Africa is giving nothing to anyone -- apart from AIDS

[SteveS]

I really can't explain it but I imagine someone will soon be explaining to us all how it's the fault of us evil westerners and our exploitatious, and corrupt capitalist corporations.

I tend to agree with SS, but there is certainly blame to go around.  That being said, the past can't be changed and current pratices and policies don't seem to be improving the situation. 

[HankB]

What's obscene though, is writing an article ripping on the Africans for being so savage and then refusing to assign any of the blame to Europe for the savagery that destroyed their continent . . .

With the exception of parts of North Africa (e.g., Egypt) there was nothing to destroy. Pre-colonial African "societies" (if you want to use the word) were savage, stone-age tribal groups, practicing cannibalism, female circumcision, slavery, female disfigurement (to "uglify" the women and make them less valuable to slavers) and a host of other barbaric practices. Africa was a mess before Europeans arrived, and it's returning to a mess now that most have left, with a descent into savagery that would revolt even the long-dead Leopold and his disgusting band of thugs.

How many generations - think about it, generations - of "European-Free" self-government does it take for Africans to right their course?

[HankB]

. . . Yet Denise Charlton, of the Immigrant Council of Ireland, has urged An Garda Siochana to investigate me under a special law, by which I could be tried and imprisoned for two years without even the benefit of a jury.

Jailed for years with no trial because of what a person said or wrote? Gee, this makes it sound like Ireland is a fascist police state . . . [/size]

He didn't say there would be no trial, he said no jury.  I presume that means a judge (or judges) would decide. 

Trial but not by a jury, just by a judge? OK, then a show trial . . . like you get in any fascist police state.

[Manedwolf]

What's obscene though, is writing an article ripping on the Africans for being so savage and then refusing to assign any of the blame to Europe for the savagery that destroyed their continent . . .

With the exception of parts of North Africa (e.g., Egypt) there was nothing to destroy. Pre-colonial African "societies" (if you want to use the word) were savage, stone-age tribal groups, practicing cannibalism, female circumcision, slavery, female disfigurement (to "uglify" the women and make them less valuable to slavers) and a host of other barbaric practices. Africa was a mess before Europeans arrived, and it's returning to a mess now that most have left, with a descent into savagery that would revolt even the long-dead Leopold and his disgusting band of thugs.

How many generations - think about it, generations - of "European-Free" self-government does it take for Africans to right their course?

The Egyptians wrote of the savagery of the tribes to the south, too.

[Dannyboy]

I've been saying for years that Buckley was right.

[agricola]

What's obscene though, is writing an article ripping on the Africans for being so savage and then refusing to assign any of the blame to Europe for the savagery that destroyed their continent . . .

With the exception of parts of North Africa (e.g., Egypt) there was nothing to destroy. Pre-colonial African "societies" (if you want to use the word) were savage, stone-age tribal groups, practicing cannibalism, female circumcision, slavery, female disfigurement (to "uglify" the women and make them less valuable to slavers) and a host of other barbaric practices. Africa was a mess before Europeans arrived, and it's returning to a mess now that most have left, with a descent into savagery that would revolt even the long-dead Leopold and his disgusting band of thugs.

How many generations - think about it, generations - of "European-Free" self-government does it take for Africans to right their course?

This is quite misleading - there were quite a lot of reasonably advanced societies in Africa beyond the North for large parts of its history - places such as Mali, Dahomey, the Ashanti, Eithiopia etc.  That these societies were not able to write their own history (or more accurately, were not able to defeat the people who wrote the history) should not detract from their achievements.

Also there is a great deal of hypocrisy from the West towards Africa and African political problems - how long did it take for us to become effectively involved with what was happening in the former Yugoslavia, after all?  Why do we still allow our firms and corporations to become involved with (ie:  corrupt, arm and support) some extremely dodgy people in Africa?

[seeker_two]

Africa won't improve until we stop sending charity food aid (which gets confiscated by the local gov't or warlord of the day) and start sending guns & ammo to the Africans who just want to defend themselves and change their nation for the better...

So that we can then better arm said local gov't/warlord of the day?

Touche'..... 

[BlueStarLizzard]

i will say that centurys of european involvement in africa did not help. but i refuse to take the blame of crap that happened long ago.

besides, bemoaning the past isn't going to make things better. look at the atrocitys commited in europe, before it became what it became.

and as for the colonists leaving the mess, well india seems to be doing ok. and they only through off british rule in the past century.

i hate to say this, because the atrocities involved are horrendous, but unless some one makes a united and somewhat brutish effort at civilizing the entire continent (which would be expensive) then we have to leave them alone and let them find their own way, which nobody is going to do.

i have a feeling that non of this will be settled in our life times.

[Werewolf]

i hate to say this, because the atrocities involved are horrendous, but unless some one makes a united and somewhat brutish effort at civilizing the entire continent (which would be expensive) then we have to leave them alone and let them find their own way, which nobody is going to do.

Maybe...

Maybe NOT!

The untapped resources of Africa are immense. As the resources of the civilized world are used up there will be more and more incentive to go into Africa to get the resources there.

And at the current rate that AIDS is ravaging the population in a 100 years there may not be many Africans left to contest the taking.

It is just a matter of when - not if.

[BlueStarLizzard]

i hate to say this, because the atrocities involved are horrendous, but unless some one makes a united and somewhat brutish effort at civilizing the entire continent (which would be expensive) then we have to leave them alone and let them find their own way, which nobody is going to do.

Maybe...

Maybe NOT!

The untapped resources of Africa are immense. As the resources of the civilized world are used up there will be more and more incentive to go into Africa to get the resources there.

And at the current rate that AIDS is ravaging the population in a 100 years there may not be many Africans left to contest the taking.

It is just a matter of when - not if.

errrrr... werewolf. i already admited it won't work. even if you could get the libtards to leave it alone, i doubt you could get the western run businesses out of there. they make good money on resources.

though your theroy may be right. and it could happen more quickly if another desiease pops up. isn't africa the worst spot for odd ball infectious desieases?

[De Selby]

i hate to say this, because the atrocities involved are horrendous, but unless some one makes a united and somewhat brutish effort at civilizing the entire continent (which would be expensive) then we have to leave them alone and let them find their own way, which nobody is going to do.

Maybe...

Maybe NOT!

The untapped resources of Africa are immense. As the resources of the civilized world are used up there will be more and more incentive to go into Africa to get the resources there.

And at the current rate that AIDS is ravaging the population in a 100 years there may not be many Africans left to contest the taking.

It is just a matter of when - not if.

The civilized world that desperately waits for another contintent's population to die in agony because there are resources there?

Yeah right.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

i hate to say this, because the atrocities involved are horrendous, but unless some one makes a united and somewhat brutish effort at civilizing the entire continent (which would be expensive) then we have to leave them alone and let them find their own way, which nobody is going to do.

Maybe...

Maybe NOT!

The untapped resources of Africa are immense. As the resources of the civilized world are used up there will be more and more incentive to go into Africa to get the resources there.

And at the current rate that AIDS is ravaging the population in a 100 years there may not be many Africans left to contest the taking.

It is just a matter of when - not if.

The civilized world that desperately waits for another contintent's population to die in agony because there are resources there?

Yeah right.

I'm sure the civilized world would be eager to buy those resources from Africa. 

Of course, the mess Africa has gotten herself into is so bad they couldn't manage to sell anything, not even to eager buyers.  Heck, even the Middle East has managed to order itself well enough to do that.  But Africa?  Forget it.

[BlueStarLizzard]

i hate to say this, because the atrocities involved are horrendous, but unless some one makes a united and somewhat brutish effort at civilizing the entire continent (which would be expensive) then we have to leave them alone and let them find their own way, which nobody is going to do.

Maybe...

Maybe NOT!

The untapped resources of Africa are immense. As the resources of the civilized world are used up there will be more and more incentive to go into Africa to get the resources there.

And at the current rate that AIDS is ravaging the population in a 100 years there may not be many Africans left to contest the taking.

It is just a matter of when - not if.

The civilized world that desperately waits for another contintent's population to die in agony because there are resources there?

Yeah right.

because aiding them is really paying off. [/sarcasm]

almost all attepts at stabilizing the various problems are not working. so what else are we supposed to do? i don't think anybody is eagerly awaiting the day when the african population has so decimated itself that the civilized countrys can take what they want.
we're just stating that at this rate, they are going to kill themselves off.

and how is it our fault. we tried. they get help. they have the means to solve these issues themselves. but they haven't.
and i, for one, am not going to beat myselve up over it. if i see something that might actually help, i'll support it. but so far, that hasn't happened.

[xavier fremboe]

Okay, the thread was bound to head towards the Irish-guy-writing-about-the-entire-continent-of-Africa-is-racist.  That's predictable.  But let's take it back to the meaning of the original articles for a minute.

Famine is a political tool, just like warfare. 

Read The Botany of Desire, or even P.J. O'Rourke's reporting of famine in Africa from back in the 80's.  There's food there.  It's just not there for the people who are being photographed.  There was plenty of grain being loaded onto ships sailing back to England during the potato famine, but the Irish had adopted essentially a monoculture of potatoes.  This was decimated by a fungus.  The grain that they were raising was a cash crop heading back to London under the colonial model.

O'Rourke talks about heading out in a U.N. Convoy with Ethiopian Soldiers who refuse the U.N. Rations because the want 'Ethiopian Food'.  As P.J. points out, there isn't supposed to be any Ethiopian Food.  Hence the convoy.

During the 80's, much was made of the peanut depleting the soil of Ethiopia of nutrients, thereby robbing the next (now current) generation of fertile land.  Seems to me that doubling the population would put that to rest. 

If the neighboring countries are experiencing the same thing, then it might be an environmental phenomenon, but the fact that it is Ethiopia, which the author points out has experienced a miraculous population boom in the intervening years, points more towards a political famine.

[Leatherneck]

 SS:

The civilized  world that desperately waits for another contintent's population to die in agony because there are resources there?

Do you believe that for even a second? Is your world view really that shallow? Are you using your brain?

TC

[De Selby]

SS:

The civilized  world that desperately waits for another contintent's population to die in agony because there are resources there?

Do you believe that for even a second? Is your world view really that shallow? Are you using your brain?

TC

I was referring to Werewolf's comment specifically, which seemed gleeful for the resources post-extinction of Africa.

Of course I do not believe (nor is there a reasonable argument to be made) that most people feel that way here in America nor in Europe.

[Werewolf]

SS:

The civilized  world that desperately waits for another contintent's population to die in agony because there are resources there?

Do you believe that for even a second? Is your world view really that shallow? Are you using your brain?

TC

I was referring to Werewolf's comment specifically, which seemed gleeful for the resources post-extinction of Africa.

Of course I do not believe (nor is there a reasonable argument to be made) that most people feel that way here in America nor in Europe.

Geeez you guys are worse at reading minds than my niece who thinks she can actually do it. Try not to project your own feelings onto others OK...

Gleeful, no. Realistic, yes.

As I said in another post. I been there, done that. Africa is a pit. A scumhole. The cultures of west and sw africa are barbaric and though I've not been there I don't imagine the cultures of e africa are any better. Unless they wake up and smell the coffee they are doomed. All the west can do is prolong the misery.

In my estimation they aren't going to wake up and smell the coffee, the west is gonna prop them up and in 50 to 100 years there won't be enough native africans left to matter. They'll kill themselves, expire from aids or die from some horrible disease like ebola. A new wave of colonization will then sweep over the continent and 100 years after that there will be modern, industrialized and civilized peoples there - maybe european, maybe oriental, maybe even middle eastern.
One thing is for sure there's not even a snow ball's chance in hell that it'll be african.

It's inevitable IMO. Once the rest of the world's resources start to run out for real the world will look at africa, see it has what it wants and take it.

[RevDisk]

Of course it's just "self loathing liberalism" to mention that most of Africa was colonized by brutal, racist European/white governments until fairly recently.

I'm sure living under conditions that made American slavery look like an exercise in philanthropy had at least a little bit to do with where Africa is today.

Do you have as much sympathy towards the Boers who suffered just as greatly from the British?

Aye, the European masters were brutal and racist.  So are the current and previous African tribes and governments going back as far as Egyptian records have been maintained.  You've lost your mind if you believe that Africa's current trouble is entirely of European cause.  As others pointed out, India is a direct parallel in terms of occupation and brutal treatment.  Yet, they've made extremely decent progress.  Far to go in killing their caste system, but on their way.   What is your thoughts to India's progress and Southern Africa's stagnation for thousands of years?

[De Selby]

Of course it's just "self loathing liberalism" to mention that most of Africa was colonized by brutal, racist European/white governments until fairly recently.

I'm sure living under conditions that made American slavery look like an exercise in philanthropy had at least a little bit to do with where Africa is today.

Do you have as much sympathy towards the Boers who suffered just as greatly from the British?

In a word-YES.  And the disastrous effects of the Boer wars are still recognized by many, including the invention of the concentration camp.  Of course that doesn't excuse the people who engineered apartheid either, which is consistent with my view here: you don't have to excuse the modern thugs from responsibility in order to point out that European colonization had a big hand in creating the mess that is Africa today.

Aye, the European masters were brutal and racist.  So are the current and previous African tribes and governments going back as far as Egyptian records have been maintained.  You've lost your mind if you believe that Africa's current trouble is entirely of European cause.  As others pointed out, India is a direct parallel in terms of occupation and brutal treatment.  Yet, they've made extremely decent progress.  Far to go in killing their caste system, but on their way.   What is your thoughts to India's progress and Southern Africa's stagnation for thousands of years?

Again, if you reread my posts, you will find no statement to the effect that Africa is entirely the fault of Europeans.  But certainly colonizing the entire countryside didn't have little or no effect, and it's not irrelevant today. 

The India example does not square, because the European powers were never able to conquer India by outright brute force in the same way that they did in Africa.  The Mughals were not weaklings, and most of the conquest was accomplished much more gradually by means of divide and conquer (financing was the primary way that the British managed to crack open Mughal rule.)  That fact meant that the Colonial rule simply could not be as brutal and destructive as it was in Africa; the relative capabilities of the Indians to resist overloadship when it become too oppressive foreclosed that possibility.  The colonials needed a higher level of voluntary cooperation to make the system work.

When the massacres really kicked off in the subcontinent, Colonial rule was promptly defeated.  Contrast that to Africa, where chopping off hands, murder and rape were methods that pervaded the colonial experience.  There you have a big explanation for the difference-the level of destruction simply was not remotely similar between India and Africa.

[Perd Hapley]

No, I'm not excusing it, but I don't believe in completely self-congratulatory rants (which this article is) that do not take into account the help the Africans have had in arriving at this sad state.

A european writing about how pathetic Africa has become is like a rapist writing a column about how his victim is too depressed to get a job and a big loser. 

 It's mind boggling that anyone would write an article about the widespread dysfunction that completely ignores the role that modern colonization played.

If you could add context to this article, it would read something like this:

"Hey, all the white europeans did was enslave and destroy every traditional society in Africa....now it's up to them to be decent, and they're failing.  Not our fault at all!"

What's obscene though, is writing an article ripping on the Africans for being so savage and then refusing to assign any of the blame to Europe for the savagery that destroyed their continent.

I only skimmed the articles, but from what I saw, he is accusing Westerners of screwing up Africa, via alleged charity, govt. aid, etc.  I guess he could have blabbered about Europe's past sins of imperialism, but why?  Is that some obscure fact that we don't hear much about?  Would that help us to understand why the West's current practices are wrong, and how they should be changed? 

I'm making a point about the causes of the current problems in Africa, not the solutions. 

Indeed you are.  So are a lot of people.  The political left insists on constant mea culpas for Western guilt, which do little but help Westerners feel better by distancing themselves from the sins of their ancestors.  But why do you demand that the author of these articles follow suit?  He is, thankfully, not engaging in played-out hand-wringing about past evils, he is urging one possible solution for the future.   

[roo_ster]

A very enlightening book on this general topic is Out of America: A Black Man Confronts Africa:
http://www.amazon.com/Out-America-Black-Confronts-Africa/dp/0156005832/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1217169914&sr=1-1


Reviews on Amazon page:


Amazon.com
From 1991 to 1994, Keith Richburg was based in Nairobi as the Africa bureau chief for the Washington Post. He traveled throughout Africa, from Rwanda to Zaire, witnessing and reporting on wars, famines, mass murders, and the complexity and corruption of African politics. Unlike many black Americans who romanticize Africa, Richburg looks back on his time there and concludes that he is simply an American, not an African American. This is a powerful, hard-hitting book, filled with anguished soul-searching as Richburg makes his way toward that uncomfortable conclusion.


The New York Times Book Review, William Finnegan
To his credit, Mr. Richburg lays out his own confusion and guilt about saying some of the things he does . . . he is candid about his gratitude that his ancestors made it to America. Mr. Richburg lambastes whites in the West who, for fear of appearing racist, hesitate to place responsibility for Africa's woes on African shoulders, and then he extends this criticism to white Americans who are allegedly afraid to hold black Americans responsible for their own woes.

[Bigjake]

You'll love this.....


 

  President Bush plans to sign a bill next week that commits the United States to spending about $40 billion over the next five years to fight AIDS overseas, a major expansion of what many consider his most successful foreign policy initiative.

    The legislation also extends an implicit pledge that has little precedent in the history of U.S. foreign assistance: to continue purchasing lifesaving drugs for millions of individual people in developing countries for an indefinite period of time.
    ...
    Bushs program is fundamentally different. So far, it has purchased vast quantities of antiretroviral drugs and supported day-to-day medical care for more than 1.4 million people whose survival depends on continued treatment.

[Tallpine]

So Bush really isn't against government paid health care - just not for Americans ...?   

[Bigjake]

Yeah, so to paraphrase, we're going to send $40 BILLION of US TAXPAYER'S money to another stinking continent to keep people with a terminal illness alive a little longer. 

Explain to me why we send Africa money in the first place??

[Iain]

Maybe it's to help treat people with a terrible disease.

That's a horrible diabolical scheme I agree. Bush is really as bad as everyone says.