Brait, Week 3 Response Paper

When it comes to the problem of poverty in Africa, there is not one reason that the countries have been impoverished for so long with no signs of it lifting. The readings this week discussed a variety of reasons that Africa is in such a desperate state of poverty, none of which can be singled out as the sole reason for poverty. In ‘the Geography of Poverty and Wealth’, it is said that there is strong evidence that geography plays an important role in shaping the distribution of world income and economic growth. It would seem that this is one of those ‘duh’ things that should have been taken into account since the beginning of aid. Geography effects the type of crops, if any, can be grown in an area, the type of businesses that would be successful there, and the access to the global community. Now that it’s clear that geography does in fact matter, it is important to ask how geography can be used so as to positively affect development. Of course, geography of an area can’t be changed. However, appropriating aid that is conducive to relief in a specific geography would allow for citizens of that area to work with the geography in such a way that benefits them and improves their livelihood.

In chapter 5 of his book, Herbst discusses the implications of the size and shape of the African country on the politics within that country. Obviously, the population distribution within the different African countries causes problems for each country based on the structure of the distribution. Is there a way to remedy this population distribution? Herbst says, “In the pre-colonial era. Population distribution yielded boundaries. In the modern era, boundaries define a people.” Are the boundaries in Africa defining the people in a way that is detrimental to their livelihood? Would it be most beneficial to change these boundaries and appropriate boundaries in a different way? At the conference in New York on African poverty and Western Aid, one of the speakers suggested that the countries of Africa would be better off if the borders were redistributed, creating just 5 African countries. I don’t know that consolidating to 5 countries would necessarily be beneficial, but changing borders has the potential to alleviate some of the problems experienced in some countries. Redistribution with regard to population density, ethnicity, and other crucial factors has the potential to create more unified, functional countries. However, that also leaves room for problems as well.

In “Guns, Germs, and Steel” chapter 4, I found the claim ‘food production was indirectly a prerequisite for the development of guns, germs, and steel’ very interesting. This statement makes sense, as these more intricate forms of technology could only come as a result of a lifestyle that includes food production. This statement made me think about food production in terms of human nature. Why did people originally start producing food? Is progress part of human nature, or is learned through culture? Although very few remain, there are still groups of people that live as hunter-gatherers. Why have these people not switched to food production?