Why is there not 1 successful/prosperous country run by a black person?

Question

WOW. I ask a purly scientific question, and am labeled a racist..

Abdul, excelent response

Since Nelson took over South Africa, it has turned to crap

Kofi was the biggest disgrace to the UN since its inception

Answer 1

They where exploited by Egypt, than the Arabs, than Europeans.

And I believe they never developed writing, which is an insurmountable limitation on how large and organized of a civilization and government that can develop. Knowledge remained in the dark ages. And they where limited to tribalism or feudalism (warlords and gangs) governments.

Today things are just messed up. They don't have a large enough leadership class to fix the problems -- you need these people to fill honest lawyers, bankers, industrialists, police, mayors, presidents -- at all levels. No industry, weak agriculture, education is not useful if there is no infrastructure.

Answer 2

If you're really interested in what's behind this, study some African history.

Sub-Saharan Africa is not doing well because of the treatment it got and still gets from Europeans and America.

One big problem is that the countries and borders are artificial, breaking up groups, and lumping the fragments together into illogical countries. That's been hard to cope with.

There are good, non-corrupt leaders there (we hear about the bad ones more than the good ones), but, lacking means, they have no way of really improving the lives of their citizens.

BTW, South Africa was worse off under Apartheid than it is now for the vast majority of the people who live there.

Mandela did one of the most healing and beautiful things ever done by any leader anywhere in any time by implementing the Truth Commission -- "we're not after revenge, we just want to know exactly what happened" -- I mean, come ON.

But there have been other good, even great, leaders of sub-Saharan African countries -- there was a Mali leader, though I don't recall his name or exactly when he was leader.

Before Mugabe turned, he did many good things. (That old "absolute power" glitch.)

Sorry -- I'm really bad with names, and weak on specifics, but, as I say, if you are honestly interested to know more, there's a world wide web of information available for searching and browsing.

A person can be a great leader -- wise, truly concerned about the welfare of his or her citizens -- but, in impossible situations, there's only so much they can do.

A country created all higglety-pigglety; agriculture wrongly forced into cash crops, rather than food for the people who live there; environmentally trashed by the rest of the world; diddled by the World Bank; the deck stacked against it in every way.

There's a plan being floated that would cut in half the number of people living in absolute poverty in 10 years. It would start with the non-corrupt governments, and would provide aide that would help people be self-sufficient and much more prosperous (well, comfy, which would be a vast improvement).

But the plan is drowned out by all the ugliness, and few have heard of it.

With a relatively small amount of money, we could make it so.

Then it would be easy to see the great leaders, by the increasing prosperity of their people.

Answer 3

He became on no account black first of all. He has continually been a one million/2 cracka to me, i did no longer vote for him, they tried to cover that cracka as a black guy or woman yet i became no longer fooled. A black guy or woman isn't raised by making use of crackas, pointblank. i'm staring at for my a hundred% N igga president with no longer even an oz. of cracka blood.

Answer 4

First of all, there have been successful and prosperous countries run by black people. Second of all, Africa has had less than 50 years to recover from total colonial domination and horrible poverty - it will take time for any leader to succeed while it recovers from that mess.

Answer 5

Actually, your question isn't at all scientific. If you really want an answer, though, it is because in most wealthy countries, it's usually the whites who have the most money and power. The answer should be obvious.

Answer 6

Why do people say that colonialism is the sole reason why blacks in Africa are underdeveloped? History would show us this is not true. The interior of Africa was the last place on earth to be colonized due to its inaccessibility, and until the 1860s-1870s was completely isolated from white influence. They still lived in huts and killed and enslaved each other before white people arrived. South Africa was the most successful country in SSA until OTHER nations decided apartheid was wrong and made trade illegal, crippling the economy. Rhodesia was Africa's breadbasket, and once it became Zimbabwe and the farms were run by blacks the land became nearly fruitless. If the beef is that cultural boundaries were not recognized, why do Americans and Europeans have to live in diverse populations and Africans do not? Is this not racism? Africa is rich in minerals, and yet Africans, not whites, take them for personal gain. It is not the white mans fault. Stop blaming white people.

Answer 7

Kofi Anan was the secretary general of the UN and a black man. Before him was Boutros-Boutros Ghali, also a black man.

Answer 8

European imperialism, which robbed African countries of resources, massacred and enslaved people, and set the scene for poverty and civil wars. Before Europeans invaded africa, there were a number of great civilisations equal to those in Europe.

Answer 9

Because they pocket the money that is supposed to help the country flourish..

Answer 10

Representative governments with a rule of law and a free market economy are a white thing