[Bosnjak]

Africa only exports raw material, instead to process it. The Africans could make more money by processing the raw materials.

Processing resources could also guartantee Jobs to Africans.

[Zyx]

Good question, why not write a letter to the Queen?

[Dr House]

By and large, sub-Saharan African states lack the necessary skilled labor and physical capital to refine raw materials, or the political stability to forge a policy meant to obtain them. Botswana, the wealthiest sub-Saharan African state without a white minority, is a beacon of stability in the region and it does cut diamonds for export.

[Wolfman]

Because during the Colonial period the only thing Africans were taught how to do is extract the resources, not process. Also, there were numerous divisions that were artificially created which served to divide the various countries, and this is still causing tensions. A third major reason is that 'countries' were created completely artificially. Africa has 1,000 different languages, each one roughly represents a different culture. Nigeria alone has 400 different languages. Ethiopia was the only country which was never really colonized, and it shows in there ability to function. The same is mostly true with the countries in North Africa (Egypt, Libya, Morocco). While they were colonized, they already had a mostly homogeneous culture, which reduced the social impact of colonization. South Africa is doing fine because the whites quickly established a ruling class, which were able to pad the social and political impact of the ending of colonization.

So, in short, it's all white's fault.

[JohnRawls]

It is the natives fault for being weak in the first place is it not ? Since you put it that its the agressors fault , then why didn't the afrikans unite to overthrow the invaders ?

And last but not least , you said yourself that the agressors helped create south afrika , so again what is wrong ?

[Wolfman]

then why didn't the afrikans unite to overthrow the invaders ?

How long do you think Estonia last against an invasion force of 5x your adult male population that is armed with weapons decades more advanced then anything you have? Exactly.

And last but not least , you said yourself that the agressors helped create south afrika , so again what is wrong ?

I'm going to guess you're a Social Contractualist. South Africa's government basically took a dump on the Social Contract.

[Zyx]

It is the natives fault for being weak in the first place is it not

The historical record is that the game changer is the Maxim gun, hence why it's in my signature.

It was forbidden to give Africans the Maxim Gun technology, for before then they built Rifles and rivaled Europeans in strength.

[JohnRawls]

How long do you think Estonia last against an invasion force of 5x your adult male population that is armed with weapons decades more advanced then anything you have? Exactly.

Uhm 50 years i guess ? The soviet stayed for 52 years or so .

I'm going to guess you're a Social Contractualist. South Africa's government basically took a dump on the Social Contract.

I do agree with social contract BUT the problem is , it wasn't only the europeans , they did the same to their people in their country . If you haven't noticed they exploited their own people for no wage and no work condition almost at all.

It was the workers who forced them to do what the workers wanted . In the end south afrikans are one of the most advanced countries in Afrika (North included also) . And since 30-40 years ago or so afrikans started actually fighting for their rights , they started to live BETTER .

The historical record is that the game changer is the Maxim gun, hence why it's in my signature.

It was forbidden to give Africans the Maxim Gun technology, for before then they built Rifles and rivaled Europeans in strength.

We are not talking about the maxim gun you know . I am saying that the Agressors influence was a good thing in the long run for the afrikans . Well where the influence did reach . The naval countries in afrika are for example more advanced than inner afrikan countries . And countries with larger agressor influence are more developed.

[Wolfman]

Uhm 50 years i guess ? The soviet stayed for 52 years or so .

No, I mean fight off an invading force. From what I understand Estonia basically volunteered to be taken over by the USSR post-WWII, and became independent because the USSR collapsed, not because of the Estonian fighting skills.

If you haven't noticed they exploited their own people for no wage and no work condition almost at all.

Indentured servants are better off then slaves and colonial citizens. Indentured Servants are only like that for a few years, slaves are in that condition for life, and likewise with colonial citizens.

[JohnRawls]

No, I mean fight off an invading force. From what I understand Estonia basically volunteered to be taken over by the USSR post-WWII, and became independent because the USSR collapsed, not because of the Estonian fighting skills.

That is called waiting for the righ time you know . IF you challange the british empire on the peek of its power you are bound to get your ass kicked . And we didn't volunteered , we were forced , as you said fighting 20x your male population with arms is preatty pointless , so we waited and as soon as the chance came (1984-1985) we started fighting and won later on .

Indentured servants are better off then slaves and colonial citizens. Indentured Servants are only like that for a few years, slaves are in that condition for life, and likewise with colonial citizens.

I don't think so . Not 2-3 years for sure , are you denying the 18th and the 19th(16th and 17th century included) century when labor force was almost not protected and had almost no rights . It was in a nutshell basically the same slavery ... . In 20th century things started getting better but still were pretty bad only the 21st century we have seen a major improvement .

[Kaspar]

Ethiopia was the only country which was never really colonized, and it shows in there ability to function.

How is Ethiopia any more functional than say Kenya, or Tanzania? If anything I would say Ethiopia is less functional than many African states. Huge famines, a GDP per capita of under 1000 USD, etc. The situation in Ethiopia actually makes me pretty sad, the country has such extraordinary potential yet is so incredibly backwards.

In fact, I think Ethiopia is more of a lesson on how European colonization should not be considered the sole factor in why so many African nations are underdeveloped.

[millie_(A)TCK]

When African countries tried to create industries to process their own materials they were sabotaged by western banking and lending institutions that ordered them to remove protection of infant industries in exchange for loans. Without protection for these infant industries, African industries could not compete against western industries that have centuries advancement.

[Wolfman]

How is Ethiopia any more functional than say Kenya, or Tanzania?

It was politically stable for decades. Most of it's problems are fairly recent, unlike Kenya and Tanzania.

[millie_(A)TCK]

It was politically stable for decades. Most of it's problems are fairly recent, unlike Kenya and Tanzania.

Ethiopia hasn't been stable since the 50's when Selassie's reign turned into an unpopular dictatorship and there was a coup against him in the 70s. Since then Ethiopia has been embroiled in internal conflicts over power, famine, ogadenland and in regional wars against Eritrea and Somalia. The same cannot be said about Kenya and Tanzania who have both not had coups, nor civil wars nor have they been embroiled in regional conflicts

[Wolfman]

I must be thinking of a different state.

[Dr House]

When African countries tried to create industries to process their own materials they were sabotaged by western banking and lending institutions that ordered them to remove protection of infant industries in exchange for loans. Without protection for these infant industries, African industries could not compete against western industries that have centuries advancement.

Subsidies and state-ownership or conservatorship can take the place of or complement protectionism in an industrial policy. They are in fact preferable to trade protectionism and a vital component of the industrial policies of all but the largest nations, since trade barriers only protect infant industries from losses in the domestic market.

[millie_(A)TCK]

Subsidies and state-ownership or conservatorship can take the place of or complement protectionism in an industrial policy.

International lending institutions also forced African countries to remove all subsidies and privatize.

[Dr House]

I suspected as much; they've done the same in Latin America. I was just making a side comment.

I've always wondered why the developing world has not simply refused to take loaded IMF loans.

[Figlio di Moros]

IF you challange the british empire on the peek of its power you are bound to get your ass kicked.

You're talking to Americans....

It is the natives fault for being weak in the first place is it not ? Since you put it that its the agressors fault , then why didn't the afrikans unite to overthrow the invaders?

I feel the need to remind people of the Whiteman's burden... prior to the Scramble for Africa, the continent didn't even export anything beyond slaves. I don't see how it's anyone else's fault that Africa, having it's hand held while it's economy was built for it, couldn't expand or maintain it once they recieved their sovereignty.

[Okonkwo]

I've always wondered why the developing world has not simply refused to take loaded IMF loans.

You are certainly correct in that they should refuse the IMF by all means - that darned organisation has obstructed progress for too long.

In fact member countries are increasingly rebuffing World Bank and IMF programmes as it becomes more and more apparent how disastrous their ideology was.
The reason for developing countries not being able to completely refuse the IMF could become somewhat clearer if we take the actual example of Venezuela and Ecuador trying to leave the organisation in 2007. The Venezuelan government was forced to back down from an immediate exit because their sovereign bond contracts require IMF membership. They have not been able to leave to this day.
Ecuador's Rafael Correa seemed to be more successful when he declared the World Bank's country representative persona non grata in April of the same year. He declared Ecuador's $750 million of debt illegitimate and demanded the World Bank to renegotiate. In the end he also had to succumb to international pressure, pay off part of the debt and was only able to defiantly quip: "We don't want to hear anything more from that international bureaucracy."

There are also examples of African countries' protest to be found: we could take a look at Tanzania's refusal to privatise its capital's water system as a condition of both IMF support to Tanzania and for getting debt relief under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries initiative. Under massive protest they decided to end the contract and form their own institution to replace the IMF's private British company because the private company was so incompetent and obstructing.
Then we have Mali delaying privatisation of its cotton industry because of the horrible World Bank-enforced privatisation of its state railway in 2003. Mali lost about 600 jobs in this, two-thirds of station stops closed which threatened the livelihood of thousands who live along the route of the railway and depend on these travelling customers. When a railway engineer and former director of the African Railway Institute in Brazzaville loudly voiced his discontent and led a public campaign for "the return of the rail to the people of Mali", he was immediately laid off.

These are all good examples of the heavy pressure both governments and individual citizens are subjected to by the IMF and the World Bank. Refusing these organisations is both a bold and grave move that cannot be made easily and without full determination. That might be closest to an answer to your wonder. On this note:

"The interests of the IMF represent the big international interests that seem to be established and concentrated in Wall Street."
(Che Guevara)