It seems most of those posting in this thread have barely half a clue what they're talking about on this issue, not least the OP. Muddying the waters with information that may go some way towards aiding understanding seems superfluous when all the answers are clearly found in Wikipedia, national geographic and trite sound bites.
Here's a thought; go to Africa, broaden your outlook a little, learn something about the continent. You may be surprised, probably saddened and encouraged but will certainly have your eyes opened. It may assist in formulating a rational argument instead of what comes across (to me in Marley's case) as semi coherent ranting or (for many others), ill informed (but often well intentioned) babble. Meanwhile, here's a clue; look beyond the headlines.
This thread had the potential to become a worthwhile discussion about an issue that few understand, yet about which many profess concern. It's also one rarely touched on here. Instead it's turned into more of a pissing contest about the comparative racism of the OP and Marley's latest temper tantrum.
I'm a bit busy right now for a history lesson, but as a starter; compare and contrast the post colonial histories of what is now Botswana with what is now the Congo. Pay regard to the effect of political and social ideology (native and inherited), the (mis)management of natural resources, the influence of tribal allegiances, the influence of regional neighbours and the effects of geography. Weigh outcome against potential, consider also the influence of cold war politics and intrigue by foreign powers and former colonial powers.
Repeat the same exercise for Nigeria and Ghana or Kenya and Tanzania. There are many differences between each pair and the individual nations but there's also much underlying commonality - rather less commonality in the case of Botswana.
Then, if there's time - go back 150 years and compare the roles, social structures and influence of the primary ethnic and tribal groups that were subsumed and fractured when these nations were created and trace the paths that led to the situations we find there today. Don't forget to take full account of the effect of western 'Christian' evangelism in this transformation in both pre and post colonial periods.
I agree with some of the OP's points, the facts do speak for themselves but while long term solutions may be nurtured by the 'west' they must originate from within the continent. These changes must occur on many levels. Only when it suits western needs for that to happen will meaningful, beneficial and lasting change occur.
The examples referred to above (if one takes the time to understand the history) may provide a clue as to why that may be some way off. African nations must stand on their own two feet, but that doesn't mean 'we' can't help them find shoes that fit, but right now (by accident and by design) we're much more apt at simply tying their shoelaces together.
Africa may not be the white man's burden, but I'd argue she's entrenched in the darker side of the 'white' man's conscience (no historical pun intended). In a historical sense at least.
