Why are they historically poor? Why have they not risen as other nations have to prominence? You don't seem to want to address that issue. Just blame others for African nations failings. When a man beats the shit out of a woman and rapes her absolutely he is at fault and a sack of shit. When a woman spends a night with a man leading him on and passes out from to much drink and a drunk man has sex with her anyways the fault is with both of them.
Even "when a woman spends a night with a man leading him on and passes out from too much drink and a drunk man has sex with her anyways", it's still primarily the man's fault for raping her. If he can't handle his rapist urges he shouldn't be getting drunk in the first place.
As for why they're historically poor, I basically don't know. I'm not a historian, and I doubt historians really know 'why' either. Historical societal and technological advances were not taken up all at the same time.. some nations were first and benefited greatly others were not.
You're acting like you know why some nations are historically poor and others were not. So you tell me, why are they historically poor?
Apply your logic with the genders swapped and I hope you can see how stupid that sounds. We are all animals and when you involve drugs or alcohol to excess the animal side comes out. Ask yourself why before colonialism the majority of Africa was at a tribal phase while elsewhere in the majority of every other races territories empires and civilization had come and gone repeatedly.
I see a clear parallel between on the one hand: historically poor African nations being exploited by powerful international interests, and on the other: a woman being raped by a man who is physically stronger than her. If you want to take offense that's up to you.
From your reply I'm a little concerned that you might actually blame women for being raped... sure in some cases women should have been more careful with their personal safety, but in all cases the rapist must surely take the bulk of the blame?