Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 42
Thanks Tree36Thanks

Thread: Asian vs African nations

  1. #21
    Veteran Member Chief's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    25,031
    Thanks
    5784

    From
    Earth

    Myanmar?s Rohingya Could Be The World?s Next Major Refugee Crisis

    This is Asia.

    The vast majority of Asia is not like the big cities you know.
    Thanks from res, Davocrat and TennesseeRain

  2. #22
    Member Robert Urbanek's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,897
    Thanks
    1241

    From
    Vacaville, CA
    Nations in northern climes, particularly in Europe, spent more time playing with fire, which accelerated the development of steam power, metallurgy and other prerequisites of the industrial age. Europe is also a bit unusual in that it is situated among a number of small seas, which encouraged naval transport and the technology required for naval warfare.

    If North America had been undisturbed, I believe Native Americans would have developed some form of industrialization around the Great Lakes area.

  3. #23
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    51,862
    Thanks
    18477

    From
    america
    Quote Originally Posted by Meursault View Post
    My question is pretty simple. I have my answer or theory which I'll post later but I want to know what people think.

    Why do you think so many Asian nations were/are able to develop to the extent we see while most African nations are left in poverty and disarray?
    My Theories:

    #1. Location, location, location! Asian Nations, especially the ones that have flourished, are between China, and the West. This meant that trade and technology spread through these nations, back and forth. Sub Saharan Africa, did not have this luxury. While there may have been SOME trade and exchange of ideas, that was pretty much between Middle Eastern and North African Nations, trading with Sub Saharan Africa.

    #2. Africa, is, quite simply....a VERY nice continent for early hunter-gatherer societies. Much like North America and much of Polynesia. Now, eventually people DID adopt agriculture, tools and the like, but....I believe, that without HARSHER environments pushing them, human societies are much slower to develop TECHNOLOGY. This does not make these peoples "dumb," it is simply that their technological development is slower.

    #3. Lack of Big CITIES/Agricultural centers. This largely falls in with the points above. When people's can live off the land, in somewhat ease, then they are not as likely to develop large cities, which, in turn, start creating specialization of skills.

    Let's place ourselves 1,000 years in the past (OR, in any time period, in which large swaths of land are unoccupied...) Africa, the America's and Polynesia, offer some VERY nice regions for simply living off the land, with all the resources needed.

    I would point out, however, that societies from ALL THREE areas were actually pretty complex, when it comes to cultural traditions, knowledge OF their environments, social interactions, etc.

    They only lacked the more advanced technologies, and Social traditions that are born from:

    A. Large Cities.
    B. Massive Agricultural Bases.
    C. Trade Routes.
    Thanks from Davocrat

  4. #24
    Junior Member allegoricalfact's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,577
    Thanks
    268

    From
    the Sussex Downs
    Quote Originally Posted by Meursault View Post
    My question is pretty simple. I have my answer or theory which I'll post later but I want to know what people think.

    Why do you think so many Asian nations were/are able to develop to the extent we see while most African nations are left in poverty and disarray?
    The West wants their resources and keeps them in poverty --- on reservations ---sending in cruel mercenary armies --- etc ---- same shit as what was done to indigenous Americans

  5. #25
    res
    res is offline
    Member
    Joined
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,233
    Thanks
    841

    Well... In the crudest sense I'd have to go with the influx of shitloads of capital for a protracted period of time.
    African countries were/are in rich in mineral resources, be it diamonds, oil or something else. The countries you speak of in Asia aren't. Their sole capital was their human potential and so they've worked on developing it. A good example that you've left out is Singapore. Absolutely nothing to offer but its people. They used to be paid like slaves doing accepting offshored jobs from Europe and America. Slowly and gradually they've built up their expertise and become what you see today. African countries, like Nigeria, are moving in that direction also, but are seriously hurting through regional conflicts that are still going on on much of the continent.
    Something like that :-)

  6. #26
    Established Member
    Joined
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    6,366
    Thanks
    3375

    From
    UK
    Quote Originally Posted by Meursault View Post
    My question is pretty simple. I have my answer or theory which I'll post later but I want to know what people think.

    Why do you think so many Asian nations were/are able to develop to the extent we see while most African nations are left in poverty and disarray?
    I take it you are asking about today's Asian nations and today's African nations.. colonialism in a word, Africa never truly regained it's freedom.
    Thanks from Davocrat

  7. #27
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    51,862
    Thanks
    18477

    From
    america
    PS CHINA, and much of the Far East are the BIG questions to me.

    I just find it amazing, that the Human Species "came out of Africa," then, somehow, spread ALL the way to China/East Asia, and BOOM! The first REAL Empires/Nations.

    China was advanced when the peoples of the Middle East and Mediterranean were just starting to flourish.

    While the lands of China are very nice for agriculture, and all the early required resources, I find the question of "how" and "why" to be very interesting.

    Whatever the case, they, in many ways, are more the "center" of the world, than the Mediterranean/European West.

    Trade back and forth with China, and East Asia, over the centuries has been one of the driving forces for Technological innovation for everyone in the EurAsia.

    (And HOW did the freaking Polynesians explore and colonize the Pacific...in CANOES and Katamarans?????)
    Thanks from mrmike

  8. #28
    New Member
    Joined
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    603
    Thanks
    302

    From
    Finland
    Asian perspective from famous Lee Kuan Yew who is chinese but was first Prime Minister of Singapore.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Kuan_Yew


  9. #29
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    58,881
    Thanks
    31132

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by Meursault View Post
    My question is pretty simple. I have my answer or theory which I'll post later but I want to know what people think.

    Why do you think so many Asian nations were/are able to develop to the extent we see while most African nations are left in poverty and disarray?
    Rivers and iodine. The alignment of national boundaries with ethnic identity. A long history of domesticible large animals.
    Thanks from Davocrat

  10. #30
    Established Member Redwood's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    6,766
    Thanks
    4329

    From
    Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by mrmike View Post
    Patience, individual pride balanced by strong family focus on duty with a responsibility to achieve.
    Well....Much of Africa as recent as the time of our Civil War... was Tribes with NO tech at all and no written language. They had a rather primative life. Asian nations had more evolved social structure,commerce,agriculture,language. " cultural values" among Asians put education high. It's rather recent in Africa that more than a FEW could get ANY real education, or had much chance to use it. It takes TIME for a culture/sub culture to ADAPT. After a LONG time as second class citizens... Black Americans were slow to have FAITH in higher education as a path. Mexican Americans, found manual labor or small businesses as a more available path .
    Jews.. however had gone for education and so did asians. When we got a wave of immigrants from Viet Nam, Cambodia, they really focused big on their kids getting educated. Families who arrived with minimal skills, not much English,no money.... have kids going to Stanford,Cal,Cal Tech, etc.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 51
    Last Post: 21st October 2014, 01:18 PM
  2. African Americans Versus African Immigrants.
    By Two If By Tea in forum Racism
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 3rd October 2014, 08:17 AM
  3. African Americans Versus African Immigrants
    By Two If By Tea in forum Sexuality
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 8th September 2014, 05:05 AM
  4. Replies: 333
    Last Post: 29th January 2012, 01:44 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed