Why are the poorest countries mostly, you know?

this is the list of world's poorest countries by GDP per capita from World Bank

rank country GDP per capita year of consensus skin tone of major ethnicity

142  Sudan +  South Sudan 2,239 2010 dark

143  Cambodia 2,150 2010 medium

144  Tajikistan 2,147 2010 light

145  Mauritania 1,930 2010 dark

146  Senegal 1,917 2010 dark

147  Côte d'Ivoire 1,885 2010 dark

148  São Tomé and Príncipe 1,880 2010 dark

149  Bangladesh 1,643 2010 dark

150  Kenya 1,635 2010 dark

151  Ghana 1,625 2010 dark

152  Benin 1,576 2010 dark

153  Zambia 1,550 2010 dark

154  Lesotho 1,533 2010 dark

155  Tanzania 1,423 2010 dark

156  Gambia, The 1,400 2010 dark

157  Chad 1,360 2010 dark

158  Uganda 1,263 2010 dark

159  Burkina Faso 1,247 2010 dark

160  Nepal 1,190 2010 medium

161  Guinea-Bissau 1,177 2010 dark

162  Rwanda 1,155 2010 dark

163  Haiti 1,102 2010 dark

164  Comoros 1,089 2010 dark

165  Guinea 1,083 2010 dark

166  Mali 1,057 2010 dark

167  Ethiopia 1,033 2010 dark

168  Togo 991 2010 dark

169  Madagascar 961 2010 dark

170  Afghanistan 955 2008 medium

171  Mozambique 935 2010 dark

172  Timor-Leste 921 2010 dark

173  Malawi 876 2010 dark

174  Sierra Leone 821 2010 dark

175  Central African Republic 783 2010 dark

176  Niger 723 2010 dark

177  Eritrea 542 2010 dark

178  Liberia 416 2010 dark

179  Burundi 405 2010 dark

180  Congo, Democratic Republic of the 345 201 dark

The fact is that skin color IS related to the wealth of a country, but the question is HOW?

9 Answers

Relevance
  • 8 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    How rich a country is shouldn't be judged by its wealth but by how contented their inhabitants are

  • 8 years ago

    Correlation does not indicate causation - basically, just because there appears to be a pattern between two things, it doesn't mean that one caused the other. So, countries are not poor because they have dark skin. Nor do people have dark skin because they are poor.

    The North-South divide is a pretty famous phenomenon. It is basically about how the Northern Hemisphere is generally richer nations and the Southern Hemisphere is generally poorer nations (Australia and New Zealand being 2 large exceptions).

    Speaking very generally, equatorial countries tend to have fewer surface resources (water, vegetation, wild fauna) so people tend to be positioned in smaller groups. Hunter-gatherer groups are more common in these areas than in others because some populations have to keep moving in order to gather enough food to stay alive. Hunter-gatherer societies are, by their very nature, transitory and not static. Therefore, they are less likely to become complex static states early on in their development.

    Also, populations in areas with high rates of natural disasters need to be more adaptive so that when they have a disaster, they can either move away or rebuild quickly and cheaply. Housing also needs to minimise loss. This is part of the reason why American houses tend to have wooden frames, whereas British houses (which come into contact with few natural disasters) tend to be made of brick. Wooden framed houses can be put up quickly and cheaply and will cause less damage if destroyed in a tornado. Brick houses take longer to build but last far longer and are more resistant to fire (change from wooden to brick buildings occurred after the Great Fire of London).

    Basically, areas in the Southern Hemisphere, especially near the Equator tend to be poorer and tend to have dark skinned populations. Therefore skin colour and wealth are loosely linked but only via the geography of the country.

  • 8 years ago

    Africa has always been a difficult and harsh place to live. They have never been able to settle and farm on a large scale like in Europe, Asia and the Americas, because much of the land in Africa is simply too poor to be able to grow crops. Human advancement is intricately linked with agriculture.

    Their skin colour has nothing to do with it. Black skin is simply an evolutionary adaption to the harsh climate of Africa.

  • those countries have been hit hard by some unlucky circumstances. famines, horrible governments and war. And it's not necessarily to do with the skin color, although it does sem like skin color plays a part is doesn't it just has to with the region the people of those skin colors live in, that's where famine and war comes in.

    A few centuries ago european countries were among the poorest because of european wars and all the famines. And until europeans started leaving europe and sailed the oceans to find buisness and trade with some of those very countries you named, europeans were poor.

    Source(s): American who lives in the USA because my european ancestors left europe because of poverty, bad governments, and famines.
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 8 years ago

    There is a correlation between skin color and IQ and thus the wealth of a country. The correlation between skin color and IQ and wealth are also reflected in the USA.

    Average IQ of white Americans - 100

    Average IQ of black Americans - 80

    The median wealth of white U.S. households in 2009 was $113,149, compared with $5,677 for blacks

  • 8 years ago

    The only reason that europe is civilised is thanks to the roman empire. these countries where not fortunate enough and besides the countries you mentioned are not all one colour, come are brown like afghanistan and some are black like ethiopia.

  • 8 years ago

    THEY ARE IN AFRICA

    No it has nothing to DO with Skin Tone.

  • ---
    Lv 6
    8 years ago

    omg cos its so hot there and they dont have enough water and yeahhh

  • 8 years ago

    Africa

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.