When I say "extreme poverty" I am referring mostly to modern conditions in sub-Saharan Africa. I was under the impression that hardly anyone lived in such conditions in 1800. Of course I am aware that there were plagues and famines and caste systems and so on, but I would be surprised to learn that 1/7 of the population lived the way that 1/7 of the population lives now, basically without enough food or water as a part of daily life. Wikipedia says, "In 1820, the average European worker earned about three times what the average African did. Now, the average European earns twenty times what the average African does."
I was under the impression that hardly anyone lived in such conditions in 1800.
How do you think people lived in sub-Saharan Africa in 1800? Living at bare subsistence level is exactly how almost all humans who have ever lived, lived.
Wikipedia says, "In 1820, the average European worker earned about three times what the average African did. Now, the average European earns twenty times what the average African does."
That's not because Africa has gotten poorer. It's because Europe (and America) have gotten enormously richer through huge increases in productivity. As in, now 1/7 of humanity gets to live in "first world" conditions, in--wait for it--Europe and America.
My understanding is that whereas (sub-Saharan) African people by and large used to be farmers and were generally able to grow enough food, drink enough water, build adequate shelter, and make enough clothes, that since colonization (which got going in earnest in 1880) the continent was basically shoehorned into modern industrial society and that now many Africans are dependent on whatever foreign aid they can get and are no longer self-sufficient.
What I'm saying is that if you went to Africa in 1800 I don't believe you would see today's stereotypical child in rags with ribs sticking out of his chest and a swollen belly, but again, if you have a reference that says colonization (or its later rejection) did nothing to change poverty in Africa it would be interesting to read it.
since colonization (which got going in earnest in 1880) the continent was basically shoehorned into modern industrial society and that now many Africans are dependent on whatever foreign aid they can get and are no longer self-sufficient
The lack of self-sufficiency in Africa, where it exists, is not a product of colonialism; it's a product of post-colonialism. It's not politically correct to say so these days, but you can see from the Wikipedia page that yummyfajitas referenced that Africa's GDP was basically constant until 1820, then grew at an increasing rate up until 1973, and is now tapering again. I.e., it grew fastest under colonialism. What stopped the growth was that when colonialism was stopped, nothing workable was put in its place; instead Africa was handed over to corrupt dictators who had no ability to or interest in governing properly.
If we're going to measure things in GDP, I believe that the disparity matters more than the hard numbers, which is why I pointed out that the former ratio of 1:3 is now 1:20.
There's another factor too: if you just have a plot of land that is able to provide food, water, clothing, and shelter for yourself without any actual registered trade you actually contribute nothing to the GDP. My understanding is that this self-sufficiency was basically destroyed by colonists.
If GDP has grown, which means the sub-continent is largely more productive now in capitalist terms, and therefore self-sufficiency levels have not changed but rather increased, why is it so dependent on foreign aid when it wasn't - as far as I am aware - in 1800?
Also, while post-colonialism obviously left the place in ruins, I think it's quite clear that you can't have post-colonialism without colonialism.
I guess at the end of the day I don't consider poverty to be measured in dollars and cents but in actual day-to-day quality of life, and I have a hard time believing that for the percentage of the population living in "extreme poverty" (less than $1.25 per day - note that dollars and cents matter more when you don't have other ways to provide for yourself), things were as bad when they had their own land and were self-sufficient. Unless you have something that clearly says, "No, life there has always been hell." It's not that I'm unwilling to believe something different, it's just that I want to hear it from someone who really knows about the history of how people lived at the time.
Africa continues to have pockets of what you call "self-sufficiency" (and what the rest of the world calls "subsistence farming").
You might be surprised to discover that people don't actually like "self sufficiency" very much. In fact, they attempt to escape it as fast as they can, typically by migrating from rural areas to urban slums. Strangely, Africans enjoy capitalist luxuries like mobile phones and antibiotics just as much as westerners do.
Africa is "dependent" on foreign aid simply because they nowadays their population desires colonial luxuries like education and running water, whereas before colonialism they didn't know such things existed.
Africa is "dependent" on foreign aid simply because they nowadays their population desires colonial luxuries like education and running water, whereas before colonialism they didn't know such things existed.
I think there's a bit more to it than that. If African countries were governed competently, they would need much less foreign aid in order to have education and running water and mobile phones and antibiotics and so on. The reason they aren't governed competently is, as I said before, that the people who got rid of colonialism didn't put anything else working in its place.
You know, it's just so hard to argue with people who are being condescending. Your post here is just dripping with superiority, whereas I've done my utmost to stay polite. Even if I believe that my point of view is valid, it just isn't worth the stress of talking about it here. This isn't "you've managed to convince me", it's "I no longer care to be abused".
Possibly because the downvoters did not see yummyfajitas' posts as "condescending"; they just saw him pointing out facts that you find inconvenient.
(Note: I was not one of the downvoters; I don't have enough karma to downvote, but even if I did, I would not have downvoted your post. I didn't see yummyfajitas' posts as being condescending, but "condescending" is subjective, so I would have left it to yummyfajitas to respond if he felt so inclined.)
Yeah, I don't mind arguing with his claims - you essentially said similar things - but it really was the way that he said it; all I could come up with were angry responses and I felt like it wasn't worth continuing.
"what you call ... the rest of the world calls"; "You might be surprised to discover"; "people don't actually"; "In fact"; "typically"; "Strangely"; I think you get the idea. All of this made me feel terrible.
At the end of the day, I basically am not convinced that life is as good or better than subsistence farming for the people in question. I was under the strong impression it was worse now because they don't have enough food and so it's below subsistence level (especially without foreign aid), but like you said elsewhere, I guess we can't know for sure. Anyway, thanks for your time pdonis, it was kind of you to respond here.
What's condescending is your taking guesses at what's better for people and assuming they don't know what's better for themselves instead of just looking at their behavior.
If we're going to measure things in GDP, I believe that the disparity matters more than the hard numbers
Matters for what? For looking at absolute wealth, it doesn't matter at all. Africa's GDP now is higher by a factor of almost 4, according to that Wikipedia page, than it was in 1820. The fact that Europe's is higher by a much larger factor doesn't change that.
For analyzing root causes, yes, the disparity matters a lot: it tells you that the "first world" has done a much better job of making people richer. Which might lead one to think about what that huge increase in GDP is built on. Perhaps a desire to have something more than bare subsistence, combined with an understanding of the kind of economic, social, and cultural environment that's needed to make that happen?
There's another factor too: if you just have a plot of land that is able to provide food, water, clothing, and shelter for yourself without any actual registered trade you actually contribute nothing to the GDP.
And you are also at bare subsistence level. Yes, you are providing food, water, clothing, and shelter for yourself; but you are providing nothing else. If you're satisfied with having nothing but the bare amount of food, water, clothing, and shelter necessary to sustain your life, then I guess you'd be OK with that. But if that were the case, how would you be able to post here?
My understanding is that this self-sufficiency was basically destroyed by colonists.
No, it was changed by colonialism from bare self-sufficiency to the ability to export large quantities of food and raw materials. When colonialism ended, all the infrastructure needed to continue that level of productivity was still there. The post-colonial governments squandered it.
I have a hard time believing that for the percentage of the population living in "extreme poverty" (less than $1.25 per day - note that dollars and cents matter more when you don't have other ways to provide for yourself), things were as bad when they had their own land and were self-sufficient.
You and I can't make this judgment. Only the people themselves can. As yummyfajitas points out, many of them appear to be opting for modern conveniences over bare self-sufficiency. That indicates to me that if they were dropped into the same circumstances as their ancestors in 1820, they would not be pleased.
All this has made me realize it's just a pretty complex issue. I found this link at some point and I think it covers a lot of ground (3 pages). Although the perspective of these people is obviously biased, they are certainly quite well informed.
What I'm saying is that if you went to Africa in 1800 I don't believe you would see today's stereotypical child in rags with ribs sticking out of his chest and a swollen belly...
And if you go to Africa in 2012 you probably won't see this, although it was quite common worldwide in the 1800s. If you want to see this, you basically need to go to a war zone, the bush, or maybe Zimbabwe.
today's stereotypical child in rags with ribs sticking out of his chest and a swollen belly
As, for example, in England or Europe in the early 1800's. (I believe that by the early 1800's this was already somewhat less common in the USA, but that is largely due to the fact that the population of the early USA was almost entirely self-selected immigrants who came there determined to be self-sufficient, and because the USA was so sparsely settled.)
