Ok. My point still stands, especially since France loves intervening in its former coloniesand some of the worst most violent places in Africa are also not Francophone ones. South-Sudan, Sudan, Somalia, Nigeria, Libya, ...
Ok. My point still stands, especially since France loves intervening in its former coloniesand some of the worst most violent places in Africa are also not Francophone ones. South-Sudan, Sudan, Somalia, Nigeria, Libya, ...
Those arent the norm. And really, how many nation states are first world/industrialized 50 yrs after their establishment?But there are nation states who've succeeded in the same time so equating age with improvement is dangerous.
Those arent the norm.
And really, how many nation states are first world/industrialized 50 yrs after their establishment?
I cant even think of any nations that industrialized to first world status in less than 50-60 years from founding besides Singapore and maybe South KoreaNorm?
Whomever the elite choose or are forced to.
I cant even think of any nations that industrialized to first world status in less than 50-60 years from founding besides Singapore and maybe South Korea
Do you understand what im saying?I'm not sure "when it was founded" has to do with the amount of time it actually takes..
And most nations were founded 100s years ago so that kind of a "duh"
Do you understand what im saying?
Youre right. But I'd like to think that based on other nation's histories, African nations would be following a similar fate. The diversity of these nations also doesnt help as most nations are nation-states before they industrializeI get it. I just think its a red herring. The idea that executing a plan to industrialize materializes with time just doesn't make sense to me.
Lack of leadership, capital and institutions can continue indefinitely with time.
Thomas Sankara increased the production of wheat from 1700 kg per hectare to 3800 kg per hectare in just three years, built roads and railway without foreign aid and planted over 10 million trees to prevent desertification.
Africa has the most concentration of resources on the planet we need speak on that variable as well.
But I'd like to think that based on other nation's histories, African nations would be following a similar fate.
Its only been done by a handful of nations, most nations take at least 100 plus years to reach first world status. And im starting to think you need an autocratic leader like a Kagame or Lee Kuan YewSuch as? It shouldn't take Africans as long as nations founded in the 1400s nor should they have to follow the "European historical blueprint" to get there. It can be done and has been done.
Its only been done by a handful of nations, most nations take at least 100 plus years to reach first world status. And im starting to think you need an autocratic leader like a Kagame or Lee Kuan Yew
Its only been done by a handful of nations, most nations take at least 100 plus years to reach first world status.
I get what you trying to say but I think more institutionally unstable fits better than more violent.Ok. My point still stands, especially since France loves intervening in its former colonies
exactly what I think. Senegal already has a good base (by african standards), with a visionary benevolent autocrat like Kagame it would take giant steps towards development. Democracy is slowing us down way too much.Its only been done by a handful of nations, most nations take at least 100 plus years to reach first world status. And im starting to think you need an autocratic leader like a Kagame or Lee Kuan Yew