NationStates Jolt Archive

Africa was doing OK, when Europe conquered it. (You know, excluding Slavery and Aparthied)

Course, when Europe left, everything went to hell.

Now, you and me both know that the African Government is not very good. They're making their own people starve, and things are horrible there.

So I suggest reviving Imperialism. American Imperialism.

We can do it easily. A hundred dutch settlers defeated the Entire Zulu Army once. We can do it to! Just send an army over there, and kick their butts.

It would be beneficial to both parties, with the American Govenrment controlling Africa, because it would be easier for us to facilitate aid, and help things around there. Also, we also get more manpower, AND more resources, which is always a great thing. Everyone benefits.

We need to conquer Africa.

Jesus Christ, how many times have you made this thread?

You go invade Africa, the rest of us will follow later.

I think this is pretty much the basic theme of human history:

"Empires have devastated this land and brought suffering to its people. Solution? More empires!"

Yes, because there is just ONE 'African' govt in charge... and every state on the continent is repressive... :rolleyes:

What 'Entire Zulu Army' are you talking about? You mean Islandlwhala (sp?) because i hope you know they slaughtered the British there...

Yes, because there is just ONE 'African' govt in charge... and every state on the continent is repressive... :rolleyes:

All but 3 or 4, anyway.

I think this is pretty much the basic theme of human history:

"Empires have devastated this land and brought suffering to its people. Solution? More empires!"
lol,

I think in recent years the US has done more to harm Africa than help it (ie Bush's celebecy program with Africa). Giving the USA, or any other nation, total control over an African nation probably would not be a good thing.

Who says Africa had it good prior to the European Imperialism? You think the Europeans invented slavery, repressive regimes, wars, etc?

How about you go spew your racist skat somewhere else? What Africa needs is for Westerners to realise it's been just decades since liberation and it will take time for the nation to settle. How about instead of being so evil as to suggest only whites deserve democracy you find something constructive to do with your time?

You know what would be really good for Africa?

IF A HURRICANE HIT!

Then people would remember it was there!

How about you go spew your racist skat somewhere else? What Africa needs is for Westerners to realise it's been just decades since liberation and it will take time for the nation to settle. How about instead of being so evil as to suggest only whites deserve democracy you find something constructive to do with your time?

A few decades is more than long enough for nations to get on their feet. Unfair trade policies on the West's part and rampant corruption in Africans' governments prevent prosperity from reaching Africa.

Who says Africa had it good prior to the European Imperialism? You think the Europeans invented slavery, repressive regimes, wars, etc?
Me. Slavery was only ever introduced in Xhosa and Zulu culture to pay debts and then in a very Athenian style. That is strict rules for the treatment of slaves as well as restrictions on how long someone could remain a slave for. Famine was not common and Zulu tribes practiced democracy. That is all freemen could vote and discuss issues of government, war, etc. Now, since some of you might say "but that's not democracy". Keep in mind how long it was before America gaves blacks and women the right to vote and still called itself a democracy.

A few decades is more than long enough for nations to get on their feet.Well, apparently that's not the case. Simply saying it is doesn't make it so. Best to dispense with suppositions if you want to bring about prosperity.

A few decades is more than long enough for nations to get on their feet. Unfair trade policies on the West's part and rampant corruption in Africans' governments prevent prosperity from reaching Africa.
How long did it take India? Or what about America? How long we guys still routing the South and fighting each for? Well how about you add the worst drought the modern world has ever seen to the mix and see how well that goes.

Are you suggesting Western trade policies will be fairer if Africa was a colony?

Rampant government incompetance prevented aid reaching Katrina victems.

How long did it take India? Or what about America? How long we guys still routing the South and fighting each for? Well how about you add the worst drought the modern world has ever seen to the mix and see how well that goes.

Are you suggesting Western trade policies will be fairer if Africa was a colony?

Rampant government incompetance prevented aid reaching Katrina victems.

It took India awhile because India didn't adopt free-market policies until several decades after independence.

And by "fairer trade" I mean abolishing tariffs, or at least lowering them a hell of a lot.

The last thing I want is more of my tax dollars going into that cesspit.

Er, if it was doing so well while Europe ruled over it, why don't we make them do it again? It's their mess in a way.

The last thing I want is more of my tax dollars going into that cesspit.
I sincerely hope you are kidding.

Me. Slavery was only ever introduced in Xhosa and Zulu culture to pay debts and then in a very Athenian style. That is strict rules for the treatment of slaves as well as restrictions on how long someone could remain a slave for. Famine was not common and Zulu tribes practiced democracy. That is all freemen could vote and discuss issues of government, war, etc. Now, since some of you might say "but that's not democracy". Keep in mind how long it was before America gaves blacks and women the right to vote and still called itself a democracy.

Slavery in Africa existed long before European colonization, but in most cases (Egypt/Nubia being big exceptions) it was started by Arabs. They were enslaving Africans long before a European had ever been to Africa. Of course, early on they were also enslaving Europeans too. Arabs were teh sh*t.

How about you go spew your racist skat somewhere else? What Africa needs is for Westerners to realise it's been just decades since liberation and it will take time for the nation to settle. How about instead of being so evil as to suggest only whites deserve democracy you find something constructive to do with your time?

Africa isn't a nation.

Slavery in Africa existed long before European colonization, but in most cases (Egypt/Nubia being big exceptions) it was started by Arabs. They were enslaving Africans long before a European had ever been to Africa. Of course, early on they were also enslaving Europeans too. Arabs were teh sh*t.

No mate, it wasn't the Arabs. they did amongst themselves for generations prior to that- inter tribal slavery, war conquests, profit etc etc. Africans were enslaved by Africans. The Arabs were just the first ones to come along and mass market it so to speak.

It took India awhile because India didn't adopt free-market policies until several decades after independence.


And that they had mostly one crop-non manufacturing economies because the Brits wouldn't let them have anything else, a problem they still haven't escaped from...

The same problems were left in the wake of colonization in Africa. In both cases, though more so in India, the government tried to get out of that ditch and develop a manufacturing sector. Most African countries aren't doing that, but colonization would just make the problem worse. We could make aid contingent on reforms, however. That might enstill enough government responsibility to get things done. Or not.

No mate, it wasn't the Arabs. they did amongst themselves for generations prior to that- inter tribal slavery, war conquests, profit etc etc. Africans were enslaved by Africans. The Arabs were just the first ones to come along and mass market it so to speak.

True. The Arabs made it into the international, plantation style system it was for the next few centuries, however. Anyway, this is just nitpicky.

True. The Arabs made it into the international, plantation style system it was for the next few centuries, however. Anyway, this is just nitpicky.

No, not being nitpicky. You said it was started by Arabs

It wasn't. It was started by the Africans themselves.
Its like saying China invented Communisn because they're the most successful Communist state.

Africans were enslaved by Africans.Yes, they most certainly were. I think that's part of what I was driving at earlier, that Africa wasn't some Eutopian continent - I mean shit, man - it's a frickin' continent, after all. Lots of nations. All manner of different cultures. And some of 'em, well, were pretty far from being idyllic. But you know... most every culture has enslaved one group or another at one time or another, be it European, African, Asian or anywhere for that matter.

Things like war, slavery, human predation in general - can't honestly be said to have historically originated with any particular people. They would, unfortunately, appear to be endemic to our species as a whole. I'll just paraphrase Mark Mothersbaugh and say it's time we gave the past a slip.

No, not being nitpicky. You said

It wasn't. It was started by the Africans themselves.
Its like saying China invented Communisn because they're the most successful Communist state.

I was saying we're both being nitpicky, as whoever invented slavery really has little to do with the point of this thread, and we both seem to agree on the basic timeline.

Africa isn't a nation.
My bad. I had of bit of transference there and was refering to South Africa. Read my post as "continent" and I think the point stands.

Yes, they most certainly were. I think that's part of what I was driving at earlier, that Africa wasn't some Eutopian continent - I mean shit, man - it's a frickin' continent, after all. Lots of nations. All manner of different cultures. And some of 'em, well, were pretty far from being idyllic. But you know... most every culture has enslaved one group or another at one time or another, be it European, African, Asian or anywhere for that matter.

Things like war, slavery, human predation in general - can't honestly be said to have historically originated with any particular people. They would, unfortunately, appear to be endemic to our species as a whole. I'll just paraphrase Mark Mothersbaugh and say it's time we gave the past a slip.
No, some African cultures weren't perfect. But let's not forget some were damned good.

But none of this is relivant, because it doesn't change the fact imperialism is not the answer and every nation deserves the right to self government. The very fact I should need to have this arguement sickens me and lowers my opinion of the American public to new depths.

Kick africa's ass. But don't rape them. They have AIDS.

Yay bush!!!

I sincerely hope you are kidding.

Of course I'm not kidding! Pretty much every bit of aid sent to Africa gets wasted.

every nation deserves the right to self government. .

A nation is just a set of people who make up a boundary. The concept of a "nation" only has worth, because we give it worth.

With that same logic, you could say, "Every State deserves the right to self-government! Lets start another Civil War!"

No offense and all, but Africa currently is a cesspit right now.

And I have to feel sorry for the people living there, because many of them are starving under corrupt, repressive, and generally lousy governments, who don't give a flying poo about whether their people are dying in masses.

Africa is NOT going to fix itself. Aid is going to be useless, since it only ends up in the hands of corrupt warlords and what not. It's not we don't have ANOTHER choice. Africa will surrender in days.

How about you go spew your racist skat somewhere else? What Africa needs is for Westerners to realise it's been just decades since liberation and it will take time for the nation to settle. How about instead of being so evil as to suggest only whites deserve democracy you find something constructive to do with your time?

How is being critical of most of the governments in Africa "RAcist." *cough* Straw Man *cough*

And where the fuck did I say that only whites deserve democracy? Hell, I'm not even white!

How is being critical of most of the governments in Africa "RAcist." *cough* Straw Man *cough*

And where the fuck did I say that only whites deserve democracy? Hell, I'm not even white!
Yeah, you didn't say anything about whites, you said something about America. Apparently Rotovia thinks that everybody in America is white.

No, some African cultures weren't perfect. But let's not forget some were damned good.
I promise you Rotovia, that's not far from my mind. Anyway, the whole supposition that Africa could use further Imperialism is just silly.

Its like saying China invented Communisn because they're the most successful Communist state.

Anyone who knows anything about communism knows that China is not communist.

The fact that they call it communist does not make it true.

I sincerely hope you are kidding.
diddo

Anyone who knows anything about communism knows that China is not communist.

The fact that they call it communist does not make it true.

I KNOW!

I making a bad analogy for a bad 'nitpicky' point- nevemind.....

No offense and all, but Africa currently is a cesspit right now.No offence, but fuck that. The only cesspit is the filth your spewing at a hundred miles an hour. Good lord, have you no shame? No sense of right and wrong? You cannot just call an antire continent a cesspit! Perhaps in your perfect world we could "drain the cesspit"?

No offence, but fuck you.
Somebody needs a hug.

Africa was doing OK, when Europe conquered it. (You know, excluding Slavery and Aparthied)

Course, when Europe left, everything went to hell.

Now, you and me both know that the African Government is not very good. They're making their own people starve, and things are horrible there.

So I suggest reviving Imperialism. American Imperialism.

We can do it easily. A hundred dutch settlers defeated the Entire Zulu Army once. We can do it to! Just send an army over there, and kick their butts.

It would be beneficial to both parties, with the American Govenrment controlling Africa, because it would be easier for us to facilitate aid, and help things around there. Also, we also get more manpower, AND more resources, which is always a great thing. Everyone benefits.

We need to conquer Africa.



Exculding slavery and aprthaid?

Those are pretty big exclusions.

Yeah, you didn't say anything about whites, you said something about America. Apparently Rotovia thinks that everybody in America is white.
Apparently people don't read posts anymore. Assuming one country has the right to place another into slavery is racist. There's no two ways about it.

Apparently people don't read posts anymore. Assuming one country has the right to place another into slavery is racist. There's no two ways about it.

So uh...countries are races now? What's next. "OH MY GOD! MY CEREAL IS A RACE! YOU TRIED TO EAT MY CEREAL! RAAAAAAAAAAACIIIIIIIIIIST!"

Apparently people don't read posts anymore. Assuming one country has the right to place another into slavery is racist. There's no two ways about it.
I wasn't talking about the rest of the post, I was talking about the part where you accused him of saying that only whites deserve democracy, when he said nothing about whites, just America.

I want you name one place in the entire world worse then Africa.

You can't.

It's quite literally, the worst place, in the entire world. I'd rather live in Baghdad right now then Africa. If I describe Africa, the only word I can find, is Crap-Hole, and that's only if I can hypenate it. >_< And it doesn't have to be that way. We could help everyone. Except maybe a few officials and all, but meh.

I want you name one place in the entire world worse then Africa.

You can't.

Antarctica comes to mind. But wait, so does Europe during the last ice-age. Wow, how times change.

Antarctica comes to mind.
I think he meant places in the world that are inhabited by humans. And no, the little outposts every here and there don't count. But I'll admit, that could have been clarified.

Antarctica comes to mind.
pwned

Antarctica comes to mind. But wait, so does Europe during the last ice-age. Wow, how times change.

I was more talking in the present.

And Artarctica doesn't have any people in it. >_<

I think he meant places in the world that are inhabited by humans. And no, the little outposts every here and there don't count. But I'll admit, that could have been clarified.

Actually, the little outposts every here would be BETTER than Africa.

I was more talking in the present.
Well, let's hope an aggressive new glacier never gets the chance to bear down on us all in the northern hemisphere. 'Cause Africa would sure start looking pretty good in that circumstance.
And Artarctica doesn't have any people in it.
Yeah, no kidding. Guess why? 'Cause it's far more, far much more a Hell on Earth than anything you're contriving Africa to be like. Sure, it has a large arid desert devoid of much of anything, but it's a big place. There's enough there to support quite a large number of people. That's just out of the question in Antarctica. It cannot support human life.

I'd much sooner wake up from an unlikely concussion and find myself in a straw hut than wake up in a herd of penguins on an ice shelf, you know? I think most people would agree.

I wonder if an Eskimo could survive in Anarctica...

I wonder if an Eskimo could survive in Anarctica...

And your answer is no. Alaska doesn't happen to be a desert.

Hooray for the White Man's burden!!

Everyone sing with me now:

Take up the White Man's burden--
Send forth the best ye breed--
Go, bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait, in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild--
Your new-caught sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child.

Take up the White Man's burden--
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain,
To seek another's profit
And work another's gain.

Take up the White Man's burden--
The savage wars of peace--
Fill full the mouth of Famine,
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
(The end for others sought)
Watch sloth and heathen folly
Bring all your hope to nought.

Take up the White Man's burden--
No iron rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper--
The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go, make them with your living
And mark them with your dead.

Take up the White Man's burden,
And reap his old reward--
The blame of those ye better
The hate of those ye guard--
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:--
"Why brought ye us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?"

Take up the White Man's burden--
Ye dare not stoop to less--
Nor call too loud on Freedom
To cloak your weariness.
By all ye will or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent sullen peoples
Shall weigh your God and you.

Take up the White Man's burden!
Have done with childish days--
The lightly-proffered laurel,
The easy ungrudged praise:
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years,
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers.

I wondering when someone would post that.

I wondering when someone would post that.

I am rather surprised I am the first.

what the hell is it?

I am rather surprised I am the first.

Is it a Tom Lehrer song or something? Can you post a link?

Is it a Tom Lehrer song or something? Can you post a link?

It's a poem by Rudyard Kipling, written in 1899 after his departure from India.

what the hell is it?

http://www.boondocksnet.com/ai/kipling/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_man's_burden

Africa was doing OK, when Europe conquered it. (You know, excluding Slavery and Aparthied)

Course, when Europe left, everything went to hell.

Now, you and me both know that the African Government is not very good. They're making their own people starve, and things are horrible there.

So I suggest reviving Imperialism. American Imperialism.

We can do it easily. A hundred dutch settlers defeated the Entire Zulu Army once. We can do it to! Just send an army over there, and kick their butts.

It would be beneficial to both parties, with the American Govenrment controlling Africa, because it would be easier for us to facilitate aid, and help things around there. Also, we also get more manpower, AND more resources, which is always a great thing. Everyone benefits.

We need to conquer Africa.
Oh my god, hell no.

If you're talking mercantilism (turning Africa into colonies and creating an American "Empire"), mercantilism has already been debunked by modern economists as an extremely flawed economic system that doesn't work.

If you're talking about annexing them as the next state, well... Ultimately, they'd probably succeed far more that way than they would any other way, but Africa is such a nightmare that it would actually hurt the United States to conquer it. Sure, they have massive gold and diamond resources that we could tax, but there's so much starvation and disease... And not only that, but we wouldn't want to encourage African tourists with AIDS to travel to the U.S. and spread the AIDS epidemic here.

I've debated the benefits of invading Mexico and making it the 50th state and, in that debate, both Conservatives and Liberals agreed that it would be an enormous success to annex a country like Mexico which is fairly rich in resources and labor, but just with a corrupt government...

But Africa? No fucking way. It would be like adopting a paraplegic child.

The European colonial powers , should have just killed every man women and child for all the good they did ..this first guys post is nuts. The colonial powers like they did every place else they blighted with their presense drew up boarders in a way that made the lands they "administered " easy to controll . Like Iraq ( Kurds.shiite and sunni ..from three seperate countries made into one with screwy borders ) ..they made sure that they included factions and different tribes and cultures so that they could constantly keep the people under their controll from uniting in opposition . They encouraged discord and disunity and supported one faction over the others as long as it helped the rape and exploit the others . YOU REAP WHAT YOU SOW. Todays Africa is a direct result of colonization . The situation in the Middle East and North Africa along with Arab / western relations in general can be traced back to colonial admiistration and policy .
Its no wonder we dont have more terrorist blowing shit up. They should start with that first friggin post .

Yes, because there is just ONE 'African' govt in charge... and every state on the continent is repressive... :rolleyes:

What 'Entire Zulu Army' are you talking about? You mean Islandlwhala (sp?) because i hope you know they slaughtered the British there...
Well, one of the only countries that wasn't, S. Africa, is turning into Zimbabwe apparently.

I think the original poster needs a stay in a Korean Re-Education Centre, but...

Many Governments have created the mess they're in now themselves. Just compare the GDPs of countries like South Korea and Taiwan in 1960 to those of countries like Ghana, Mozambique or any other African "failed state" of your choice. Then watch those GDPs move overtime.
Other than the problem of transport to sea harbours (something that a little cooperation could've facilitated), there is no reason why African states should have failed while Asian states suceeded spectacularly - other than the incompetence of African politicians.

I think the original poster needs a stay in a Korean Re-Education Centre, but...

Many Governments have created the mess they're in now themselves. Just compare the GDPs of countries like South Korea and Taiwan in 1960 to those of countries like Ghana, Mozambique or any other African "failed state" of your choice. Then watch those GDPs move overtime.
Other than the problem of transport to sea harbours (something that a little cooperation could've facilitated), there is no reason why African states should have failed while Asian states suceeded spectacularly - other than the incompetence of African politicians.

Most were designed by their colonial rulers to fail . Its deliberate. It sucks.

Most were designed by their colonial rulers to fail . Its deliberate. It sucks.
Can you prove that?
I assume that a state like Mozambique did have its problems, yes. But so did South Korea, or Taiwan!

Can you prove that?
I assume that a state like Mozambique did have its problems, yes. But so did South Korea, or Taiwan!
Any country that had it borders " drawn " by a colonial ruler was deliberately created with as many different factions and tribes as deemed necessary so a small amount of troops could throw the balance of power to the party that would support their rule. Its a historical fact. Tons of books describe the way 200 troops were able to controll hundreds of thousannds of native people .
Just read ..its common knowlage . google the history of Iraq..it was created by combining three different peoples / countries . Google India...did you ever even wonder how Britain could controll India ? The whole friggin sub- continent ?

Any country that had it borders " drawn " by a colonial ruler was deliberately created with as many different factions and tribes as deemed necessary so a small amount of troops could throw the balance of power to the party that would support their rule....
India is doing well, isn't it? Look at Iraq before Saddam (or before the Iran-Iraq War actually).
I'm not saying African nations weren't weak constructs, but I am saying that that is not an excuse for leaders to be that grossly incompetent.
It may be unusual to say this, but other parts of the world had it just as bad as Africa did - and they managed to somehow get out of it, one way or another. A tough past isn't a blank cheque to sit back and give up on it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for aid (if it improves the ability of countries to trade) - but I think at some point the sovereignty of some nations must be questioned for the good of the people who have to live there.

Western technical expertise and western funds are sine qua non if africa is ever to be brought out of wretched poverty.

An imperial system is probably unworkable, but something large needs to be done.

It may be unusual to say this, but other parts of the world had it just as bad as Africa did - and they managed to somehow get out of it, one way or another.
I dont know that other parts of the world are comparable to the situation in Africa. It's not merely the redrawing of borders, but rather that entire social systems were attacked at their very foundation and replaced with contrary social systems. I dont think that most of the places that have been mentioned in this thread as comparable to Africa are. For a start the preponderence of hunter gatherer and nomadic peoples found in Africa is not comparable to the situation in Asia. In Africa there are ethnic groups whose range has been cut through with borders, some of whom have been forced to settle into agricultural lifeways, often with catestrophic results.

I doubt very much that further self serving ethnocentric tyranny would be helpful to the people of Africa. While I dont see blank cheques as being helpful, I believe that further dictatoral interference will not clean up the mess it created.

I think the original poster needs a stay in a Korean Re-Education Centre, but...

Many Governments have created the mess they're in now themselves. Just compare the GDPs of countries like South Korea and Taiwan in 1960 to those of countries like Ghana, Mozambique or any other African "failed state" of your choice. Then watch those GDPs move overtime.
Other than the problem of transport to sea harbours (something that a little cooperation could've facilitated), there is no reason why African states should have failed while Asian states suceeded spectacularly - other than the incompetence of African politicians.

Malaysia and Ghana are usually the two that are compared.

But, you have to remember, the way that african independence was handled was very different to asian colonies. For example, Malaysia gained its independence as part of the Malay Emergency (Britian's vietnam - see I told you those people are fierce), which left them with a vastly more stable and less corrupt political system than, for example, Uganda, where the colonial office was well aware what an insane madman Amin was, and promoted him to head of the army before withdrawl anyway.

India is doing well, isn't it? Look at Iraq before Saddam (or before the Iran-Iraq War actually).
I'm not saying African nations weren't weak constructs, but I am saying that that is not an excuse for leaders to be that grossly incompetent.
It may be unusual to say this, but other parts of the world had it just as bad as Africa did - and they managed to somehow get out of it, one way or another. A tough past isn't a blank cheque to sit back and give up on it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for aid (if it improves the ability of countries to trade) - but I think at some point the sovereignty of some nations must be questioned for the good of the people who have to live there.

except for Pakistan ..Kashmir and they both have NUKES .

Malaysia and Ghana are usually the two that are compared.

But, you have to remember, the way that african independence was handled was very different to asian colonies. For example, Malaysia gained its independence as part of the Malay Emergency (Britian's vietnam - see I told you those people are fierce), which left them with a vastly more stable and less corrupt political system than, for example, Uganda, where the colonial office was well aware what an insane madman Amin was, and promoted him to head of the army before withdrawl anyway.

Tell them about the Belgium Congo :D ..or should I ...nahhhh I'm having to much fun in the other thread...you go .

I can see why people would be having doubts about what I said. Sure, some things may not be easily comparable.
Zagat's point about hunter-gatherers (although there were quite a few stable kingdoms with cities etc before the Europeans crushed them) is a good one, but its implication would be that we watch them return to those ways, and essentially let primitivism (as in rejection of technology, not as in a value judgement) reign. Today hunter gatherers cannot preserve their way of life, we see that everywhere - and if you give the kids of such tribes the choice, they leave for the cities too.

But essentially my point still stands: The Asian Tigers implemented tough but necessary growth policies. Singapore forced its residents to save 50% (or something like that) of their incomes with the state-owned banks. Not fair maybe (and certainly not libertarian...), but it sure as hell worked.
Similar human capital development policies, as well as investment incentives etc worked to turn these countries into much better places.
Meanwhile, on the whole, African leaders have managed to do nothing for growth. In some countries growth has been negative since 1960!

And when I watched the news about the famine in Niger the other day, that was what came straight into my head from my macroeconomics classes: Aid wouldn't even have been necessary, had the government just done its god-damned job. And now we have another generation of kids dying, or living the rest of their lives weak and sick.
Unless governments in that region can seriously get their act together (and they just don't as far as I can see), something drastic has to be done. And if that means turning these people over to some sort of multinational body (and I know you people are just going to turn this into a UN-bashfest), even if those governments and their supporters don't like it, then I agree with that.

The main problems with poverty in Africa are caused by a lack of possible income. The government can't do anything for you if there are no jobs and if 50% of their population has HIV. The strain on their health care is enormous and when it comes down to it, the South African government (as an example) has come a long way in a fairly short time and are doing a bloody good job with what they've got.

You cannot expect any government to end the poverty of their nation while living under massive debts and with little international support. If the West wants to help Africa they need to abolish debt, lift trade barriers and encourage trade between Africa and the world. They have millions of unemployed people that could benefit from cheap labor so why isn't the west taking advantage of that? Everyone benefits.

The other major issues that need to be tackled include HIV which could be dealt with much for efficently if countries such as America would sell them first rate medications instead of the cheap second rate stuff that's in their cupboards. And the culture clash. Until you have been to Africa and experienced it for yourself you cannot understand the differences between the cultures inside of the countries, let alone throughout Africa. The difficulty will be encouraging education (especially sex ed) while still respecting and involving their cultures and associated beliefs.

Sending America in will do nothing but kill people and further isolate the US from the rest of the world.

yes a hurricane hits the usa and everybody feels sorry but tens of thosands of people die in africa every years for things we can help and control and you only hear about it on poorly funded commericals that make barely any impact.

To fix the African nations you must get rid the sweatshops and try to raise the money people get threw working. Western countries work because we have basic human rights which give us good incomes the thing with africa in that also there governments are corrupt the only way to fix this is to either invade and destroy the government or get the U.N to find ways to do the same thing.

Also not all of africa is on a road to nowhere only the north-east and west countries southern African Countries have good or growing Eco infact every BRITISH ex-colony seems to have a stable government because when the brits take and leave they leave what they built unlike the other empires take the railroads in india and the oil-derricks in the middle-east both put there by the british go the the Emirates and you have a high standard of living so just remeber that just because you see the middle east on the news of africa on the news look poor and sick that dosnt mean it goes for all the countries

South africa is rich because unlike the others it has resources and dam well take advantage of it they produce 50% of the worlds gold.

Congo (ex-zaire) also has heaps of resources just the government dosnt want to build the mines to get them and also because you must remeber that like the Arabs they dont see themelves loyal to there nation but tribe or if your Arab your Jihad so they cant get there people movivated to do such work unlike western countries which have the benefit of people seeing themelves belonging to there nation and not there community even tho people in Victoria-Australia Call themselves Victorian they class themelves as a Australian But in the congo they say im this tribe or that tribe there just isint the sense of unity the helps our nations grow.

...infact every BRITISH ex-colony seems to have a stable government because when the brits take and leave they leave what they built unlike the other empires...
I agree that especially the Belgians had a very bad record indeed, but British ex-colonies more stable?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_of_Palestine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierra_Leone
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghana

And an interesting note on the side...the US had its own "colony" in Africa, and that didn't seem to end well either:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberia

Africa was doing OK, when Europe conquered it. (You know, excluding Slavery and Aparthied)

Course, when Europe left, everything went to hell.

Now, you and me both know that the African Government is not very good. They're making their own people starve, and things are horrible there.

So I suggest reviving Imperialism. American Imperialism.

We can do it easily. A hundred dutch settlers defeated the Entire Zulu Army once. We can do it to! Just send an army over there, and kick their butts.

It would be beneficial to both parties, with the American Govenrment controlling Africa, because it would be easier for us to facilitate aid, and help things around there. Also, we also get more manpower, AND more resources, which is always a great thing. Everyone benefits.

We need to conquer Africa.
In other words, instead of taking slaves over to America, you just enslave the whole continent for a cheap labour pool. While in charge of Africa, you suck all the resources out of it and sell them off for whatever the market will bear, and once the resources are depleted you will give them their continent back and tell them not to call you.

Yeah, Africa needs American imperialism like it needs a whole in the head.

African states should follow Félix Houphouët-Boigny's example and adopt free-market reforms. As much as I dislike the dictatorial nature of Houphouët-Boigny regime, he did bring great prosperity to Cote d'Ivoire. Likewise, Rhodesia prospered under the free-market system. Once Mugabe seized power and communized the nation, things rapidly went downhill.

I can see why people would be having doubts about what I said. Sure, some things may not be easily comparable.
Zagat's point about hunter-gatherers (although there were quite a few stable kingdoms with cities etc before the Europeans crushed them) is a good one, but its implication would be that we watch them return to those ways, and essentially let primitivism (as in rejection of technology, not as in a value judgement) reign.
That could be inferred, though not necessarily so. I see the implication as being more directed toward the complexity of the social structures involved. In other words it isnt helpful to compare nations where there was some degree of homogenisation with the multiplicity of ethnicity, lifeways and social structures that characterise Africa if the purpose of doing so is to try to figure out what a reasonable time frame for recovering from colonisation might be.


Today hunter gatherers cannot preserve their way of life, we see that everywhere - and if you give the kids of such tribes the choice, they leave for the cities too.
People can be quite content living hunterer gatherer lifestyles without desiring an urban lifestyle. It's true that such a lifestyle has been largely rendered defunct.

But essentially my point still stands: The Asian Tigers implemented tough but necessary growth policies.
No I dont think it does. The Asian Tigers are not Africa. They are their own places. What worked for them in their own place and time might not work in Africa now, in fact it isnt even necessarily possible.

Singapore forced its residents to save 50% (or something like that) of their incomes with the state-owned banks. Not fair maybe (and certainly not libertarian...), but it sure as hell worked.
Singapore engaged in massive campaigns to socially engineer their populice into 'one nation'. When you compare the multiplicity of African ethnicities to that in Singapore, it seems unlikely that what worked for Singapore will be applicable for Africa.

Similar human capital development policies, as well as investment incentives etc worked to turn these countries into much better places.
Meanwhile, on the whole, African leaders have managed to do nothing for growth. In some countries growth has been negative since 1960!
That's all somewhat interesting, however none of it indicates that the thing that caused the mess will clean the mess up. I dont see Africa and Asia as being at all comparable. I dont see therefore that there is any good reason to believe that because something worked in Asia, it will also work in Africa. The situations are vastly different to each other.

And when I watched the news about the famine in Niger the other day, that was what came straight into my head from my macroeconomics classes: Aid wouldn't even have been necessary, had the government just done its god-damned job. And now we have another generation of kids dying, or living the rest of their lives weak and sick.
But why cant the government do it's job (or wont as the case may be)? Unless there is some answer to that question that indicates your proposals would overcome the cause of poor governance (and so far no go), there is no reason to believe your proposed solution would actually solve anything.

Unless governments in that region can seriously get their act together (and they just don't as far as I can see), something drastic has to be done.
Something drastic was already done, colonisation and imperialism....that's how Africa got in such a mess in the first place.

And if that means turning these people over to some sort of multinational body (and I know you people are just going to turn this into a UN-bashfest), even if those governments and their supporters don't like it, then I agree with that.
I dont see that what you are proposing would help, I suspect it might actually just do yet more harm.

You dont just "send " the Americans anywhere . If its not in our national interest and the people do not care for it then we sit back and watch . Maybe go to a few concerts and send some checks . whats in it for the united States to go fix up a continent that the Europeans screwed up so bad ? We already had to fix Europe after you broke it and look at the thanks we get ! ;) You guys fix up the situation in the Balkans and then go over to Africa and clean up your own friggin mess you made. Give them back some of the stuff you took for hundreds of years , its only fair .

People can be quite content living hunterer gatherer lifestyles without desiring an urban lifestyle.
How realistic is that though? I personally share some sort of idealistic view of these tribal societies...but if you put them and "us" side by side, then in the past the majority of "them" has (sometimes more freely than others) chosen modernity and all that comes with it.

No I dont think it does. The Asian Tigers are not Africa. They are their own places. What worked for them in their own place and time might not work in Africa now, in fact it isnt even necessarily possible.
Maybe here's the fundamental difference between us. People are people, right? If a person stands to make money from something, they will do it, right? We know that increasing savings, education etc leads to better growth over time. We know that an average GDP growth of 3% doubles GDP in 24 years. 6%? 12 years!
Whether or not people are from the Hutu or Tutsi tribe doesn't make the slightest difference if you offer each of them some sort of incentive to save (or maybe threaten them with death like in Singapore...) and educate their children. Monetary incentives are better, yes, but unless African governments can somehow summon a lot of money from somewhere, maybe they'll have to introduce some unusual policies.

Singapore engaged in massive campaigns to socially engineer their populice into 'one nation'. When you compare the multiplicity of African ethnicities to that in Singapore, it seems unlikely that what worked for Singapore will be applicable for Africa.
Singapore is a smaller place, but by absolutely no means is it any less diverse than any African country. If it takes social engineering to stop people from starving and dying of Malaria in their millions, then I don't see how you could be against it.

The situations are vastly different to each other.
You'll have to explain that at some point. We know there is a lot of ethnic diversity, perhaps moreso than in many Asian nations (if you had gone there 200-300 years ago, maybe you would have seen a different picture). But people are people - the policies may have to be introduced differently (customised you could call it), but they'd have the same effect.

But why cant the government do it's job (or wont as the case may be)? Unless there is some answer to that question that indicates your proposals would overcome the cause of poor governance (and so far no go), there is no reason to believe your proposed solution would actually solve anything.
The often quoted tribalism, the lack of law and order, a lot of private profiteering...put the UN in charge, at the head of a sizable peace & order force, and you'd take those problems you keep quoting out of the loop as far as the Government is concerned.
Make it a 50 year timeframe (maybe even less), and by the end of it you'd see a very different Africa. It would take the effort by the international community to do it though.

I dont see that what you are proposing would help, I suspect it might actually just do yet more harm.
How?
And more importantly: What is your alternative? Leave them to it, as people have for 50 years? Look at the state of African politics now: Still more civil wars, famines, and Zimbabwe is set for disintegration too. Great - yet another ruin for ruthless people (here and there) to take advantage of. And has this Sudan business been sorted out? No, that neither.

I am by no means proposing some sort of White Man's Burden Problem here - but unless you can somehow regulate how these countries are run, you'll see the problems created by Imperialism continue indefinitely.
Another alternative: Crush all states there, make the different peoples in Africa independent - hundreds of micro states, still bend on destroying each other while making their leaders billions. That's not exactly a solution either.

Jesus Christ, how many times have you made this thread?

You go invade Africa, the rest of us will follow later.

lol. I like this quote. Thus, it is instant win.

A few decades is more than long enough for nations to get on their feet.

Yeah, because that's how long it took European nations to climb out of the Dark Ages after the Roman Empire left them in disarray.

Oh, wait....

I think I smell a racist double-standard.