Africa ?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by transformer_99, Jul 11, 2009.

  1. transformer_99

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2006
    Messages:
    2,466
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    The potential for being the new Middle East (wars) & China (low cost labor and economics) ?

    Obama in Ghana: War a 'millstone around Africa's neck' - CNN.com

    Obama stressed that the USA has a responsibility to support "development that provides opportunity for more people."Also noting that Africa is rich in resources, and has the capacity for successful business.

    Personally I'd prefer he stay home and get this straightened out first before he starts talking about fixing Africa. First, the size of Africa dwarfs the US, so most of what those nations need to do is work together and unify somehow. That's not on the USA, that's on those African nations. They simply are going to have to capitalize on their resources and invest in themselves more.
     
  2. dong20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    The grey country
    I entirely agree, todays independent African nations need to [learn how to] stand on their own - most have had decades to get their houses in order- or at least try*. But in addition, the 'first world' must also stop shamelessly abusing its position, and afford African nations fair trade - it's not entirely a level playing field in that regard (and not just in terms of Africa). Some programmes do exist in this resect, but their impact - while not negligible, isn't significant either ... yet!

    Now (and please don't start a pissing contest about $$$ values, if you understand what often happens to aid, you will understand the raw numbers are largely irrelevent), I also agree the US shouldn't 'meddle' in Africa, at least until it knows what it's doing.

    Ditto for most other nations who, over the last 30 or 40 years have also felt the irresitible urge to 'meddle', for whatever reason - usually politcal pawnery or simple greed - or a belated sense of responsibilty.

    At least China isn't ambiguous in its desire to milk the continent dry without much regard to the long term consequences. I think Chinese policy in Africa is largely reprehensible, but at least it is what it appears to be, simple commercial exploitation.

    For the most part, aid doesn't work, equitable trade might. But until more [a majority of?] African leaders stop behaving like self important and pompous assholes, stop acting with little or no regard to democractic process or accountabilty, engaging in political and economic corruption, repression of political and social dissent - and denial of due process* - no nation in their right mind will invest significantly in the continent. Who could blame them?

    But then, at the same time, if one considers 'African' cultural history and prevailing social dynamic, one will appreciate why 'democracy' (as we in the west understand and appreciate it), hasn't developed in the same way as 'we' feel it should have.

    The term 'Democracy, African style' isn't entirely tongue in cheek, it has a basis in fact. In many respects, democracy is simply irrelevant to many Africans. It's not for us to impose our values on a continent, we tried that and look what happened.

    After all, the west deals massively with China - and China is hardly democratic, has a poor Human rights record and routinely engages in cultural and social repression (is evidently doing so again now in Urumqi). So why is Africa so ... different? Yes, the question is largely rhetorical.:rolleyes:

    Arguably, the onus is on 'Africa' to take the next step, but IMO it must be met by the 'west' with a fairer and less condescending response than has typically been the case. Many citizens of most African nations are poor, ill educated and live subject to the whim of people (and events) over which they have no control - that does not make them stupid, lazy or fit for nothing but handouts and charity - as is a common perception among westeners, especially aid agencies. Most are merely ill equipped to manipulate events, or institutions to their advantage.

    How to redress that imbalance, not just in the short term, but for generations to come ... that's the nut that must be cracked.

    It won't be achieved through aid, that much should be clear to anyone who has spent any time there or has studied the effect decades of western aid policy has wrought.

    Change must be desired and come from within, but having said that I'm not sure it can be entirely accomplished alone. In some nations, and some areas things have become so bad that the sense of despair - of resignation to a life of day to day misery in the face of disease, violence and crushing poverty is so ... palpable for many it's hard to imagine things ever improving - and in many cases, things in fact are going backwards, almost like time is unwinding. It's really quite surreal.

    In ways many here cannot begin to understand from a distance, millions are held hostage by intransigent regimes they [sometimes] play an almost incidental part in inflicting upon themselves. In turn, deliberately through blatent greed and corruption, or simply as a result of simple desparation - those very regimes are held hostage to western ignorance, predjudice and economic malfeasance.*

    Caveats:

    * Of course, in a continent so vast and culturally diverse and complex (and yet at the same time - so simple, odd that) as Africa, there are plenty of reasons - some of which are almost compelling, and many understandable - for events that transpired in the immediate post colonial era. Many of these can be fairly laid at the foot of said [former] colonial powers. Many cannot, and it's also true to say, that one must lie in the bed one has fashioned for oneself, should that in fact, be the case.

    For the most part, Africa is a mess, and arguably, it's getting messier, although there are exceptions. That said, it's not universal doom and gloom, but it's hardly sweetness and light either. Climate change considerations aside, in terms of political change; today, I believe things could go either way.

    Still, I love the continent (and sometimes I hate it, too), and I spend as much time there as I'm able. It's never enough.

    :biggrin1:
     
  3. jason_els

    jason_els <img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Messages:
    10,576
    Likes Received:
    25
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Warwick, NY, USA
    China is precisely why Obama is there. China is all over Africa scouting for and buying resources and winning allies by bribing them with our dollars in the process. Obama's visit to sub-Saharan Africa is a message to China that we're still in the game and a message to African nations that the US is very much interested in bolstering relations. Blair was one of the first people to see this need and urged Bush to place a priority on Africa. Bush, ever uncomfortable with people of color who aren't domestic help, paid little attention.

    Africa is home to several natural resources which are not found anywhere else on earth. Were China to monopolize these resources, the rest of the world would be screwed. Many of these resources are required for strategic weaponry. As always, oil is important. Earlier this year, a number of Chinese companies bid to buy Ghana's largest oil field. China has donated lavishly to Ghanaian politics, buying friends, and investing in the Ghanian economy. Other nearby nations with oil have noticed the Chinese largesse and are actively courting Beijing as well.

    If it's any consolation to the west, Chinas efforts to make sense of Africa or control it to any degree will likely fall just as flat as ours have. It will be interesting to see Heart of Darkness published in Mandarin. Still, the west needs to insure that China does not come to gain the strategic upper hand in Africa.

    Africa is, right now, a very important foreign policy objective for the western nations and Obama is right to make an early trip there and particularly to Ghana, is of great importance to the US and the west.
     
  4. dong20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    The grey country
    Of course, and I'm assuming that wasn't intended as some form of reassurance?

    It's one of the few foreign policy initiatives Blair managed to get right, or at least try to get right, or even partly right. His attitude toward Zimbabwe (beginning with Clare Short's letter) was interesting ...

    Exactly.

    Instead of political advantage being sought, today it's economic. Well, I suppose back in 'the day' it was [also] economic too - the more things change ...

    What frustrates me (among many things:rolleyes:) is that African leaders (in a way they really never before) have got China (and, thus others) over a barrel. They're simply too short sighted and greedy to see it, and to weak to take advantage. Instead, they gladhand, scrabble for backhanders and sell out their national resourses for a song, they get a Swiss bank account and a nice house, while the people get little or nothing - perhaps a new road, school or an assortment of industrial injuries and illnesses.

    Who stands to gain the most from all this posturing ...? Well, one can be reasonably sure it's not John Q African. Perhaps the rest of the world deserves to be screwed, but then if it came to it, I imagine 'we' would simply take what 'we' needed by 'force', after all there's precedent.

    It would, although I imagine the symbolism would be largely wasted on its audience, after all Cultural tolerance isn't one of China's predominant traits. Your words, though they contain much truth, chill me to the bone. Have we learned nothing from the 20th Century - we being the west, and Africa? Yes, another rhetorical question!

    The US isn't [part of] the west anymore? :wink:
     
  5. transformer_99

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2006
    Messages:
    2,466
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    The hundreds of years that the natural resources & reserves remain untapped, it's sickening to see that the entire continent has not banded together to become a more powerful force in this world ? There just is no excuse for having those resources and being where they are at this point. Even if they were to cultivate it for themselves and not trade it abroad, had they developed much like the USA did, the entire continent would be the envy of the world, something to the effect of Kuwait in terms of per capita wealth ?
     
  6. jason_els

    jason_els <img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Messages:
    10,576
    Likes Received:
    25
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Warwick, NY, USA
    Actually it was, and then only to Americans in the audience, not you personally. Americans tend to think of Africa as being South Africa and a lot of black people walking around and fighting a lot. Ask the average American what we get from African trade and they couldn't tell you. Most are pretty sure there isn't any trade as our need for slaves, beads, and bongo drums has dropped completely. They have no idea what countries are there or who runs them or anything else. It's a blob of a place and I'm not sure many would recognize it on a map.

    Sometimes you want people to screw themselves and I think that's what Blair was hoping for. I don't think he'd imagine Zimbabwe's government would stand if Mugabe went as far as he did. It was a major error on his part. Now the bread basket of southern Africa is a basket case itself and Mugabe is still there. Oops.

    I think it's always economic to some degree though the whole imperial period resulted in many places being taken which didn't add to the economic benefit as a whole just to grab what ever was left. What a pity the UK gave-up the Arabian peninsula. I'd much rather buy oil from the UK than the Saudis. Of all the things you should have kept! Could have resettled the Arabs someplace nice like the Falklands or Tristan or Manitoba. Oh hindsight! Alas!

    That's a good point. It's business as usual, just with different players. I find it truly disappointing though perhaps the west will counter by strengthening democracy and prosperity in the region by ceasing to support the despot-of-the-day and taking an active interest in democratic reforms. Obama is in a truly unique position to do this as Africans consider him to be far more sympathetic to, and perhaps also more aware, of African problems. The problem with the US as it is now is that we're dead broke and our purse is full of IOUs. Still, if we can induce reforms in countries like Ghana, Sao Tome and Principe, South Africa, Nigeria (God help us), Congo (Zaire) and other resource-rich countries, it may help to counter the Chinese presence. Personally, I think the entire map of Africa should be redrawn along ethnic and religious lines. I don't see that happening any time soon.

    Taking anything by force in Africa is disasterous at this point in time. It would require far more power than Iraq or Afghanistan combined. We might reasonably invade Sao Tome as it's small, comprised of islands, and offers a big bang for the buck, but larger entities are simply impossible. Zaire still isn't reliably mapped and the potential for effective guerilla insurgencies is enormous. Other nations present far larger problems in that we understand them very poorly and are likely to make enemies of everyone. All the west needs is to see footage of soldiers trekking through jungles and napalm being dropped from B-52s and the flashbacks to Vietnam will come rushing back. It's far easier to back the dictator of the day and bring home the bacon that way.

    No, because we still want our cheap goods and affluent lifestyle. The west is relatively peaceful because we have the best bread and circuses in town. Nothing kills a political career in a democracy faster than a declining standard of living with increased taxes. We might like to think that we can help make the rest of the world prosperous as we imagine prosperity to be, but in the end we aren't going to trade our quality of life for anything. That means that others are going to have to subsidize it just as they always have.

    Half of it is. The other half is reactionary, recalitrant, and isolationist. You met that half eight years ago when the world wondered just what the fuck the US was doing with an idiot for president. This time around the other half won. Obama may prove to be just as bad as Bush, but at least he promised policies that represent the westernized half of the country.
     
  7. dong20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    The grey country
    Well, mineral resources are only as valuable as a given market will pay for them at any given time. Many of those that we prize today (but not all) were simply of little value outside an industrial society - at least in the sense I think you mean.

    Since Africa was almost entirely non industrial, there was no incentive to exploit such resources, they had no real worth - in an African context, that is. By the time Africa had 'discovered' by the industrialised world, and gained some cognizance of the wealth under its feet, exploitation in the name of empire had effectively quashed any real hope of such self-development.

    One must also consider the mundane, such as geography.The technology to extract mineral wealth, and the uses to which it's outputs were put - didn't orginate in Africa (such things may have developed there eventually of course, as they did elsewhere). In reality, it was imported and the locals forced to work at the sharp end.

    To my mind, the real opportunity that Africa missed, wasn't so much in failing to develop 'as the USA' did, but in allowing itself to be exploited, rather than capitalising on the golden egg it was sitting on. Of course, Africans had little choice - they were outgunned, literally and figuratively.

    That doesn't mean I think it's been all bad, or that Africa should have been left entirely to its own devices - but when one stands back and looks at events - when it comes to social, technological and economic advancement that defined the 19th and 20th Centuries, it seems to have largely passed Africa by.

    In a sense, Africa was an unwilling accomplace to one the history's greatest heists - and the sad irony being that it was only stealing from itself.

    It's a story repeated across many continents, throughout history. Africa has for the most part failed to recover. It now faces a renewed threat - as aluded to by Jason, and it seems to have learned nothing.

    Sometimes I despair of people, especially the civilised ones ...:rolleyes:
     
  8. b.c.

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Messages:
    9,298
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1,683
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    at home
    Thanks again, Jason, for your (as usual) well informed response.

    It's quite easy for those with a lack of understanding to gloss-over the effects of thousands of years of colonialization and exploitation of the continent's peoples, land, and resources. Germany certainly realized the importance of Africa during WWII as does China now.

    Maybe it's high time we do as well.
     
  9. transformer_99

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2006
    Messages:
    2,466
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Dong20, I just think they're sitting on reserves that they're just too stupid to tap into. If China sees it and they themselves don't, is there any hope for the continent for them to ever develop beyond what the rest give them as foreign aid ? To a large extent the USA started off 230 years ago with colonization and the natural resources it had. Africa has to be at least as rich, same goes with South America. You'd think with a little planning and organization they'd improve ?
     
  10. jason_els

    jason_els <img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Messages:
    10,576
    Likes Received:
    25
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Warwick, NY, USA
    I think dong20 deserves the kudos here. He opened the dialogue and I'm just an amen corner. It's like when Siskel and Ebert agreed with each other; it wasn't nearly as fun but you knew it was a good movie.

    The root of Africa's problem is the colonial legacy we've left. National borders were drawn in the capitals of Europe and based upon who owned what, not who belongs where. Whole tribes were forced to make nations with deadly enemies, pieces of one tribe's territory (sometimes with ancestral lands attached), were given over to another tribe, and not infrequently, peoples were divided from each other. In some cases, the countries which were created had no viable resources, had bifurcated populations, and no ancestral lands while the other side of the same country gave a rival tribe rich lands. Religion and culture play into this too. We can see this in Nigeria and Sudan where constant clashes between Christians and Muslims have resulted in near civil war. Africa is a mini-Iraq in this sense. Colonialism threw together countries with populations who couldn't stand each other. How do you rule a country with so many different cultures, languages, religions, and each group hating the other for the past thousand years? With a very strong armed dictator or, perhaps, democracy or communism.

    Even then, were you to manage to rule such a country, how do you function? There's no public education system, no infrastructure to support industry or commerce, no money to pay for it even if you did, no tradition of democracy, little sense of (and what sense there is may be distorted) of how the west operates, what western culture is, and half your country's tribal leaders will ally with you for 10 head of cattle a year. Meanwhile you have drug gangs in your crumbling cities left over from the colonial period, perhaps 1/4 or more of your population infected with HIV or some other deadly disease, a corrupt military, corrupt bureaucracy, corrupt police force, and it seems no country with any real power cares. You've seen how the west ignores genocides in Rwanda and Darfur and (correctly) conclude that unless there's something to be gained, the west won't lift a finger to help you. You want to make life better for your country so you appeal to charities, ask for foreign aid. Yes your coup was bloody but the guy you kicked out was a real bastard who only thought of himself. You are going to reform the country and make it prosperous again as it was long, long, ago.

    And then somebody finds a huge supply of chromium in your country.

    At once you have all the industrialized world at your doorstep. The Americans threaten to overthrow you for all your human rights violations, making veiled threats to, "look at how Saddam turned out when he stood against us," if you don't give the concession to them. They'll make it worth your time and risk, transferring funds into your Swiss bank account. The Chinese are there too and talk about what good relations they have with your rival upland tribe and how history says they should be the rightful rulers and how they might just give them the arms to make it happen. Then Russia shows up. The Russians are worried about your personal safety, figuring it would take a simple spetznaz team to take you out in your sleep and wouldn't they make better body guards for you than a few jungle-trained tribal youths? Then comes Japan, India, and anyone else who has an interest in chromium. Who do you listen to? Who do you trust? Which one can protect you from the others and from your own domestic rivals? Even then, the major multinationals with the experience and technology to get the chromium out of the ground might just try to assassinate you anyway. You must choose wisely. Your people can't mine or process the chromium, the IMF or World Bank won't give you a loan to hire foreigners to run the operation because (hehe) the IMF is run by the countries competing to get the chromium, and if you say no to any single entity, they and the others will put someone else in power possibly plunging your country into another deadly civil war. And that's not what you wanted.

    So you pick one. They move in with all their resources and they keep padding your bank account in Zurich. Their military advisors attend your every need and once in a while you contract with someone to build a railway or a hospital or a school to try to make life better for your people. In the mean time, you now have a motorcade with armored limousines, helicopters, even a presidential airplane. In place of a house you now have presidential palaces which were build by the country you chose. They like you in the palaces where they can keep an eye on you and tap your phones. The people see your living excesses and decide that you're no better than the last guy. They start fomenting for change and there are riots where people are killed by the army. And the people living on that chromium mine? They were displaced in the process and now some people in Hollywood are gabbing to the press about how repressive your regime is. On top of that, the country you chose to run your mine took out loans from the IMF to build everything and those loans were in your country's name. Only they're not paying the loans back. Your country is stuck with a gigantic bill it can't repay unless your ally coughs up the cash. You beg, you plead, and they tell you to shut-up or they'll put someone else in charge. Just keep enjoying your villa on Lake Geneva during the high summer and you'll be fine. "Thank goodness your wife and children are safe," they tell you.

    In time, you grow very rich. You like spending time in Geneva and sending your kids to college in Europe and America. You're older and wiser, pretty sure that you're secure in your position so long as..... and then the chromium runs out. Or your renegade rival from the highlands has a lower price tag. Or the rioting is getting to be too much and hindering chromium production. Or the powers that be in your sponsor country have changed and refuse to support you any longer. Or you become ill and don't appear strong. Whatever it is, if you're lucky you'll be able to flee to some other country, if they'll take you. It will take most of your hidden billions, but a quick plane flight out of the capital in the middle of the night is better than be strung-up by the balls or shot asleep in your bed.

    In the plane to Switzerland you wonder how it all went so wrong, how you wanted to change things for the better and you're very sad about your failure. But you've read the western press. You're a refugee, a murderous dictator on the run. Exposes talk about how you plundered your country, how you were backed by unscrupulous people, how your wife spent lavishly on Paris shopping trips, how everything you own should be returned to your country. Perhaps the World Court wants your ass for genocidal crimes or you're refused permanent entry into every country you visit of those which allow you to visit. Your villa has been seized by your bankers because your account was suddenly closed and the new leader of your country has filed suit against you and petitioned for your extradition. You're very thankful your wife has all that jewelry and you hid away some of your billions. With that you bribe a few officials and get asylum in The Seychelles or Vanuatu or Yemen. You're still rich but not as rich, always looking over your shoulder, unsure if your security forces are reliable. At least the place has a pool.

    So you spend your last days in exile, unable to leave your country of asylum, praying the government won't kick you out, having to lavishly bribe every new president. Or you die in a coup or you're extradited back to your country where you are tried in a kangaroo court and sentenced to death or you languish in a western prison convicted of crimes against humanity.

    THAT is the life cycle for many African leaders.
     
  11. Elmer Gantry

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    1,503
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    554
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Melbourne (VIC, AU)
    I'd recommend "Confessions of an economic hitman" or "A game older than empire" as required reading for anyone wishing to discuss this subject.
     
  12. B_diddydoo

    B_diddydoo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    Messages:
    409
    Likes Received:
    0
    i say blame imperialism for african problems
     
  13. dong20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    The grey country
    I agree - colonial legacy is primarily (but not exclusively) responsible for provding a framework on which the worst kinds of people could hang their hats. But we must also afford due credit to those who perpetrated the horrors of the first generation(s) of post independence regime.

    I also agree that these same people were, in many cases taught all they knew by said colonial powers, by a variety of means - typically involving spells in prison, something that became a rite of passage. Ghana being an especially relavent, and topical example, eh Jason?

    Of course, they were terribly hampered by events of the past - lack of education, lack of administrative experience, exposure to (and thus emulation of) 'big man', often loosely accountable forms of government - but they also had an opportunity to improve things. Is the fact that most didn't, entirely the fault of the west - I know you didn't say that, but many believe it.

    Many (most?) early post independence leaders didn't do so, they chose to line their pockets, to fleece their newly minted nations for their own personal/tribal/family ends. That they chose to behave this way can only be partly* laid at the feet of former colonial powers - although they stood by and let it happen.

    * Please note by 'partly' I don't mean 'a little bit', I do mean significantly - but not
    exclusively.

    That some leaders, and some nations managed to avoid the worst excesses of others speaks to the role simple base human nature played in many of the scenarios that unfolded in those early years - and in some cases still continue today.

    I believe the means by which independence was acheived is also a signifcant factor, and I believe (in part) the former colonial powers themselves is too - in how they fostered relations with their former 'possessions', or merely subjugated them anew by other means - and of course, the atrocious behaviour of the major players during the cold war era.

    Again, I'm not seeking to make excuses for any party here, merely suggesting that responsibility for contemporary Africa isn't so easily apportioned.

    This loosely parallels some events in Europe.

    A key difference being that there (Europe) was too close to home (read civilisation) to be merely swept under the carpet. After all, what did it matter if a few natives chopped away at each other over some mud huts, the best form of juju and some skinny cows - or over resources that were [then] of little value - this was happening far away, and these folk could be safely left to their own devices.

    We could tut, and send a few bucks to asuage our collective conscience. Thus the snake oil (sorry, aid) industry as we know it today was born.

    Typically with callous brutality.

    Tribal and family affiliation within a clear social hirearchy (not democracy as we know it) is a core foundation stone of much African culture (outside the Muslim realm - there too, with variations).

    It's entirely understandable why newly installed leaders tended to form nepotistic and sycophantic cliques. As you say, a lack of education was a key weapon in the colonial arsenal - for the same basic reasons it became one for post independence leaders too.

    One cannot easily effect [positive] change in the face of vested interest, ignorance and corruption, so it's easy to fall back on good old violent repression as new leaders clearly demonstrated - but awareness of such realities, and their root causes must be kept from the proles at all costs.

    In many respects independence was mere window dressing. Across a continent it was, for a while at least, business as usual.

    Of course, (I know it's cliche) violence does tend to perpetuate itself, so it's easy to see how the era of 'Big Man' African regimes came about.

    40 years on, there is still a long way to go and I am by no means confident that many of today's [marginally] more democratic African regimes won't 'relapse'.

    Who would stop them - an ill educated, defenceless populace clamouring for democracy? Hardly. As I said before, today things could easily go either way, and I believe the west has, to a degree been given some form of second chance. Will we take it? I honestly don't know.

    Indeed, but while the systems of government many leaders inherited did function along the lines of nepotism, corruption and so on - that's only a partial excuse for their perpetuating them.

    In many cases existing structures (physical and organisational) were in good order - they were simply too few qualified locals to run or maintain them, and in many cases no wish to train them. Most people had little or nothing, and so were ripe for [continued] exploitation. It should be no surprise to anyone that much of the time, that's exactly what transpired.

    In simple terms; give a starving man the keys to the larder, and the treasury - and an AK47, it's easy to see how things turned out as they often did.

    I'd argue the west did far more than merely ignore events, as if that wasn't enough - to varying degrees the 'west' (and here I primarily mean Europe) is complicit - either in the events themselves, or in allowing them to occur. Often this was merely because it was politically expedient.

    Simple intransigence would be bad enough, but it was more than that. This is not well understood and often denied - it's a major collective blind spot. Look a little more deeply into events in Rwanda/Burundi (for example), you may find some nasty surprises.

    Yes, this time it will be different.

    As you know, many African leaders turned to charities and aid agencies for far less altrusitic reasons - typically to divert attention for the wholesale robbery they were perperating against the same people they were supposed to be 'helping'. That western nations, and their proxy the burgeoning aid industry were so eager to 'help' out made it all the easier to say 'look, I'm helping'. The sad thing is, both here and there too many believed that was what was actually happening.

    That regimes syhponed off huge amounts of aid, monetary or otherwise was blithely ignored by the west - because most people back home didn't want to hear about it. Acknowedgement of what was happening would require action to curtail it, and that simply wasn't on the agenda.

    From a man in the street perspective, when pictures of starving children appeared on TVs all 'we' had to do was phone up, stick $50 on the visa card and 'our' concience was clear. That little or none of that money would actually reach anyone it was meant to, that much would be syphoned off as bribes, or to fund arms or drugs purchases to perpetuate the very situation it was intended to solve - was simply too hard, or too inconvenient to grapple with, so for the most part people didn't try.

    One need only look at the countless multi-million dollar boondoggles scattered across sub-saharan Africa to see how deeply this elective ignorance and naivete was embedded.

    Caveat - I know not all aid agencies or aid workers are the puppets of Satan, of course many do excellent work, but IMO these are the exception, and too often the ones nobody has ever heard of and so receive little funding, and even less recognition.

    To a significant degree there remains an almost instituionalised sense of moral superiority within the industry (and it is an industry) - and having seen its effects first hand it's often truly sickening. Yes, I'm cynical about African aid ... not in priniciple, in implementation. I will concdede it's better today than back in the Live Aid days, but IMO it remains largely a self serving entity.

    I hate to use the term 'Africa' it's so imprecise and generic. But I hope my use is in context.

    Jason, I will try to response to the rest of your post later ... stuff to do!
     
  14. lucky8

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2006
    Messages:
    3,716
    Likes Received:
    17
    Gender:
    Male
    Africa? America's next conquest...
     
  15. dong20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    The grey country
    :lmao:
     
  16. lucky8

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2006
    Messages:
    3,716
    Likes Received:
    17
    Gender:
    Male
    usually works out well when I'm playing Risk
     
  17. Flashy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2007
    Messages:
    8,097
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    at home
    All of Africa's problems are clearly to blame on exploitative 1980s band "Toto" and clearly there is nothing that a 100 men or more could ever do to fix them.
     
  18. jason_els

    jason_els <img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Messages:
    10,576
    Likes Received:
    25
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Warwick, NY, USA
    Yeah! The band was originally named, "Togo," but there was a misprint on the album cover so they thought it was better to just change the name of the band.
     
  19. Wyldgusechaz

    Wyldgusechaz New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2006
    Messages:
    1,259
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Africa is a mess and its ALL because Africans are losers. Of course the idiots here will blame the West but its all squarely due to a horrible social system made of backward citizens.

    The entire continent will have all its minerals taken and will be left to rot.
     
  20. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    Sometimes I wonder if a black man stole your potential wife away from you. That would assume that you wouldn't scare a woman away with your obviously screwed up brain. Either way, your rabid discrimination towards them is becoming quite the comedy. You should look in a mirror one of these days if you want to see a backwards citizen. I'll expect you to resort to your usual "black men are evil" rhetoric in response. It's what old fossils of your ilk tend to do. :rolleyes:
     
Draft saved Draft deleted