, they are also trying to live with a genocide. Imagine being killed just because you aren't in one group. And I think the adoption thing is totally unrelated, since generally African adoptions aren't permitted. But sadly most US couples adopting want newborns, and that is not who is in foster care in this country. That is why they go out of this country to adopt. I know I've often said that I'd rather adopt an older child out of foster care if the time is ever right in my life, than adopt a baby. But that's me. And I also think this country doesn't do a great job of letting people know how many kids need homes here. Back to Africa, keep in mind the poverty and starvation there is on a level that I think few in America can understand. I'll never forget years ago John Denver (who i adored) went there and at night heard this constant wailing sound he thought belonged to some wild animals. When he asked what it was, he was told it was hundreds of dying babies, all crying for food that their mothers didn't have and couldn't produce. Can you imagine? He heard this everywhere he went. While there is definately real need here, thank God it's not on a level like that. And there are no food banks or welfare or church pantry's or any alternatives. The child cries until the poor thing dies. It's hard to imagine this being dailly life, but it is there. So I can see why they have a big enough need that those here should definately contribute if they can. But that said, I think attention should be given to those in need here too. Imagine if the trillions spent on the war went to humanitarian aide here. It could have wiped it out. And maybe if we stopped destroying their country, no Iraqi's would be coming here (though I didn't think that many were).