NationStates Jolt Archive

Live8 is following its ancestor, LiveAid, in trying to solve the problems of Africa through pop music.However we must ask the question what precisely does this achieve - indeed we must ask the question, in what way does all reactionary and charitable aid help the problems of Africa?

The UN and most advanced economic powers have large aid programmes. Each year a considerable amount of taxpayer's money is sent to African nations who are suffering from plaques, war and famine. So why aren't they recovering? Well all this government aid does not go to the people of the villages nor does it go into progressive social welfare policies. The leaders of these Third World countries use these generous grants to fund their armies, pay for bribery and hiking up government salaries. Most of the government aid pumped into third world nations ends up being squandered by the greedy and corrupt politicans who run them.

But of charity organisations like LiveAid? Well certainly you are going to save a few lives, this time round. But all it will do is temporarily disguise a far greater problem. Soon the next famine will come or the next war will explode or the next epidemic will run riot. And once again, people will be compelled by guilt to help. Giving charitable aid is not a solution to the African problem because in the end you are simply prolonging the problem. Your aid will help people, perhaps even solve the current crisis. But then the government of these people would see no need to act. Their problem has been solved and they can continue with their corrupt practices, wasting the aid money which is meant to go towards preventing another such indicident. Until the next crisis comes along. And even if you think your aid goes to something long lasting, it is still a waste. A school is a building to be burnt by warring militias. A well could be fouled by disease.

There are two solutions to the African problem and neither will sit well with people:

1) No aid be given. The people will then starve to death. They will no longer be able to provide taxes to the government. They will no longer be able to fight in its armies. They will no longer be able to sow crops or keep cows. Trade will dry up. No babies will come about so even more potential tax revenue is lost. Soon the government of these people will have to act in order to preserve itself if for no other reason. Soon they will be forced to implement social welfare programmes in order to protect trade and revenues. This is how a country evolves: death is the solemn price of progress. Every time we interfere, we push back the progress that is so desperately needed. This is the way most of modern Europe has evolved: through painful progress.

2) Imperialism, which is a far quicker and less painful solution. What would happen if a country like modern day Britain were to invade Sudan and claim it as a colony. Do you think the government of Britain would let the Sudanese starve? Do you think the government of Britain would let Arab militias run rampant throughout the countryside? No, because public opinion in Britain would not allow it - the government would be compelled to aid these countries in order to keep the voters happy. Within 10 years, irrigation systems could be in place to prevent the harmful effects of drought. A police force could be set up. During this time, Britain could ship its huge excess food surplus to the Sudanese. Within 20 years there could be hospitals and schools. Within 50 years, a full constitution with well laid laws could be set out on the basis of a sound burecracy. Within 100 years, out could emerge a modern state. The schools would provide a middle class willing to run the political, legal and industrial systems left in place. The irrigation would mean increased crops and increased live stock leading greater prosperity in the countryside. Effective and uncorrupt police forces could keep back local militias and insurgents. Workers would no longer need to rely on the countryside for employment: thriving industrial centres run by the educated middle classes would provide amble employment and amble money. With a government like Britain in control there would be no child labour tolerated or substandard wages. The prosperity of the workers would feed the economy as they use their new found wealth to buy luxuries therefore helping the import trades as countries rush to import luxuries to Sudan. Foreign investors, from Britain and the rest of the world, would see a stable situation emerging into the country and rush to set up enterprises, bringing in more jobs and growth for the natives. They would use their new found wealth to buy better houses, causing an increase in demand for better housing rather than mud hovels and shanty towns. Luxuries would improve living conditions. Hospitals would improve child mortality so the population would increase therefore creating a continuous labour market and future government revenues. Once all this was done, there would be no need for British soldiers or British occupation. They could leave and the two countries would be bound by gratitude. What about expense? Well even Sudan in its current states produces revenues. With British direction these revenues could be directed into the policies that are desperately needed: schools, hospitals and advanced agriculture. With British expertise, these systems could be set up ready for the new educated middle classes. The imperial masters would be teachers, ready to impart their knowledge on.

This could be easily done by any of the western powers and in my opinion is the best long term solution to Africa's problems.

[Stops chewing muesli, adjusts sandals, folds up Guardian. Contemplates.]

Hmm. Imperialism sounds kinda...non-PC. I choose Option 1.

*Kryo stops chewing on her wireless rodent and puts it back on its wodent pad*

You don't give a man a fish, you teach him to fish...

Imperialism, ironically, was the damn problem in the first place.

Funny how Africans were so desperate to get rid of "whitey," (the first president of Kenya said, "I like the English- in England. But the white people have to go. Africa is for Africans." Robert Mugabe said, "Zimbabwe is for black people, not white people." Etc.) but now that they've flushed their economies down the toilet through massive corruption and inept socialist policies, they come crying to us for help. :rolleyes:

Funny how Africans were so desperate to get rid of "whitey," (the first president of Kenya said, "I like the English- in England. But the white people have to go. Africa is for Africans." Robert Mugabe said, "Zimbabwe is for black people, not white people." Etc.) but now that they've flushed their economies down the toilet through massive corruption and inept socialist policies, they come crying to us for help. :rolleyes:

Funny. Wonder if it might be because imperialism destroyed theuir cultures and put rival tribes together in the same countries, causing all of Africa's problems in the first place? Nahhh, that can't be it.

More quotes by famous Africans:

When Mandela dies, we will kill you whites like flies.

Whites are not human beings.

Funny. Wonder if it might be because imperialism destroyed theuir cultures and put rival tribes together in the same countries, causing all of Africa's problems in the first place? Nahhh, that can't be it.

Before imperialism, Africa was nothing but disease, starvation, and tribal warfare. Imperialism was of course atrocious in many cases- Leopold II immediately springs to mind- but imperialism also did much good for Africa. Of course, leftists ignore all that. They prefer only to look at the bad.

Funny how Africans were so desperate to get rid of "whitey," (the first president of Kenya said, "I like the English- in England. But the white people have to go. Africa is for Africans." Robert Mugabe said, "Zimbabwe is for black people, not white people." Etc.) but now that they've flushed their economies down the toilet through massive corruption and inept socialist policies, they come crying to us for help. :rolleyes:

Unfortuantly we are responsible for weakening their self governing abilites. If we came prepare, the damage will be the least, minimal. Africa will be able to prosper if we haven't shift our gears into invasion mode.

Imperialism, ironically, was the damn problem in the first place.

Actually if we observe other countires where imperialism was in place for a much longer period of time (notably India), we can see that imperialism can be extremely effective for setting up modern and stable democracies.

However the Africa situation was different, firstly because of the length of time the imperial powers were involved - they weren't there for as long and as such had less opportunity to bring in the policies of improvement.

Secondly, it was because of America. Aftter the Second World War, America placed so much economic pressure on the European powers that they were forced to leave Africa before much of their work was completed. Their rushed departure has essentially caused the problems of today. So it was the departure of imperialism rather than imperialism itself that is responsible.

Also a major contributing fact is that African leaders have squandered all the money of their nations, so leaving their people in poverty.

Well, if you want to embark on some sort of moralistic new imperialist crusade to bring civilization to Africa, do it with your own tax money.

There would probably still be corruption, no matter who ran the governments of Africa, but because of media influences there would IMHO be somewhat less. Rather than call it imperialism, or even neoimperialism, why not call it 'sponsorship'?

Well, if you want to embark on some sort of moralistic new imperialist crusade to bring civilization to Africa, do it with your own tax money.

I never said I wanted to do that. I just don't see why the West should fork over a bunch of money to people that openly hate us.

RB is generally anti black. But I dont know really. However I do know that we should never have invaded. In the end the victims are the ones who are in the receiving end of imperialism.

Unfortuantly we are responsible for weakening their self governing abilites. If we came prepare, the damage will be the least, minimal. Africa will be able to prosper if we haven't shift our gears into invasion mode.

Some people would suggest 50 years is a perfectly long time for them to get to grips with self government - many other former colonies in other parts of the world have done. It is quite clear that in order to solve the problems of Africa, we can no longer stand on the sidelines and throw money at the problem until it goes away. They should no longer be left in the hands of irresponsible and greedy governments who do nothing but swindle their people.

RB is generally anti black. But I dont know really. However I do know that we should never have invaded. In the end the victims are the ones who are in the receiving end of imperialism.

That's bullshit. Just because I don't want to give money to a bunch of corrupt Third World countries makes me anti-black? :rolleyes:

Before imperialism, Africa was nothing but disease, starvation, and tribal warfare. Imperialism was of course atrocious in many cases- Leopold II immediately springs to mind- but imperialism also did much good for Africa. Of course, leftists ignore all that. They prefer only to look at the bad.

How about "NO!" you uneducated dope. Africa was not only starvation, disease and tribal warfare, africa was civilised in a way europe has never been. The only difference is that it wasn't civilised by european standards, and thus got screwed over.

Africa had advanced cultures with aqueducts and buildings made of gold. Had it been left alone and given the same chance to progress on its own as all other continents then there wouldn't be as many problems down there as there is now.

Of course Africa was desperate to get rid of "whitey", because "whitey" had screwed the continent beyond recognition.

How about "NO!" you uneducated dope. Africa was not only starvation, disease and tribal warfare, africa was civilised in a way europe has never been. The only difference is that it wasn't civilised by european standards, and thus got screwed over.

Africa had advanced cultures with aqueducts and buildings made of gold. Had it been left alone and given the same chance to progress on its own as all other continents then there wouldn't be as many problems down there as there is now.

Rather than ranting leftist nonsense over what imperialism has done in the past, why don't you suggest a positive way to solve the problems of Africa?

Getting rid of their debt won't really help. It just means their corrupt governments will have even more revenue to spend on weapons, war and women.

Sitting there and throwing money at the problem won't work: look at the past 40 years or so of charitable donations made by Westerners in an attempt to appease their guilt.

So what does anyone else suggest? Regime change (imperialism with a different hat on)?

I believe private charities and humanitarian organizations are the solution.

How about "NO!" you uneducated dope.
How about laying off the personal attacks, and sticking with punching logical holes in weak arguments, 'K?

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator

Of course Africa was desperate to get rid of "whitey", because "whitey" had screwed the continent beyond recognition.

Maybe so, but "whitey" isn't responsible for their current predicament. Whitey got them in the mess, but their own incompetent leaders made it worse.

Rather than ranting leftist nonsense over what imperialism has done in the past, why don't you suggest a positive way to solve the problems of Africa?

Getting rid of their debt won't really help. It just means their corrupt governments will have even more revenue to spend on weapons, war and women.

Sitting there and throwing money at the problem won't work: look at the past 40 years or so of charitable donations made by Westerners in an attempt to appease their guilt.

So what does anyone else suggest? Regime change (imperialism with a different hat on)?

Oh, aren't we quick today? Giving people political alignments based on their view on one certain issues. Well, I got news for you:

You are very, very alone.

People with views similar to yours are hard to find. I'm would be considered a "rightist" because I'm a member of a rightist party. And I don't know anyone in my party that thinks imperialism once again is a good solution to th problems in Africa, problems created by imperialism in the first place.

Charitable donations my ass, uneducated as you are you probably don't know that Africa has been paying more money to the west (for debts) then it has been given aid.

Corrupt goverments? Who placed them there in the first place? The west. Who keeps them in power? The west.

Why can the leader of Equatorial Guinea spends as much money on private luxuries as the country's totaly yearly budget for healthcare? Because US companies drill for oil in Equatorial Guinea, and they pay said leader money to be able to continue using cheap labor and to be able to continue not giving a fuck about the enviroment or workers rights.

Its a little thing called "Neo-colonialism/imperialism", a little thing that has made the problem created by imperialism even worse.

So how about this for a solution:

The west should stop its neo-imperalism.

How about laying off the personal attacks, and sticking with punching logical holes in weak arguments, 'K?

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator

Granted, but some people just make me really really mad...

Maybe so, but "whitey" isn't responsible for their current predicament. Whitey got them in the mess, but their own incompetent leaders made it worse.

No, their own incompetent leaders support and put into power by "whitey" made it worse.

I believe private charities and humanitarian organizations are the solution.

But these have been going for 30 years and they havent really achieved much have they? Africa is still ridden with poverty and disease despite our best efforts to help. Why? Because even if you use money to build something like a school or a well or a hospital, other internal problems will always stop these projects from working.

In war (a frequent occupation of African countries) schools could be destroyed as one warring factions bunks up in them and their pupils killed in the cross fire or forced to join one of the child armies. Wells would be soiled by armies to stop their enemies from using them. Hospitals would be so overwhelmed by the influx of war wounded that they would be unable to deal with the diseases that inflict themselves on normal civilians.

Even the purchase of food is nothing but a quick fix solution: if the people aren't starving then the government will see no need to help them and thus not bother to use money to prevent another crisis.

I say that all these countries should go away. It was because of them that Africa is in such a bad state. Stupid Europeans, Imperialism was the cause of all the problems Africans have today. We should have a little more faith in the human race because humans eventually learn how to adapt to different scenarios and climates. How do I know this? If Africa was already in a bad shape before the Europeans came, how come they were not extinct already? If these strong countries just stopped spreading their influence on Africans, then maybe they just might become better.

But these have been going for 30 years and they havent really achieved much have they? Africa is still ridden with poverty and disease despite our best efforts to help. Why? Because even if you use money to build something like a school or a well or a hospital, other internal problems will always stop these projects from working.

In war (a frequent occupation of African countries) schools could be destroyed as one warring factions bunks up in them and their pupils killed in the cross fire or forced to join one of the child armies. Wells would be soiled by armies to stop their enemies from using them. Hospitals would be so overwhelmed by the influx of war wounded that they would be unable to deal with the diseases that inflict themselves on normal civilians.

Even the purchase of food is nothing but a quick fix solution: if the people aren't starving then the government will see no need to help them and thus not bother to use money to prevent another crisis.

In war, usually supported by western goverments and/or western companies (and lately Chinese) as they battle for what little resources Africa has left.

Or, In war usually started because the west drew up Africa's borders with rulers.

Oh, aren't we quick today? Giving people political alignments based on their view on one certain issues. Well, I got news for you:

You are very, very alone.

People with views similar to yours are hard to find. I'm would be considered a "rightist" because I'm a member of a rightist party. And I don't know anyone in my party that thinks imperialism once again is a good solution to th problems in Africa, problems created by imperialism in the first place.

Charitable donations my ass, uneducated as you are you probably don't know that Africa has been paying more money to the west (for debts) then it has been given aid.

Corrupt goverments? Who placed them there in the first place? The west. Who keeps them in power? The west.

Why can the leader of Equatorial Guinea spends as much money on private luxuries as the country's totaly yearly budget for healthcare? Because US companies drill for oil in Equatorial Guinea, and they pay said leader money to be able to continue using cheap labor and to be able to continue not giving a fuck about the enviroment or workers rights.

Its a little thing called "Neo-colonialism/imperialism", a little thing that has made the problem created by imperialism even worse.

So how about this for a solution:

The west should stop its neo-imperalism.

Ah the American knee jerk reaction - imperialism is evil, no matter what. This isnt the case - imperialism has done a great deal for many countries all over the world, including America I might hasten to add. After all fromwho did they copy their legislative and judicial system - why their former masters, the British.

Why can the leader of Equatorial Guinea spends as much money on private luxuries as the country's totaly yearly budget for healthcare? Because US companies drill for oil in Equatorial Guinea, and they pay said leader money to be able to continue using cheap labor and to be able to continue not giving a fuck about the enviroment or workers rights.

Would that be able to contine under an imperialist regime which would introduce western concepts such as minimum wage? I doubt it.

And just because I am isolated in my opinion (although I am not I can assure you) does not necessarily mean I am wrong.

Funny. Wonder if it might be because imperialism destroyed theuir cultures and put rival tribes together in the same countries, causing all of Africa's problems in the first place? Nahhh, that can't be it.
Which fails to explain Zimbabwe. Mugabe is as rabidly racist as anyone was in the US. He keeps taking away "whitey's" property and giving it to it's "rightful" owners who can't run it properly and so the whole system collapses. Instead of doing hte smart thing and restoring the previos owners and paying them for their trouble he does the same thing, this time in the cities instead of the farms. That country is falling down the shithole rather quickly. The other major reason much of southern africa is in the shit it's in is because of a lovely belgian jewelry country named DeBeers. They've basically engineered gang wars to drive down the price of jewels and broken the backs of governments(Most notably Rhodesia/Zimbabwe when they tried to get in on the diamond market) that tried to stop their monopoly.

I say that all these countries should go away. It was because of them that Africa is in such a bad state. Stupid Europeans, Imperialism was the cause of all the problems Africans have today. We should have a little more faith in the human race because humans eventually learn how to adapt to different scenarios and climates. How do I know this? If Africa was already in a bad shape before the Europeans came, how come they were not extinct already? If these strong countries just stopped spreading their influence on Africans, then maybe they just might become better.

I think that has been the policy for the last 40 or so years, since the last colony was abadonded. Has it produced anything other than civil war and strife? No.

"Ah the American knee jerk reaction - imperialism is evil, no matter what. This isnt the case - imperialism has done a great deal for many countries all over the world, including America I might hasten to add. After all fromwho did they copy their legislative and judicial system - why their former masters, the British."

Its got nothing to do with this "american knee jerk reaction" thing. Imperialism is evil no matter what because every time there was imperialism, there was chaos and havoc. For example, India was doing fine, then the British came along and fucked up the country. Now, India is poor. Although, without any aid from any so called strong country, India is gradually becoming better and better.

RB is generally anti black. But I dont know really. However I do know that we should never have invaded. In the end the victims are the ones who are in the receiving end of imperialism.

So RB is anti-black for pointing out that there are sections within the African community who are anti-white :confused: :confused: :confused:

WTF

I say bring back Imperialism!

Papua New Guinea for example is falling apart. Australia has been assisting PNG with their finances and even sent Federal Police as a police force for PNG.

Recently our police have been withdrawn because of a PNG High Court ruling that Australian Federal Police could be sued by PNG citizens for a myriad of "offences".

PNG should have never been given self rule and should still be an Australian Territory.

For that matter so should New Zealand! :p

"Ah the American knee jerk reaction - imperialism is evil, no matter what. This isnt the case - imperialism has done a great deal for many countries all over the world, including America I might hasten to add. After all fromwho did they copy their legislative and judicial system - why their former masters, the British."

Its got nothing to do with this "american knee jerk reaction" thing. Imperialism is evil no matter what because every time there was imperialism, there was chaos and havoc. For example, India was doing fine, then the British came along and fucked up the country. Now, India is poor. Although, without any aid from any so called strong country, India is gradually becoming better and better.

What about the United States? Canada?

Roads, languages, written records, Rome was also an imperialist nation yet they have given us all that and more. Not all imperialism is evil.

I think that has been the policy for the last 40 or so years, since the last colony was abadonded. Has it produced anything other than civil war and strife? No.

You know why? Because the Europeans fucked up the Africans. That is why. I am pretty sure that if Europe never invaded Africa, Africa would not be in such a crisis. That is what you fail to understand and I think you listen to too many white politicians.

What about the United States? Canada?

Roads, languages, written records, Rome was also an imperialist nation yet they have given us all that and more. Not all imperialism is evil.

Those are cases of imperialism that went successful, not necessarily good. Dont forget that the Native Americans were the first people to live in the U.S and as a result, the Europeans kicked them out. Essentially, the U.S belongs to the Native Americans.

You know why? Because the Europeans fucked up the Africans. That is why. I am pretty sure that if Europe never invaded Africa, Africa would not be in such a crisis. That is what you fail to understand and I think you listen to too many white politicians.


Well, yeah, if any country never gets invaded they probally will do pretty well. That's like saying I'd get straight A's if I never got tests. The survival of a nation is largely based on how it operates internally, but just as importantly, how it interacts with the rest of the world. After all a country can do a whole lot without worrying about defending itself.

Papua New Guinea for example is falling apart. Australia has been assisting PNG with their finances and even sent Federal Police as a police force for PNG.

Recently our police have been withdrawn because of a PNG High Court ruling that Australian Federal Police could be sued by PNG citizens for a myriad of "offences".

PNG should have never been given self rule and should still be an Australian Territory.

I think the court ruled that the AFP having blanket immunity was unconstitutional and that they should be held accountable under PNG law if there was some offence which is why they have been withdrawn. I hope they go back soon, they are needed. As for PNG returning to Australia I think the country would be better for it, but I don't think they want it.

I think the court ruled that the AFP having blanket immunity was unconstitutional and that they should be held accountable under PNG law if there was some offence which is why they have been withdrawn. I hope they go back soon, they are needed. As for PNG returning to Australia I think the country would be better for it, but I don't think they want it.

In any case PNG is stuffed. Our police need the protection they have been given so that frivilous accusations are not leveled against them because they are doing their job.

Australia has also been in the Solomons and I believe a small number of Federal Police are still there, as are government officals to assist in rescuing their economy and system of government.

Nauru is another concern as their economy threatens to implode, there is even talk of the entire population of Nauru resettling in Australia, mostly because the country is a moonscape following over zelous phosphate miners not being controlled buy their government.

I think the court ruled that the AFP having blanket immunity was unconstitutional and that they should be held accountable under PNG law if there was some offence which is why they have been withdrawn.

I think its called "stumbling over the truth". Without immunity, they would've been open to 'political prosecutions' (prosecutions with essentially political motives)

You know why? Because the Europeans fucked up the Africans. That is why. I am pretty sure that if Europe never invaded Africa, Africa would not be in such a crisis. That is what you fail to understand and I think you listen to too many white politicians.

This dogmatic rubbish prevents any clarity of thought.

You don't even want to look at former European colonies like Australia, and Hong Kong, because you might just see something you don't like, prosperity, and freedom.

The problem was in de-colonialisation. It was done too quickly, in a slipshod manner. They should have given it 50 years.

In that time, the Africans would have been taught how to run a democratic government, and an economy. Power would be transferred gradually as democratic and accountable institutions are built up.

Hey hey slow down a bit, we might not be colonial anymore but we are still part of the Empire :D

God save the Queen of Australia!

*21 gun salute*

F**k that was loud!

Jumping on the "Not all imperialism is bad" bandwagon. The country I currently reside in, Singapore, was a former British colony and in spite of recent relatively-minor economic woes, is doing quite well for itself.

I never said I wanted to do that. I just don't see why the West should fork over a bunch of money to people that openly hate us.
Moronic. You take quotes from two extremists and use them to slander an entire continent.

"Well, yeah, if any country never gets invaded they probally will do pretty well. That's like saying I'd get straight A's if I never got tests. The survival of a nation is largely based on how it operates internally, but just as importantly, how it interacts with the rest of the world. After all a country can do a whole lot without worrying about defending itself."

Bad analogy, You wont necessarily get straight A's without tests. There are still quizzes and homework. If you fail your quizzes or not do your homework, you could get a different grade.

This dogmatic rubbish prevents any clarity of thought.

You don't even want to look at former European colonies like Australia, and Hong Kong, because you might just see something you don't like, prosperity, and freedom.

The problem was in de-colonialisation. It was done too quickly, in a slipshod manner. They should have given it 50 years.

In that time, the Africans would have been taught how to run a democratic government, and an economy. Power would be transferred gradually as democratic and accountable institutions are built up.

You sound like Bush. And if you like Bush, all your statements are no longer credible because Bush is a friggin moron who pluralizes the internet. Australia is very similar to the U.S. The Europeans basically kicked out the Aboriginals and now the country consists of majority white people who really should not belong there. Hong Kong is similar to India as well. Hong Kong joined China kicking out the colony that the British had made. Like I said before, Hong Kong and Australia are examples of when imperialism was successful, not necessarily morally correct.

First of all, all of you "Imperialism = Evil!!!" people need to look further back in history than merely what Colonial Europe (England, France, and Netherlands) did.

Roman imperialism helped everyone who was under the rule of the ceasars. Rome braught education, culture, arts, better farming techniques, cleaner way of life (plumbing & aquaducts) - ie Rome braught civilization to a world that had none.

The problem with Europe's colonization efforts was the fact that it didnt offer the benefits that the Romans offered their conquered. Many colonies became single crop colonies that produced one to two items that met the need of the colonial power. When France and England up and packed their shit and split, they left these countries with a shitty economy that was not diversified and a large power vacuum - which would ultimately lead to the power struggles that would cripple the country.

And to those saying that 30-50 years is enough I would suggest to look at history and how long it took Europe to recover from the fall of Rome. It would be 800 years before the Renaissance would appear, and even then it only appeared to the Italians. It wouldn't reach England until another 300-400 years.

Am I saying Africa needs 1000 years? No, of course not. The world is vastly different. Africa is recieving aid, communication is easier, technology is at a greater level.

My solution would be to stop all foreign aid.

Focus on 1-2 countries and/or regions. Choose countries that are closest to democracy. Send in peacekeepers to insure stability and prevent infighting. Now, all that aid that would have been dispersed and wasted on 170 nations, spend it on those select few nations. Rebuild. Send in contractors to build roads, schools, water cleaning plants, energy plants, pay for an infrastructure - police, military etc... allow western markets to come in and invest at the same time preventing exploitation like sweatshops.

Within a decade that country and/or region should be vastly improved. With those countries out of the shitter move on to neighboring regions. Improving the neighbors will improve the economy of the regions you first helped. With better economies jobs will be plentifull, salaries will increase, and standard of living should rise.

First of all, all of you "Imperialism = Evil!!!" people need to look further back in history than merely what Colonial Europe (England, France, and Netherlands) did.

Roman imperialism helped everyone who was under the rule of the ceasars. Rome braught education, culture, arts, better farming techniques, cleaner way of life (plumbing & aquaducts) - ie Rome braught civilization to a world that had none.

The problem with Europe's colonization efforts was the fact that it didnt offer the benefits that the Romans offered their conquered. Many colonies became single crop colonies that produced one to two items that met the need of the colonial power. When France and England up and packed their shit and split, they left these countries with a shitty economy that was not diversified and a large power vacuum - which would ultimately lead to the power struggles that would cripple the country.

And to those saying that 30-50 years is enough I would suggest to look at history and how long it took Europe to recover from the fall of Rome. It would be 800 years before the Renaissance would appear, and even then it only appeared to the Italians. It wouldn't reach England until another 300-400 years.

Am I saying Africa needs 1000 years? No, of course not. The world is vastly different. Africa is recieving aid, communication is easier, technology is at a greater level.

My solution would be to stop all foreign aid.

Focus on 1-2 countries and/or regions. Choose countries that are closest to democracy. Send in peacekeepers to insure stability and prevent infighting. Now, all that aid that would have been dispersed and wasted on 170 nations, spend it on those select few nations. Rebuild. Send in contractors to build roads, schools, water cleaning plants, energy plants, pay for an infrastructure - police, military etc... allow western markets to come in and invest at the same time preventing exploitation like sweatshops.

Within a decade that country and/or region should be vastly improved. With those countries out of the shitter move on to neighboring regions. Improving the neighbors will improve the economy of the regions you first helped. With better economies jobs will be plentifull, salaries will increase, and standard of living should rise.

Imperialism may benefit the country but the act of imperialism essentially is not right. How would you feel if (Let's say your Jewish) a missionary comes to your house and forces you to convert to Christianity against your will even though they might give free food (or something like that)? Its basically saying that you should give up everything you once believed in to follow something else enforced on you against your will no matter how well it changes your life. Of course, some materialistic people will say that this missionary helped me but others would seriously dislike it.

Imperialism may be a good idea, but the West has already tried it, and look where Africa is now. If we keep sending aid to Africans, they become dependent on our aid and the local economies crash and we're now supporting entire countries. Why would someone by their neighbor's grain when he can get a pound of free rice downtown at the aid dropoff? Indeed we're still imperialsing Africa. You know all the diamond mining companies that came in, invaded the natives' land and paid them to work for less than what a Chinese worker would accept? And all the missionaries that came and screwed up entire tribes? Either we help espablish local governments, and make sure the countries are running smoothly or we try establishing a very controlled Imperialism program for the continent. Pulling out of Africa "precipitously" may or may not wreck the continent but then again, establishing an Imperialism may or may not wreck the continent too. If we could take the greed out of Imperialsim, what took down the British empire, and many others including damaging the American empire, Africa may see stability.

Frankly, there are more problems in Africa than in the Middle East, and it's time more people realize that and take action.

Its basically saying that you should give up everything you once believed in to follow something else enforced on you against your will no matter how well it changes your life. Of course, some materialistic people will say that this missionary helped me but others would seriously dislike it.

I think we can all agree that there are certain "beliefs" and "practices" that need to go, for the betterment of humanity. Female circumcision, cannabalism, etc...

I think if your beliefs result in genocide like in Rowanda that perhapse it's best the the rest of the world steps in. Maybe I was not clear or maybe you did not quite understand. I proposed something like in Iraq where outside forces temporarily take over in order to create stability and rebuild the region. In the process, some archaic views may have to be dropped. I see nothing wrong with this. You jewish analogy is bunk because there is nothing with Judaism that hurts or causes pain towards people (that I know of but then I am not a jew). There something wrong with constant warfare and massacre of people who simply want some stability.

[Utter fucking rubbish snipped] Hong Kong joined China kicking out the colony that the British had made. Like I said before, Hong Kong and Australia are examples of when imperialism was successful, not necessarily morally correct.

You sound like a bonehead.

So, what you're saying is that a colonised nation can do well if it is governed well. Which is exactly what I was saying.

As for what I said about how Europe should've gotten out of Africa. You've not addressed it. In fact, you've completely ignored it.

Whassamadda? Too much hate to read?

Why don't you address how Europe should have gotten out of Africa, and what was wrong with how they did get out of Africa, rather than yelling "HATE WHITEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

If the Europeans want to recolonize Africa, they can go right ahead. That's all cool as long as we here in the USA don't have to do anything with that.

Personally, I'm a proponent of the 'hands off' proposal. We give them money, they'll jack it up. All those European nations had to do it the hard way, and look what it got them? A good system. Lots of death and destruction over several hundred years too, but that's part of the game as you had acknowledged.

The last thing I want to see is the USA to go in and get their hands dirtier in another continent where they have really no business.

Fuck Africa. They can't do anything with out the white man's help and that has been proven throughout history time and again. Africa for Africa, the rest of the civilized world for Whites.

You know why? Because the Europeans fucked up the Africans. That is why. I am pretty sure that if Europe never invaded Africa, Africa would not be in such a crisis. That is what you fail to understand and I think you listen to too many white politicians.
Um, have you looked at african history before the europeans went in large-scale? While not as bad as the current situation it is by no means pretty. Think of the sort of shit going on during the Thirty Years War and you'll have an idea of what much of the continent was like, albeit on a much smaller scale. Besides which, the arabs were the first ones to really start fucking with the african peoples, europeans came a least 2 centuries later, if I remember my dates correctly.

You sound like Bush. And if you like Bush, all your statements are no longer credible because Bush is a friggin moron who pluralizes the internet.
*chuckles* Nah, you're the real moron. Bush's grammar was perfectly correct in that sentence. An internet is basically a bunch of different computers connected to each other from different locations. Several big Uni's have their own internet that is inaccessible from a normal net connection. This means it is separate from the net this forum is on. I assume that the military has it's own version for communications between places like the Pentagon and Norad. Ergo he was right and you are wrong.

Some people would suggest 50 years is a perfectly long time for them to get to grips with self government - many other former colonies in other parts of the world have done. It is quite clear that in order to solve the problems of Africa, we can no longer stand on the sidelines and throw money at the problem until it goes away. They should no longer be left in the hands of irresponsible and greedy governments who do nothing but swindle their people.

That would all hold true if Western governments really stayed out of African affairs. Of course, they don't. Every time that a government looks like it might be able to create a stable and functional government someone in Europe or Africa stages a coup. Occaisionally it becomes a big scandal, like that fiasco with the Thatcher lad, but more often than not it just makes a bunch of westerners shake their heads and go "I don't know what those Africans' problem is. Why can't they make a country work?"

*chuckles* Nah, you're the real moron. Bush's grammar was perfectly correct in that sentence. An internet is basically a bunch of different computers connected to each other from different locations. Several big Uni's have their own internet that is inaccessible from a normal net connection. This means it is separate from the net this forum is on. I assume that the military has it's own version for communications between places like the Pentagon and Norad. Ergo he was right and you are wrong.

No, the internet is a connection of networks. If you connect any network to the internet it becomes a part of the internet. Much like how you can have many different samples of air, but only one atmosphere.

Organizations like the military branches, the IRS etc. do indeed have their own networks, but they are refered to as intranets. Meaning connected within.

!WhutchyutalkinboutWillis?

So, let me get this straight, instead of letting them have their own corrupt governments, they get to have ours instead? Yay! I love it when people try to justify oppression, starvation, death and terrible living conditions in the name of stability and progress and the almighty capitalist pursuit of the dollar. Imperialism is about Money and Power, and nothing else. Thats what detroyed the cultures of the Native Americans in South, Central and North America. The entire concept of this thread is just another example of Absurdity at work in its amusing ways.

No, the internet is a connection of networks. If you connect any network to the internet it becomes a part of the internet. Much like how you can have many different samples of air, but only one atmosphere.

Organizations like the military branches, the IRS etc. do indeed have their own networks, but they are refered to as intranets. Meaning connected within.
http://www.internet2.edu/

I love it when people try to justify oppression, starvation, death and terrible living conditions in the name of stability and progress and the almighty capitalist pursuit of the dollar.

Apparently you don't know much about what's going on in Africa. Everything you just stated is already happening in Africa - and to imply that conditions will somehow be the same or worse under the rule of the US or some European power is rediculous.

Look at Iraq. The first 2 years have been a struggle but things are finally improving. Imagine Iraq in 10 years, given the current state of improvement. What about 20? I can see a far better, rebuilt, and stabalized country.

http://www.internet2.edu/


Led by more than 200 U.S. universities, working with industry
and government, Internet2 develops and deploys advanced
network applications and technologies for research and higher
education, accelerating the creation of tomorrow's Internet.

I notice that even there they talk about the internet in the singular.

Actually if we observe other countires where imperialism was in place for a much longer period of time (notably India), we can see that imperialism can be extremely effective for setting up modern and stable democracies.

However the Africa situation was different, firstly because of the length of time the imperial powers were involved - they weren't there for as long and as such had less opportunity to bring in the policies of improvement.

Secondly, it was because of America. Aftter the Second World War, America placed so much economic pressure on the European powers that they were forced to leave Africa before much of their work was completed. Their rushed departure has essentially caused the problems of today. So it was the departure of imperialism rather than imperialism itself that is responsible.

Also a major contributing fact is that African leaders have squandered all the money of their nations, so leaving their people in poverty.

Some valid points, and the US experience with the Philippines (which except during the years of Marcos was a democracy as well) also validates that point to an extent.

The biggest problem Africa has is tribalism, as aptly demonstrated in Rwanda not so long ago.

But the Europeans pulled out of Africa chiefly because two world wars so impoverished Europe that they simply couldn't stay. And Portugal held Mozambique and Angola starting in the 16th Century are they are two of the biggest messes in Africa.

Imperialism had its good moments and bad ones. But as the answer to African problems now? Lord I hope not.

You know why? Because the Europeans fucked up the Africans. That is why. I am pretty sure that if Europe never invaded Africa, Africa would not be in such a crisis. That is what you fail to understand and I think you listen to too many white politicians.

No you dont understand that playing the blame game isnt going to sort out the African solution.

The other major reason much of southern africa is in the shit it's in is because of a lovely belgian jewelry country named DeBeers. They've basically engineered gang wars to drive down the price of jewels and broken the backs of governments(Most notably Rhodesia/Zimbabwe when they tried to get in on the diamond market) that tried to stop their monopoly.

They also keep themselves in power by regulating the diamond trade so that they only release a certain amount of diamonds into the international market per year, therefore keeping the price artificially high. Cheeky b*****ds :mad:

For example, India was doing fine, then the British came along and fucked up the country. Now, India is poor. Although, without any aid from any so called strong country, India is gradually becoming better and better.

You really need to read some history books there mate. And I question your definition of fine.

No modern farming techniques or machinery which frequently led to famine, disease and starvation, no modern road or rail systems, no communication systems, no such thing as a school system and so many small fiefdoms and minor princely states that trade was chaotic.

Yeah thats 'fine'.

Granted, the Brits did their fair shair of (very very) bad things but please don't make it as black and white as you want it to be. Needless to say, if the Brits hadn't got there the French would have been not far behind and their record with imperialism IMHO is worse than the brits.

"Ah the American knee jerk reaction - imperialism is evil, no matter what. This isnt the case - imperialism has done a great deal for many countries all over the world, including America I might hasten to add. After all fromwho did they copy their legislative and judicial system - why their former masters, the British."

Its got nothing to do with this "american knee jerk reaction" thing. Imperialism is evil no matter what because every time there was imperialism, there was chaos and havoc. For example, India was doing fine, then the British came along and fucked up the country. Now, India is poor. Although, without any aid from any so called strong country, India is gradually becoming better and better.

You obviously know nothing about imperial history - another sign of the knee jerk reaction.

Britain actually gave India about 150 years (a bit less) of stable and united government. For the first time, all the squabbling princedoms were united and there was actually a great deal of peace in the region from 1860 to about 1920. Quite the opposite from "chaos and havoc" really.

Let us consider what the British Empire actually gave to India. They gave India education establishments - schools and universites were set up for the natives and many of those institutions are still actually running today. Britain established a railway network all over India which allowed for the industrialisation of the towns and cities, making them into modern centres of economical growth. An extremely strong burecracy was established by British civil servants which eventually intergrated Indian counterparts into the system - much of that bureaucracy is actually still in use today and is one of the main reasons why India has the biggest and probably one of the most stable democracies in the world. Britain brought trade to India in bucketloads developing the ports of the country. British common law was introduced as was the British justice system so fair trials could be conducted. Britain (when they left in 1947) left a great deal of strong structure and establishment in India which has allowed them to flourish into a world power.

Also the charge of cultural destruction - while this is true of the African situation, it is not true of the Indian one. Great Britain actually banned any missionaries or ministers from leaving the British parts of the cities.

BUT you are all forgetting one thing, it is just not feasible, ethical or economical to re-introduce imperialism.

Who would do it?

Who would do it?

According to my theory, different nations would be asigned different regions.

example:

US and Britain are given South Africa, Namibia, Botswana. France and Germany are given Zimbabwe and Mozambiqu. The nations would use the UN banner.

1) No aid be given. The people will then starve to death. They will no longer be able to provide taxes to the government. They will no longer be able to fight in its armies. They will no longer be able to sow crops or keep cows. Trade will dry up. No babies will come about so even more potential tax revenue is lost. Soon the government of these people will have to act in order to preserve itself if for no other reason. Soon they will be forced to implement social welfare programmes in order to protect trade and revenues. This is how a country evolves: death is the solemn price of progress. Every time we interfere, we push back the progress that is so desperately needed. This is the way most of modern Europe has evolved: through painful progress.



This is exactly the way we should handle it. It sounds cold and callous, I know...but people learn from experience, not words unfortunately.

To invade Africa is to make them hate us further. This is why I think Iraq should have been left alone until they rebelled, which I know that they would have if given enough time.

Look at middle ages Russia; it took them 1,000 years to finally throw out the Tsarist system, but they did....not to any better avail, but thats not the point. Give a counry a chance, let them know that the only help they'll receive is emotional support. Once they realize that they're going to have to do it on their own, they will.