Incidentally, any developed nation have a black majority?

With all the talk about shithole Countries and accusations of racism hurled, something came to mind. Are there any developed Countries in the world where the majority are blacks? I couldn't think of any.

USA, Japan, France, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Spain etc... then China, Russia...

any Country with a black majority that is actually considered prosperous and a developed nation? If not, why is this? Can we say it's all due to racism? even when blacks have been the majority for decades and even >100 years in these places? Consider that the population of blacks are close in #'s to whites across the globe.

I'm not a racist (i'm actually an immigrant) but this came to mind and i find it to be an interesting phenomenon that cannot just be explained by racism.

Brazil maybe? although it's considered emerging.

 

Wow dude? How about a trigger warning next time you share such a self-evident and telling observation. Don't you know that the truth hurts ? Are you trying to hurt people ? Please, take your self-evident observations somewhere else if all you're going to do is make well grounded and salient points that might actually wake others into liberty and prosperity.

 

the speech nannies and language police will surely attack this but why not talk about truths?

but i'd like an answer from someone who can explain this phenomenon. Why isn't there a single Country with a black majority that is considered developed and prosperous?

 

You would have to go back a few centuries.(I'm talking, pre-crusades history here.) Way back with Egyptian Pharaohs, As well as the Mongolian Empire. Literally way back. Then Europe's wars with the African nations occurred, in which Europe pwned Africa. The last stronghold being the Ottoman Empire. Once Ottoman fell, there hasn't been a major African/ME power since.

Then, if the warfare/looting wasn't enough, general sickness and infighting has ruined most of the African Nations. So it was both by conquest and self-inflicted wounds.

 

When we discovered the sub-Saharan Africans they didn't have any words in their languages for concepts like "the future".

Really think about that.

 

Would count Botswana and South Africa as "developed countries" with black majorities off the top of my head. There are probably others.

 

there is simpler theory that traces it to pre-historic times. As humans moved more north, they became more white and forced to 'think' more as a result of having to deal with winters whereas blacks in the tropics never had issues finding food and never had to deal with the challenges of winter. Over thousands of years, those who were forced to use their minds, simply developed faster. Notice how usually northern Countries are more developed than tropical Countries. This is just one simpleton theory and explained in great lengths by some famous authors who have written about evolution.

 

hmmm... maybe. Zimbabwe was actually prosperous at one time until blacks decided to wage war on the BAD WHITE RICH people, taking their land and pushing them out. Guess what happened? They went backwards and destroyed themselves. Many blacks in Zimbabwe acknowledge it was a mistake.

 

Black ghettos in America look alot like the **** holes in Africa.

I'm sure it's just a coincidence.

 

hence the term "banana republic". Not many banana trees in England.

 

Most African countries are less than a hundred years old. When the US was about 100 years old, it was in the middle of one of the bloodiest civil wars in history and at the same time it was involved in a program of genocide against its indigenous population.

Just say’n. Sometimes it takes time.

 

Most of the countries you list as successful are countries that engaged in European imperalism against countries in Africa and South America. Imperialism destroyed cultures, religions, government systems, communities, families, language, and turned the people into slaves and subjects who were 2nd or 3rd class people in their own country. We have no way of knowing how those countries would have developed if left alone. What we do know is that when the Europeans finally gave back governance of their countries to those people after hundreds of years of occupation and oppression, as recently as the mid-20th century, they left devastation from which the occupied countries have struggled to rise above. They aren't doing well, it's true. But their entire cultures were destroyed. It's going to take a long time. They were occupied for 2-3 hundred years. Maybe give them 2 or 3 hundred more to come back.

 

Quite a few developed countries are less than 100 years old. Japan is about 70, south Korea even younger, China younger still, but not as young as Russia.

In other words, nice try but BS.

 

And just a footnote- Black Civilations ’s did not bring the Earth two world wars that killed millions. They didn’t march through Europe with Napoleon, and kill millions more. They didn’t join with Stalin as he murdered millions of his countrymen. They certainly have had violent periods, but what you call “civilized” white governments - not always so civilized.

 

Always excuses for the blacks. It's okay to be good at sports and not other things. That's what diversity is all about.

 

Japan’s “civilized “ government got millions of their countrymen killed and killed millions.
Russia was involved in two world wars, the subjugation and murder of millions of their own people. Civilized? Sometimes.

 

There are thousands of black doctors, nurses, multi-millionaire entrepreneurs. Black Americans run universities. They are astrophysicists and Secretary of State.

Honestly, what is your damage?

 

It's not the age of a government that matters. Just look at the korean peninsula to see how little age matters. One side is prosperous and free, while the other side is filled with starving slaves.

So if you ever wonder why conservatives despise progressives, just take a good look at the korean peninsula. The progressives are north and conservatives are south.

commies and capitalists.

 

That's not true. North Korea is NOT an example of progressive policies. It is a totalitarian dictatorship: pure and simple. It is fascist, not communist, not socialist, not progressive. You people seem to be blinded by labels like deers in headlights. People can call themselves anything they want, doesn't mean it is true. Hitler called his government socialist: they were fascists, not socialists. ISIS call themselves Muslim: they do not represent Islam or Muslims; Muslims will tell you terror groups have hijacked their religion. China, North Korea, the Soviet Union, and other so called communist regimes were totalitarian dictatorships. Actions speak louder than words. They may call themselves one thing, but their actions are something completely different.

 

Very defensive.

 

Well, considering the entire developed/developing dichotomy was invented to describe neocolonialism within a neoliberal narrative, no, because neocolonialism and racism are inherently linked and for as long as neoliberalism dominates the first world, the third world will have to fight tooth and nail for every gain they make.

 

Depends on your definition of "developed country" as well as your definition of" black".

 

but how did 'European imperialism' or colonialism come to be? They must have been more developed in order to conquer? so this doesn't quite explain things. Why didn't Africa conquer Europe? your answer isn't satisfactory.

 

Did you know they eat dirt cookies in Haiti? Crazy right? The mothers prepare the dirt on filthy cement floors and feed it to their children.

 

In other words, there must have been some kind of civilizational plateau that was destroyed, much like what they had in Egypt during the pyramid building era , or in europe before the fall of the Roman empire.

same goes for the indians when great great great grandpa Belch started wiping out the injuns.