Things you don't know about Africa
You Must Know
Africa: What You Probably Didn’t Know
Article No. 1671
Tuesday, 25 February 2020
By Wardah Baloch
In terms of land area, Africa is the second-largest continent in the world. It covers nearly 22 percent of the world’s total landmass and about 6 percent of the Earth’s total surface area. Only Asia is larger than Africa in size.
Africa is also the second-most populous continent. Around 16 percent of the world’s population lives in Africa. Asia ranks first in this regard, hosting nearly 59 percent of the global population. Despite its large size and population, Africa is often described as the poorest and most underdeveloped continent, largely due to historical exploitation, political instability, and economic challenges.
One striking fact about Africa is its young population. Almost half of the continent’s population is under the age of 25, making Africa the youngest continent in the world. This youth population holds immense potential for the future if given proper education, healthcare, and opportunities.
Africa faces serious health challenges. About 90 percent of the world’s malaria cases occur in Africa, making it one of the continent’s most pressing public health issues. Environmental problems are also significant. Deforestation in Africa is happening at nearly twice the global average, threatening wildlife, ecosystems, and climate balance.
Despite these challenges, Africa is extraordinarily rich in biodiversity. Around 25 percent of the world’s bird species are found on this continent. Africa is also home to some of the most iconic wildlife on Earth. Among the five fastest land animals in the world, four belong to Africa: the cheetah, wildebeest, lion, and Thomson’s gazelle. These animals can run at speeds exceeding 50 miles per hour, while the cheetah can reach speeds of up to 70 miles per hour, making it the fastest land animal on the planet.
Africa is also a continent of immense linguistic diversity. More than 1,000 languages are spoken across Africa, and some experts believe the number may be close to 2,000 languages. This makes Africa the most linguistically diverse continent in the world.
Historically, nearly the entire continent of Africa was colonized between 1881 and 1914, except for Ethiopia and Liberia. This period is known as the “Scramble for Africa”, an era of aggressive European imperialism that reshaped African borders and societies, often with long-lasting negative consequences.
Today, Africa consists of 54 independent countries, more than any other continent. It is also home to Lake Victoria, the second-largest freshwater lake in the world. In terms of tourism, Egypt is Africa’s most visited country, attracting nearly 10 million tourists every year, mainly due to its ancient history and iconic monuments.
From a historical perspective, Africa is considered the cradle of humanity. Charles Darwin proposed that modern humans first originated in Africa, a theory later supported by fossil evidence. In Ethiopia, scientists discovered the remains of a 3.2-million-year-old human ancestor, famously named “Lucy.”
Linguists believe the word “Africa” comes from “Afri,” a term used for people living near Carthage in North Africa in the third century BCE. The suffix “ca” was added by the Romans, meaning land or country.
Religion also plays a major role in African society. Islam is the largest religion in Africa, followed closely by Christianity. Together, these two religions account for about 85 percent of the continent’s population.
Africa is full of extremes. The hippopotamus is considered the deadliest animal in Africa, responsible for more human deaths than most predators. The Sahara Desert, the world’s largest hot desert, is larger than the United States. Africa is also home to the largest reptile on Earth, the Nile crocodile.
Rich in resources, Africa has produced nearly half of the world’s gold, much of it from South Africa. Interestingly, continents and countries such as the United States, China, India, Europe, Argentina, and New Zealand could all fit within Africa’s vast land area.
In conclusion, Africa is a continent of contrasts—rich in culture, history, nature, and potential, yet burdened by challenges rooted in history and inequality. Understanding Africa beyond stereotypes allows the world to appreciate its true significance and promise.
In conclusion, Africa is a continent of contrasts—rich in culture, history, nature, and potential, yet burdened by challenges rooted in history and inequality. Understanding Africa beyond stereotypes allows the world to appreciate its true significance and promise.
About the Creator
Sudais Zakwan
Sudais Zakwan – Storyteller of Emotions
Sudais Zakwan is a passionate story writer known for crafting emotionally rich and thought-provoking stories that resonate with readers of all ages. With a unique voice and creative flair.
Keep reading
More stories from Sudais Zakwan and writers in Earth and other communities.
US Balks as UK and France Pledge Troops to Postwar Ukraine
As the war in Ukraine grinds on with no clear end in sight, the debate over what comes after the fighting has taken a sharper turn. The United States has signalled reluctance about committing troops to Ukraine once the war ends, even as the United Kingdom and France openly pledge to consider deploying forces in a postwar security role. The divergence has exposed differing strategic priorities among Western allies and raised new questions about how Ukraine’s future security will be guaranteed. While all three nations remain united in their support for Kyiv during the war, the emerging split over postwar troop commitments highlights the complexity of planning for peace in a conflict that continues to reshape Europe’s security landscape. What the UK and France Are Proposing British and French leaders have increasingly spoken about the need for long-term security arrangements for Ukraine once active hostilities end. Their position reflects a growing concern that any ceasefire or peace agreement could be fragile, leaving Ukraine vulnerable to renewed aggression. The idea under discussion is not a combat deployment in an active war zone, but rather a stabilisation or reassurance force. Such troops could help train Ukrainian forces, protect critical infrastructure, and serve as a visible deterrent against future attacks. Supporters argue that a limited but credible international presence would help ensure that any peace settlement is respected. For London and Paris, this approach fits within a broader European push to take more responsibility for continental security. Both governments see Ukraine not only as a partner but as a frontline state whose stability directly affects Europe as a whole. Why Washington Is Hesitant The United States, while remaining Ukraine’s most significant military backer during the war, has taken a more cautious stance on postwar troop deployments. American officials have stressed that there are no plans to send US forces into Ukraine, even after a potential peace agreement. This hesitation is rooted in several factors. First, Washington remains wary of any move that could risk a direct confrontation with Russia. Even in a postwar scenario, the presence of US troops on Ukrainian soil could be portrayed by Moscow as a provocation, escalating tensions rather than reducing them. Second, domestic considerations play a major role. After years of overseas military engagements, there is limited appetite among the American public and political class for new long-term deployments abroad, particularly in a region where risks remain high and outcomes uncertain. Finally, US strategy has increasingly emphasised supporting allies through funding, training, and equipment rather than large-scale troop commitments. From Washington’s perspective, enabling Ukraine to defend itself may be preferable to stationing American forces on the ground. A Question of Deterrence At the heart of the debate lies a fundamental question: what will actually deter future aggression against Ukraine? The UK and France appear to believe that a physical presence, however limited, would send a powerful signal of commitment. Troops on the ground would demonstrate that Ukraine’s security is directly tied to that of major European powers, raising the cost of any future attack. The US, by contrast, seems to place greater faith in alternative mechanisms such as long-term military aid, security guarantees, and sanctions frameworks. American officials argue that deterrence does not necessarily require boots on the ground, especially if Ukraine emerges from the war better armed and more integrated with Western institutions. This difference reflects broader strategic cultures. European powers, facing the immediate proximity of the conflict, may feel a stronger need for visible reassurance measures, while the US assesses risks from a more global perspective. Implications for NATO Unity Although Ukraine is not a NATO member, the discussion has clear implications for the alliance. Any deployment of UK or French troops would be closely scrutinised for what it means for NATO’s role and credibility. NATO operates on consensus, and the absence of US support for a postwar troop presence could complicate coordination. Even if London and Paris act independently or as part of a smaller coalition, questions would remain about command structures, rules of engagement, and the political backing required for such a mission. At the same time, the situation underscores a broader shift within NATO, with European members increasingly expected to shoulder more responsibility. If the UK and France proceed with their plans, it could mark a significant step toward a more autonomous European security posture. Ukraine’s Perspective For Kyiv, the debate is both encouraging and frustrating. On one hand, the willingness of major European powers to consider troop deployments signals long-term commitment and recognition of Ukraine’s security concerns. On the other hand, uncertainty from the US—Ukraine’s most powerful ally—adds another layer of unpredictability. Ukrainian leaders have consistently argued that security guarantees must be concrete, not symbolic. From their perspective, any postwar arrangement must ensure that Russia cannot simply regroup and strike again. Whether this is achieved through foreign troops, binding treaties, or accelerated integration with Western institutions remains an open question. What is clear is that Ukraine wants assurances that go beyond promises and declarations. The Risk of Mixed Signals One potential danger of the current divergence is the message it sends to Moscow. Differing positions among Western allies could be interpreted as hesitation or lack of unity, potentially weakening deterrence rather than strengthening it. At the same time, open debate is not necessarily a sign of weakness. Allies often disagree on tactics while remaining aligned on broader goals. The challenge will be ensuring that these differences do not undermine the core objective of securing a stable and sovereign Ukraine. Diplomats on both sides of the Atlantic are likely to continue working behind the scenes to narrow the gap, even if public statements suggest a clear divide. Looking Ahead The question of postwar Ukraine remains largely theoretical while fighting continues. Yet the discussion itself reveals how seriously Western governments are taking the long-term consequences of the conflict. The UK and France’s willingness to pledge troops reflects a belief that peace must be actively protected. The US reluctance highlights concerns about escalation, sustainability, and domestic support. Reconciling these approaches will be one of the most important diplomatic challenges once the guns eventually fall silent. For now, the disagreement does not signal a breakdown in alliance unity, but it does expose the difficult choices ahead. As the war continues, planning for peace is proving almost as complex—and politically sensitive—as managing the conflict itself.
By Muhammad Hassan4 days ago in Earth
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.