NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you disagree with that statement?

Agree to "bringing their civilization and in the process destroying the existing civilization and culture of the indigenous people".

I hate imperialism and colonialism to the bone, though probably because I'm not the ones reaping their benefits.

Congo? Just let HIV solve the issue...

How about instead of white rule, rich countries give them monetary support and education in business development?

How about instead of white rule, rich countries give them monetary support and education in business development?

You mean like investing in infrastructure and choosing certain markets a country can be competitive in and, perhaps, offering a certain level of limited protection to those markets? Is this also taken to include the concept of building up a middle class because, historically, societies with majority middle class are less likely to war on each other? Nah....that would make too much sense and perhaps fix too many issues in the world today. Why would you suggest something so idiotic. Those durned africans just need a good, fatherly white person to educate them, is all.

How about instead of white rule, rich countries give them monetary support and education in business development?

No. We tried that before. Our monetary support helped a man who had only $6 to his name in 1959 become a billionaire within two decades. None of our aid helped the people whatsoever.

And live in huts? And dance around little fires and pray for rain?
Yeah, welcome to the 21st century :rolleyes:
I really hope colonies on Mars come quickly.
You can call whatever you want. But still Africa is where Europe was in the 60ies and 70ies.

If huts are the best answer for a local, sustainable housing program, then yes, huts might be a good idea. I'm not sure where you're getting the whole dancing around fires and praying for rain, unless you believe that most Africans have not culturally evolved from the Stone Age.

Oh wait, you apparently do:

Not really. Homo sapiens has culturally, socially, technically evolved outside of Africa and after 55000+ years came back. In African colonization the discrepancy between the colonizers and the colonized could not have been bigger.

Other than racism, what are your reasons for believing that Africans never evolved past the Stone Age?

And Africans cannot manage that? Why?

Are you asking why Africans can't manage to maintain a built environment similar to that of Europe? There are places in Africa that a faltbed truck cannot go. How are building supplies to be delivered? Distilled water is required for mixing concrete, brick clay, and mortar. Where do you get that during a drought? How many mechanical and electrical engineers are there available for large renovation projects? I'm getting the impression that you haven't really thought this out.

Congo? Just let HIV solve the issue...

Are you honestly advocating that we should simply allow AIDS epidemics to sweep through Africa? Ignoring that implicit cruelty, that is a stupid suggestion. One of the main reasons that there are so few children enrolled in education in Africa is because they have to saty home and take care of relatives suffering from AIDS. And you want it to get worse.

And I believe wishing AIDS on someone is enough to get you modded. Watch it.

Hell, if my country was as dirt poor as the Congo; and by surrendering my rights and independence to a foreigner I could see economic development and an increase in my quality of life...I'd do that! Political rights don't exactly mean anything when you're dying of a preventable disease.

Hell, if my country was as dirt poor as the Congo; and by surrendering my rights and independence to a foreigner I could see economic development and an increase in my quality of life...I'd do that! Political rights don't exactly mean anything when you're dying of a preventable disease.

What about if it was the foreign rulers fault that there were no hospitals built in your community?

Other than racism, what are your reasons for believing that Africans never evolved past the Stone Age?

Umm...out of curiosity, what do you think were the most advanced tools in Africa by the Colonial era?

White Man's burden methinks.

White Man's burden methinks.

Not anymore apparently.

Off topic trolling/thread jacking will be reported. This has nothing to do with the thread.

Get back on topic or get out.

Good luck with that. Greater Trostia believes even a semblance of civility to be a waste of effort.

I quite agree with the article anyway. The notion that freedom is an end in itself, irrespective of poverty, war and derpivation acrueing, is the sort of idealism I have come to expect on here.

How does going to a group of people different than you and telling them you're more fit to rule them, because you're European, not racist?

Because you don't say that, you say

" You are in need of Economic development. We will help you greatly if you become part of our Empire, and your people will prosper."

In any case, Empires are not European. The Chinese, Indian Moghuls (probably sic) and the Ottomans are Examples of the Empires outside Europe.

Good luck with that. Greater Trostia believes even a semblance of civility to be a waste of effort.

I quite agree with the article anyway. The notion that freedom is an end in itself, irrespective of poverty, war and derpivation acrueing, is the sort of idealism I have come to expect on here.

And believing we need a white guy to go in and run a country to save those poor blacks from themselves (never mind that its Europe's colonialism that caused their problems in the first place) is the kind of thing Ive come to expect from you.

And believing we need a white guy to go in and run a country to save those poor blacks from themselves (never mind that its Europe's colonialism that caused their problems in the first place) is the kind of thing Ive come to expect from you.

Africa, presumably, was thus a utopia prior to colonialism? Oh marvellous, inspired!

How do you make the logical progression from my suggesting that freedom is not an end in itself to my advocating a hegemony that is necessarily "white"? First (and I do apologise if you are not american, although you strike me as such), the USA seems on the verge of electing a black president. If this occurred, it would not be "white rule", surely?

Equally, I would like to note that the only sub-Saharan nations to have maintained any quality of life and stablity in the post-colonial era were Rhodesia and South Africa. Notice the correlation.

Africa, presumably, was thus a utopia prior to colonialism? Oh marvellous, inspired!


Utopia? Such a thing does not exist. However, were they more stable, economically prosperous countries? You bet.

And believing we need a white guy to go in and run a country to save those poor blacks from themselves (never mind that its Europe's colonialism that caused their problems in the first place) is the kind of thing Ive come to expect from you.It could also be a black guy who studied in Europe. And what really caused Africa's problems was the Africans' inability to fight the Europeans although they had so much time to evolve into strong countries as the Europeans did.

Equally, I would like to note that the only sub-Saharan nations to have maintained any quality of life and stablity in the post-colonial era were Rhodesia and South Africa. Notice the correlation.

Yes, they were ruled by educated people. Whereas the hastily abandoned colonies were usually ruled by people with only the most rudimentary education. Of course, knowing you, I wouldn't expect you to see that, since the only factor you look at is skin color. If the colonists had made the effort to train and educate the people and prepare them for independence, things would have turned out a lot differently.

Utopia? Such a thing does not exist. However, were they more stable, economically prosperous countries? You bet.

Define prosperous.

If you use the term to denote societies in which subsistence farming, tribalism and a general vulnerability to nature prevailed, then yes, pre-colonial Africa was a model of prosperity, admittedly with the occassional urban and developed exception.

If you use the term to denote a society able to bear the blows of nature to a reasonable degree, and in an economic situation whereby men could turn their eyes to the stars secure in their footing on the ground, then no.

Yes, they were ruled by educated people. Whereas the hastily abandoned colonies were usually ruled by people with only the most rudimentary education. Of course, knowing you, I wouldn't expect you to see that, since the only factor you look at is skin color. If the colonists had made the effort to train and educate the people and prepare them for independence, things would have turned out a lot differently.

Firstly, I dispute the majority of Africa being ruled by "educated" rulers to any civilised sense of the term. In the Ottoman states and Morocco, perhaps, but other wise, don't be ridiculous.

Indeed, the average colonial ruler had a damn fine education, generally Oxbridge and one of the better public schools. However, clearly, suh education is of no consequence to you?

Define prosperous.

If you use the term to denote societies in which subsistence farming, tribalism and a general vulnerability to nature prevailed, then yes, pre-colonial Africa was a model of prosperity, admittedly with the occassional urban and developed exception.



Once again, your ignorance is astounding.

You do realize that pre-colonial africa was not indeed in the stone age, right?

Once again, your ignorance is astounding.

You do realize that pre-colonial africa was not indeed in the stone age, right?

Have you yet provided evidence to the contrary?

Firstly, I dispute the majority of Africa being ruled by "educated" rulers to any civilised sense of the term. In the Ottoman states and Morocco, perhaps, but other wise, don't be ridiculous.

Indeed, the average colonial ruler had a damn fine education, generally Oxbridge and one of the better public schools. However, clearly, suh education is of no consequence to you?

You obviously have a problem reading, so I'll spell it out more simply for you: The colonial rulers (and the rulers in Rhodesia and South Africa) were better educated than most post-colonial rulers.

Once again, your ignorance is astounding.

You do realize that pre-colonial africa was not indeed in the stone age, right?

Nor was it in the Renaissance, or, for that matter, any state comparable to anything more than pre-Romanised Europe. An economically and technologically developed state would have been able to oppose a European expeditionary force; as it is, this hardly seems to have happened does it?

Firstly, I dispute the majority of Africa being ruled by "educated" rulers to any civilised sense of the term. In the Ottoman states and Morocco, perhaps, but other wise, don't be ridiculous.

Indeed, the average colonial ruler had a damn fine education, generally Oxbridge and one of the better public schools. However, clearly, suh education is of no consequence to you?

To be fair, the African rulers were more attuned to the societies in which they lived, and were "better" rulers for those people than the non-native colonists.

That does not, however, mean they were "educated," as you have pointed out.

I saw the exact title words of this thread on a geen nazi party. I guess this is racist then.


I am not a nazi and I got to the site through I link I clicked, just to clarify.

Nor was it in the Renaissance, or, for that matter, any state comparable to anything more than pre-Romanised Europe. An economically and technologically developed state would have been able to oppose a European expeditionary force; as it is, this hardly seems to have happened does it?

Not being technologically advanced does not mean that one works with stone tools and doesnt know to keep their excriment from their food.

Was Africa better off before Europe showed up? Definitally. Where they the marvel of the world? No one ever said that. They were however independent, self sufficient societies who were not plagued by genocides and constant warfare.


EDIT: For example, we know that the Aztecs were in many ways a more advanced society than Colonial Spain (for example, their cities had a drainage system). They were also technologically developed and where a very economically powerful state (which is why so many other tribes helped the Spanish destroy them). They just lacked gun powder. Having inferior killing machines does not make one an inferior society living in the stone age.

Have you yet provided evidence to the contrary?

Youre unreal. I need to provide evidence that Africa was not in the stone age until the all mighty white man showed up?


Why dont you prove they were working with stone tools, ok?

Not being technologically advanced does not mean that one works with stone tools and doesnt know to keep their excriment from their food.

Was Africa better off before Europe showed up? Definitally. Where they the marvel of the world? No one ever said that. They were however independent, self sufficient societies who were not plagued by genocides and constant warfare.

Ha! Just...okay...

Warfare has characterized Africa as it has characterized every major continent with a human population.

Constant warfare is and was the norm, even before colonialism.

Not being technologically advanced does not mean that one works with stone tools and doesnt know to keep their excriment from their food.

Was Africa better off before Europe showed up? Definitally. Where they the marvel of the world? No one ever said that. They were however independent, self sufficient societies who were not plagued by genocides and constant warfare.

I was not suggesting Africa was pre-historic prior to colonialism, however, you cannot deny it quite manifestly lacked any of the apparatus of the agrarian states Asia, Europe and the Middle East developed millenia earlier.

Youre unreal. I need to provide evidence that Africa was in the stone age until the all mighty white man showed up?


Why dont you prove they were working with stone tools, ok?

Okay. I'll ask again: What was the most advanced tool the Africans were using at the time of, say, first European contact?

Ha! Just...okay...

Warfare has characterized Africa as it has characterized every major continent with a human population.

Constant warfare is and was the norm, even before colonialism.

How are we defining constant warfare. Because I would say what Africa has now is constant warfare, and very few times in post romanised history has warfare been this constant.

I was not suggesting Africa was pre-historic prior to colonialism, however, you cannot deny it quite manifestly lacked any of the apparatus of the agrarian states Asia, Europe and the Middle East developed millenia earlier.


Ok, than I have been misunderstanding you. I will give you that.

*the following post is not meant in any racist manner whatsoever. Why the %$@#$ do I even have to say this?*

The predominant culture in Africa consists of ancient tribal disputes and superstition. The only modern idea they've accepted is socialism, and that will never bring progress. If there were a Constitutional Republic government and a (free market, not monopolistic) capitalist economy, all African nations would prosper.

Black-against-black racism has always been a major issue in Africa - White slavers bought inland natives from the coastal natives far more often that they captured natives on their own. There is still tribal warfare and instability everywhere, and the addition of Islam vs. Christianity vs. traditional pagan beliefs simply adds fuel to the fire. Colonialism might bring stability. If African nations are willing to accept the undesirable consequences of colonialism for that stability, I suppose colonialism would be good. I just don't know how it could be brought about without the destructive interference of the monopolistic variant of capitalism.

How are we defining constant warfare. Because I would say what Africa has now is constant warfare, and very few times in post romanised history has warfare been this constant.

Really? I don't know that there has been any point in time when Africa was completely at peace. Tribal wars were certainly common. Now, the sheer volume of deaths is certainly different--though this is due primarily to centralised government, modern weapons, and just so many more millions of people in Africa than ever before. But warfare has remained a mainstay.

*the following post is not meant in any racist manner whatsoever. Why the %$@#$ do I even have to say this?*

The predominant culture in Africa consists of ancient tribal disputes and superstition. The only modern idea they've accepted is socialism, and that will never bring progress. If there were a Constitutional Republic government and a (free market, not monopolistic) capitalist economy, all African nations would prosper.

Black-against-black racism has always been a major issue in Africa - White slavers bought inland natives from the coastal natives far more often that they captured natives on their own. There is still tribal warfare and instability everywhere, and the addition of Islam vs. Christianity vs. traditional pagan beliefs simply adds fuel to the fire. Colonialism might bring stability. If African nations are willing to accept the undesirable consequences of colonialism for that stability, I suppose colonialism would be good. I just don't know how it could be brought about without the destructive interference of the monopolistic variant of capitalism.

I suppose I could find out, but isn't South Africa fairly prosperous and free market?

I suppose I could find out, but isn't South Africa fairly prosperous and free market?

That's because South Africa seceded and became a country of its own, as opposed to being a colony that was abandoned on the fly.

:rolleyes: Rotovia, quit acting like a child.The only childish view; is that there should be any halt in the use of the term "racist" against those deserving of it.

You don't need to explain it for the purpose of enlightening people, your obligation to explain it stems from the need to avoid your reply from violating the rules.Read the rules and you'll see why many of us think the mods are making the wrong call ethically, as well technically.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=410573

Yup.Then if NSG can understand the argument, there is no intended malice, you really begin to wonder how "racist" falls within the anti-flame and anti-troll rules of NSG.

Let's make this perfectly clear to everyone in this debate. When you sanction colonialism, you sanction the following:

Totalitarianism: a colonized nation can have no self-government
Mass murder of dissidents
Grand theft
The expropriation of entire nation's surplus value
The subjugation of entire peoples
Racism. Let's stop kidding ourselves. The notion that colonial powers know better how to manage countries then their inhabitants is the oldest lie of colonialism, and is grounded in nothing more than racism.

Saying that nations would benefit from colonialism is no better than saying that individuals would benefit from being beaten and raped while all their possessions are stolen and they are forced to work for the benefit of the rapist.

When you sanction colonialism, you sanction the following...
Doesn't that really depend on how you set up such a colonial government? I suspect that advocates of what modern colonialism might look like would envisage it more like a benevolent dictatorship with the goal of bringing about economic and civic development until one day independence could be tried again.

I know it's not an ideal example because it's not in Africa and a bit small, but sorta like it was in Hong Kong when the British were still in charge.

The only childish view; is that there should be any halt in the use of the term "racist" against those deserving of it.

Read the rules and you'll see why many of us think the mods are making the wrong call ethically, as well technically.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=410573

Then if NSG can understand the argument, there is no intended malice, you really begin to wonder how "racist" falls within the anti-flame and anti-troll rules of NSG.

Which is why I ignore the MODs when they tell me to stop calling racists racist.

If the MODs want to sanction free speech enough to let racists spew their bigotry, then they should allow racists to see the consequences of their bigotry.

Doesn't that really depend on how you set up such a colonial government? I suspect that advocates of what modern colonialism might look like would envisage it more like a benevolent dictatorship with the goal of bringing about economic and civic development until one day independence could be tried again.

I know it's not an ideal example because it's not in Africa and a bit small, but sorta like it was in Hong Kong when the British were still in charge.

I think assuming Africa needs paternalism is inherently biased upon their race.

I think assuming Africa needs paternalism is inherently biased upon their race.
I see.

The problem I have right now with a lot of African countries is the lack of reliable government institutions of any sort. That's due to superstition, corruption and nepotism on an epic scale and no experience of it ever having been any different. That's not a racial thing, you get the same stuff in places like Turkmenistan (which has gas, so it's a bit luckier). Then in many countries there's also the tendency of people to look after their own tribe or ethnic group first, which prevents any sort of national unity from helping give credibility to national government.

I find all that very depressing, and I see no solution coming from the inside, as it were. The people with the power to change things are the problem, those coming up to affect change either end up beaten to death in some crappy jail or just joining the bad guys. It's been going for half a century now, and you shouldn't necessarily assume the worst when people are desperate for anything that might look like a solution.

In my case, I wouldn't want to see colonialism come back, because as I said I don't think rule against the populace is realistic or desirable. But I would like to see a sort of adoption program in which a rich country helps out a poor country, directing aid, setting up or reforming government departments (structurally and trying to build ethical standards and organisational culture), setting up free trade agreements, doing law enforcement if necessary and watching the human rights situation and corruption (perhaps even being able to punish abusers). Maybe that's paternalistic, but you can believe me when I say that in my case it's not about race. At worst it can't really screw things up any worse, at best it could get the adopted country to a stage where an actual government exists.

Having spent the best part of half an hour trawling through this thread, I have decided that it might be time to stop this racism tangent and head back to the main point of this thread.

I don't think that the DRC needs white rule; neither do I think it needs black rule. What it needs is rule by competent people; not idiots. To be competent does not require a university education either, all it requires is a little common sense and a realisation that if your nation starts going backwards, then you stop doing what you were doing before and change it.

Now to the next part of this thread; while most nations need a large number of university graduates to be successful, the DRC is a unique situation. Why might that be? Well, consider that it f**k loads of the following...

diamonds, copper, cobalt and tantalum.

To mine this stuff, the only educated people you need are a few geologists. Miners don't need a university education, all they need is some muscle. Get the mines into operation, and the DRC would start prospering, and then they can use the economic improvement to improve their education.

Of course, what also surprises me is that there has been little movement in the field of education since de-colonisation in Africa in general. Yes, the European powers may have abandoned them (partly due to pressure from the United States, ironically enough), however, there has been forty years in which the population could have become educated enough to start going forward. The only country that I can see where that has actually occurred is Botswana.

Unfortunately, Africa is just an example of incompetence

I see.

The problem I have right now with a lot of African countries is the lack of reliable government institutions of any sort. That's due to superstition, corruption and nepotism on an epic scale and no experience of it ever having been any different. That's not a racial thing, you get the same stuff in places like Turkmenistan (which has gas, so it's a bit luckier). Then in many countries there's also the tendency of people to look after their own tribe or ethnic group first, which prevents any sort of national unity from helping give credibility to national government.

I find all that very depressing, and I see no solution coming from the inside, as it were. The people with the power to change things are the problem, those coming up to affect change either end up beaten to death in some crappy jail or just joining the bad guys. It's been going for half a century now, and you shouldn't necessarily assume the worst when people are desperate for anything that might look like a solution.

In my case, I wouldn't want to see colonialism come back, because as I said I don't think rule against the populace is realistic or desirable. But I would like to see a sort of adoption program in which a rich country helps out a poor country, directing aid, setting up or reforming government departments (structurally and trying to build ethical standards and organisational culture), setting up free trade agreements, doing law enforcement if necessary and watching the human rights situation and corruption (perhaps even being able to punish abusers). Maybe that's paternalistic, but you can believe me when I say that in my case it's not about race. At worst it can't really screw things up any worse, at best it could get the adopted country to a stage where an actual government exists.
Sitting in a first-world country; people seem to have little grasp of exactly what is needed for a sustainable nation-state and governance. The process takes an extremely long time, and paternalism have never before been used to a positive result.

It is hard to think about the importance of good government, or democracy, or freedom, or ending genocide, or education when all you can really think is "I haven't eaten in weeks".

Africa needs development, and as development naturally brought an awakening of political consciousness to Europe, Asia, and America, it will to Africa.

I've been offline for a while and it's been a really shitty year so far. I'd ask you to forgive me when real life gets in the way of winning a forum debate, but to be honest, I don't need to justify my online behavior to anyone, so long as it doesn't break any rules. Ignoring off course my off-forum work against racism. While I think it's admirable that you're defending your GF, and while I also don't think that TAI and TBC should have been let off that easily for their statements in the picture thread, drive-by "You're a racist!" statements, especially if that's all that is contributed, are borderline flaming or trolling. I've seen both Amor and Knights of Liberty do it, but just as with engaging in a racist debate, I'm not motivated to do anything about it (though unlike in the latter case, I probably never will be motivated to do so). From what I've seen (I can't see individual TG boxes), most of the tongue-lashing has been dealt out to people who haven't made the effort to say why the statement was racist.

Mind showing me where I've debated their rights?

1. Saying someone's racist is not flaming or trolling. It's true.
2. I always try to contribute.
3. At least I don't make ridiculous comments like the African people are "dumb". If I do think someone's an idiot, at least I don't apply that to their entire race.

Congo? Just let HIV solve the issue...

Because that'll work. :rolleyes:

Hell, if my country was as dirt poor as the Congo; and by surrendering my rights and independence to a foreigner I could see economic development and an increase in my quality of life...I'd do that! Political rights don't exactly mean anything when you're dying of a preventable disease.

I highly doubt you'd think that way if you were actually in the situation. If you read the article, you'll even see that the author mentions people having their hands cut off under colonial rule...

That's because South Africa seceded and became a country of its own, as opposed to being a colony that was abandoned on the fly.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but last time I checked, the countries in Africa are countries.

*snip*main point of this thread.
*snip*

I'm pretty sure the main point was about a crazy guy with a row boat, who people seem to be assuming speaks for the entirety of Africa.

The process takes an extremely long time, and paternalism have never before been used to a positive result.
Well, it's never really been used with that particular result in mind. As I said, the British approach to Hong Kong was a very paternalistic one with no real democracy, but on the whole things went quite well.

It is hard to think about the importance of good government, or democracy, or freedom, or ending genocide, or education when all you can really think is "I haven't eaten in weeks".
To be fair, that's not really what it's like in most of Africa. There are bad areas where there is famine and there are poor areas where people are malnourished. But there are also big areas where people are putting an acceptable living together for themselves and their families and where they have dinner every night. It's no worse there than in India, and India's governance and economic prospects are infinitely better than those of sub-saharan Africa.

Africa needs development, and as development naturally brought an awakening of political consciousness to Europe, Asia, and America, it will to Africa.
Yeah, but where do you get this development from? These days it is quite clear that government is the biggest obstacle to economic progress. There is an unprecedented number of entrepreneurs, foreign investors and philanthropists there in all shapes and sizes. There is money flowing in sent from people who migrated to rich countries and in some places proper banking systems are in the process of creating themselves.

But everything these people do is held back by bureaucrats wanting handouts, kickbacks and donations. There are lots of studies out there on the time it takes to get certain permits, establish a business and so on - African countries consistently score the worst. Creating wealth in these nations is incredibly hard, and it's no surprise that anyone with half a brain either stays away or extracts raw materials and gets them out of the reach of corrupt officials as quickly as possible.

How do you expect this to be solved? For the governments to become good without outside intervention, you say there must be development. But for development, the governments must become good. It's a cycle that someone needs to break from the outside, because it's been going for decades now.

Anyways, maybe you'll like this. I quite enjoyed the perspective on Africa and the role Europe plays for many: http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,462085,00.html

That's because South Africa seceded and became a country of its own, as opposed to being a colony that was abandoned on the fly.South Africa is an independent country and your history would appear to be very confused. I assume you refer to the bankruptcy of the Dutch East India Company, however the Dutch colonist remained in the country and would fight with extreme fervor to try prevent British colonisation during the Boer Wars. I

*snip*Yeah, but where do you get this development from?

Not from bringing back European colonialism.

Not from bringing back European colonialism.
Yeah, but that's not what I asked. What Africa needs to develop is good governance. Right now it doesn't have that, and on the whole there seems to have been no let-up in African leaders who quit on transparency and democracy whenever it looks like their cosy position is in danger (Nigeria and Kenya being two recent examples).

So someone needs to be initiating the change. Western countries know how to run democratic and transparent government organisations, so it stands to reason that they'd be one of the candidates.

But if you don't want that, then do you have any better ideas?

What Africa needs to develop is good governance.

Correct.

It sounds so simple, but in reality it's so difficult...

Botswana manages.

Looking at the history of the Congo, and the lack of education and development of a Congolese middle class, what has happened since 1960 is not unexpected.
The problem may lie more with white drawn borders from the colonial era, leaving a multiplicity of tribes, with a like multiplicity of goals, in an imaginary dotted line state- much like the near east.

Couple that with racial slaughter for old grudges, aids, and disease of all types, and you have an unholy mess. Maybe we could help through a strengthened United Nations...

But as Chamberlain said of Czechoslovakia following its partition in 1938 , "It is a faraway country of which we know little...."

And that is the attitude we take...

Looking at the history of the Congo, and the lack of education and development of a Congolese middle class, what has happened since 1960 is not unexpected.
The problem may lie more with white drawn borders from the colonial era, leaving a multiplicity of tribes, with a like multiplicity of goals, in an imaginary dotted line state- much like the near east.

Couple that with racial slaughter for old grudges, aids, and disease of all types, and you have an unholy mess. Maybe we could help through a strengthened United Nations...

But as Chamberlain said of Czechoslovakia following its partition in 1938 , "It is a faraway country of which we know little...."

And that is the attitude we take...

Have you ever seen an ethnograph of Africa? It's shitting insane. I'm not trying to defend imperialism, but it would've been seriously impossible to draw borders that would've prevented tribal and ethnic warfare. Each tribe is about the size of two or three American counties, a small American state at largest. You can't create a viable state from nations that small...

Correct.

It sounds so simple, but in reality it's so difficult...

The rampant corruption will only end when people are given a reason to focus on it; much like how in China democracy is not a concern.

Africans do focus on it. They are infuriated by their inept, corrupt, repressive leaders. Unfortunately, those who say so rarely live long enough to tell about it.

Well, it's never really been used with that particular result in mind. As I said, the British approach to Hong Kong was a very paternalistic one with no real democracy, but on the whole things went quite well.That is entirely subjective, and many would argue would have more to do with the unique conditions of Hong Kong.


To be fair, that's not really what it's like in most of Africa. There are bad areas where there is famine and there are poor areas where people are malnourished. But there are also big areas where people are putting an acceptable living together for themselves and their families and where they have dinner every night. It's no worse there than in India, and India's governance and economic prospects are infinitely better than those of sub-saharan Africa.And in those areas development is slowly beginning, again, the issue is time.


Yeah, but where do you get this development from? These days it is quite clear that government is the biggest obstacle to economic progress. There is an unprecedented number of entrepreneurs, foreign investors and philanthropists there in all shapes and sizes. There is money flowing in sent from people who migrated to rich countries and in some places proper banking systems are in the process of creating themselvesAfrica doesn't need rock concerts or food drops, it needs road, sanitation, irrigation and basic infrastructure. This is needs to be lead by an African coalition of nations of will take well over fifty years to achieve results, but will achieve lasting results.

But everything these people do is held back by bureaucrats wanting handouts, kickbacks and donations. There are lots of studies out there on the time it takes to get certain permits, establish a business and so on - African countries consistently score the worst. Creating wealth in these nations is incredibly hard, and it's no surprise that anyone with half a brain either stays away or extracts raw materials and gets them out of the reach of corrupt officials as quickly as possible.Bureaucrats delaying progress are a realty of every government, beauracrats seeking more money is a reality of poverty.

How do you expect this to be solved? For the governments to become good without outside intervention, you say there must be development. But for development, the governments must become good. It's a cycle that someone needs to break from the outside, because it's been going for decades now.Paternalist policies can only keep Africa in a status quo, in cannot improve it. The rampant corruption will only end when people are given a reason to focus on it; much like how in China democracy is not a concern. When the standard of living is sufficient for there to be enough leisure time to start asking questions, people will.

However, the first step will be the hardest part. It will take co-ordinated action from the more developed African nations, it will take leadership that is unflinching, and it will take Western government that support this Made in Africa solution.

Anyways, maybe you'll like this. I quite enjoyed the perspective on Africa and the role Europe plays for many: http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,462085,00.html
Interesting, I'm reading it now. Thanks for the link.

This is needs to be lead by an African coalition of nations of will take well over fifty years to achieve results, but will achieve lasting results.
But wouldn't that fall into good governance? For such a coalition to exist you need African leaders who are willing to talk to each other about a future that goes way beyond what they can realistically expect to be in power for and spending money that they could also use to finance their own elites, friends and families. Implementation also requires working government institutions. I would think that if you wanted to build a major highway in the DR Congo today, three quarters of the money would immediately fall to regional governors and their friends and business connections, even without a single metre of road being layed. How long do you expect such a coalition to last before it runs out of money?

Bureaucrats delaying progress are a realty of every government, beauracrats seeking more money is a reality of poverty.
But does it have to be this bad (http://www.doingbusiness.org/ExploreEconomies/?economyid=48)?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/48/Ease_of_Doing_Business_Index.PNG/800px-Ease_of_Doing_Business_Index.PNG

But regardless of whether GDP per capita is $500 or $5000, I don't expect the behaviour of government officials to really change. It's not like bureaucrats really have it that bad relatively speaking. I would suspect that in the DR Congo a job with the government is probably the most stable and regular work you can expect to get and that you'd be among the last in the country to miss out on a month's wages. But the temptation to do that little bit better still by making someone else worse off is there anyways, and that wouldn't really change regardless of whether the potential pay-off is a simple TV or a flatscreen plasma.

Paternalist policies can only keep Africa in a status quo, in cannot improve it.
I haven't really seen any coherent argument to make that point yet. Right now the armed gangs that call themselves African governments have to follow no rules, and the results are as you would expect. Oversight by a western country might serve to establish such rules and introduce the hundreds of years of political philosophy that came with and were part of the cause for the creation of modern national governments, and which Africa is by en large missing.

That would be paternalistic, but I don't think that necessarily means that it can't work in principle.

The rampant corruption will only end when people are given a reason to focus on it; much like how in China democracy is not a concern. When the standard of living is sufficient for there to be enough leisure time to start asking questions, people will.
I think Gigantic Leprechauns is right. People are acutely aware of it and quite unhappy with it. Whether it is that their votes just get chucked in a river, all the oil revenue in places like Nigeria or Equatorial Guinea ending up in the hands of a select few clans or just having to bribe every policeman you see set up a random checkpoint on the way into the city, even poor people can see when they're being screwed over. And I think they care.

However, the first step will be the hardest part. It will take co-ordinated action from the more developed African nations, it will take leadership that is unflinching, and it will take Western government that support this Made in Africa solution.
I just think that leadership is precisely what's not available. I think that if even Kenya can from one day to the next fall into anarchy because the elite doesn't believe in even (http://rss.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10430289) the most basic ethics (http://rss.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10438473) that come with government, I just can't have the same hope you manage to entertain.

I think assuming Africa needs paternalism is inherently biased upon their race.

Well, that pretty much disqualifies you from thinking about the matter objectively then doesn't it.

I agree with what Neu Leonstein said. I just went over his posts outlining his plan in Africa in his debate with Rotovia, and I stand convinced. I can't see anything wrong with it, and honestly in most places things couldn't get much worse.

The only hole in his arguement I could see would be that these hypothetical Western nations must truley have their African nation's future and sucess in mind, and not just cheap access to resources and materials....

I think assuming Africa needs paternalism is inherently biased upon their race.Nope. It's based on their situation.

There are many possible solutions to Africa's problems. Some are paternalist. Other than racism, there is no reason to assume that the paternalist solutions would be better than any others.Depends on who the paternal figure would be.

Nope. It's based on their situation.

There are many possible solutions to Africa's problems. Some are paternalist. Other than racism, there is no reason to assume that the paternalist solutions would be better than any others.

Depends on who the paternal figure would be.

Do you know what 'paternalist' means?

Do you know what 'paternalist' means?yes. and?

yes. and?

Then you would realise that paternalism is inherently condescending and arrogant, because it assumes that the paternalist figure knows better. Now, if we assume that Europeans know better than Africans, there must be some sort of reason for the assumption. One reason I can think of is racism. I cannot think of any other reason why anyone would think a paternalist solution could solve any of Africa's problems.

Then you would realise that paternalism is inherently condescending and arrogant, because it assumes that the paternalist figure knows better. Now, if we assume that Europeans know better than Africans, there must be some sort of reason for the assumption. One reason I can think of is racism. I cannot think of any other reason why anyone would think a paternalist solution could solve any of Africa's problems.
If one holds that Africa was better run under European guidance, then that could well be used as evidence that Europeans know better than Africans, and it would not be racist to do so.

If one holds that Africa was better run under European guidance, then that could well be used as evidence that Europeans know better than Africans, and it would not be racist to do so.

"All men are crated equal" - and that's regardless of skin color, gender (women have inherent rights equal with men), national origin, or any other factor. All human beings have equal inherent value.

This does not extend to cultures. Nazi socialism culture is, was, and will always be inferior to any freedom-loving culture. Primitive tribalism is inferior to the Constitutional Republic government system. Europe and Asia advanced culturally while Africa has mostly stagnated since the days of Egypt.

If one holds that Africa was better run under European guidance, then that could well be used as evidence that Europeans know better than Africans, and it would not be racist to do so.
I'm not sure I'd hold that. But I certainly do hold that Europe is better run than Africa and that a transfer of the skills and structures of government (which the original colonialism was never about) would be a good idea.

I don't think that's racist. If it wasn't for the Chinese not caring about human rights and any given number of other countries not having institutions that work properly, I would certainly want to consider them for participation in this "adopt a country" idea too. I know I'd want the US in it.

"All men are crated equal" - and that's regardless of skin color, gender (women have inherent rights equal with men), national origin, or any other factor. All human beings have equal inherent value.
But that's a baseless value judgement like any other, regardless of what the evidence might say.

I don't hold any truths to be self-evident, so I'm not willing to let blanket statements like that pass without investigation.

Then you would realise that paternalism is inherently condescending and arrogant, because it assumes that the paternalist figure knows better. Now, if we assume that Europeans know better than Africans, there must be some sort of reason for the assumption. One reason I can think of is racism. I cannot think of any other reason why anyone would think a paternalist solution could solve any of Africa's problems.Racism? Why not just look at how Europe is doing and then look at how Africa is doing. You think the difference is just the race or because of race?

Primitive tribalism is inferior to the Constitutional Republic government system. Europe and Asia advanced culturally while Africa has mostly stagnated since the days of Egypt.

:rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mali_Empire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutapa_Empire

Even so, social evolution is not progressive. The Victorian cultures that conquered Africa were among the most repressive, callous and brutal cultures to ever exist on this planet, regardless of their relatively advanced technology.

Basically, you have nothing more than might makes right on your side.

Racism? Why not just look at how Europe is doing and then look at how Africa is doing. You think the difference is just the race or because of race?

I'm going to take a quick look at Moldova and then I'm going to take a quick look at Japan. Oh... right.

I'm going to take a quick look at Moldova and then I'm going to take a quick look at Japan. Oh... right.
So if Japan was to "adopt" Moldova, set up government institutions that are better organised and have a more stringent organisational culture, Japanese police and courts would lead the fight against corruption, Japanese economists, architects and so on would work closely together with the Moldovan government of the day to decide where aid will be spent (having the last word if necessary)...you think that would be worse than what is happening in Moldova right now?

I mean, the Japanese government knows how to run a government. Its businesspeople know how to run businesses, its economists understand how an economy works. It's not a big leap of faith to say that the Japanese could probably do a better job running Moldova than what we see the current Moldovan government doing - and indeed they'd still be a big help to a new, better Moldovan government if there were any chance of one coming along.

So why is it so bad to suggest that the Japanese get a stronger involvement in this task, for example? Is that racism?

I was born in South Africa, I'm doing just that, but I plan to change the way the entire world is run.

Really? So clearly the claimed possession of an IQ of 175 doesn't preclude one's being the most lamentably naive psuedo-academic?

:rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mali_Empire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutapa_Empire

Even so, social evolution is not progressive. The Victorian cultures that conquered Africa were among the most repressive, callous and brutal cultures to ever exist on this planet, regardless of their relatively advanced technology.

Basically, you have nothing more than might makes right on your side.

Note that I said MOSTLY! And I never said European culture was perfect - after all, most of Europe has been in a state of warfare or military tension since the dawn of time. But we also have written history, mathematics, science, and technology that have been developed throughout Europe and Asia. Sub-Saharan Africa was rarely in contact with other cultures and didn't develop these advancements on their own.

Sheesh, guys ...

Attack the POST, not the POSTER!


Got it?

Soheran, warned for flaming for this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13456638&postcount=65) and other posts along the same lines. Nodinia, your additions were less than helpful.

Greater Trostia, after two posts which boil down to "u r racist", you finally got on-topic. Several others (Andaras, Knights of Liberty) made similar transitions. Next time, skip the name-calling.

Those who have posted on topic throughout, congratulations on discerning what it was, because, The Atlantian Islands, your copy-paste OP didn't make it clear -- one of the reasons why we have this rule against copypasta -- and the false dichotomy in your poll further obscured it.


FFS. Are you capable of either banning or warning Greater Trostia, or is his particular brand of left-wing zealotry and arbitrary slander and name calling acceptable?

Then you would realise that paternalism is inherently condescending and arrogant, because it assumes that the paternalist figure knows better. Now, if we assume that Europeans know better than Africans, there must be some sort of reason for the assumption. One reason I can think of is racism. I cannot think of any other reason why anyone would think a paternalist solution could solve any of Africa's problems.
You can't see how a direct, controlling influence from a stable nation would help solve the problems of an unstable nation with a corrupt government that only exists to see who gets to have all the peoples' money?

Then you would realise that paternalism is inherently condescending and arrogant, because it assumes that the paternalist figure knows better. Now, if we assume that Europeans know better than Africans, there must be some sort of reason for the assumption. One reason I can think of is racism. I cannot think of any other reason why anyone would think a paternalist solution could solve any of Africa's problems.

What I'm seeing here is "paternalism is bad, but it's far better to let them wallow in the shit they're in right now."

Let's try a different tac. What other viable solution exists?

FFS. Are you capable of either banning or warning Greater Trostia, or is his particular brand of left-wing zealotry and arbitrary slander and name calling acceptable?

Flaming Mods isn't a great idea, TAI.

Flaming Mods isn't a great idea, TAI.

Meh. If he was even half competant at what he is supposed to do it wouldn't be an issue.

Keep the local population dumb and uneducated? What a blanket statement!


Unlike the Belgian, British, French and Portuguese colonial masters in central Africa, Germany developed an educational program for her Africans that involved elementary, secondary and vocational schools. “Instructor qualifications, curricula, textbooks, teaching materials, all met standards unmatched anywhere in tropical Africa.”[6] In 1924, ten years after the beginning of the First World War and six years into British rule, the visiting American Phelps-Stokes Commission reported: In regards to schools, the Germans have accomplished marvels. Some time must elapse before education attains the standard it had reached under the Germans

Commerce and growth started in earnest under German direction. Early on it was realized that economic development would depend on reliable transportation. Over 40,000 hectares (100,000 acres) were under sisal cultivation - the biggest cash crop. Two million coffee trees were planted and rubber trees grew on 80,000 hectares (200,000 acres), along with large cotton plantations. To bring these agricultural products to market, beginning in 1888, the Usambara Railroad, or Northern Railway, was built from Tanga to Moshi. The longest line, the Central Railroad covered 1,250 kilometers (775 miles) from Dar es Salaam to Morogoro, Tabora and Kigoma. The final link to the eastern shore of Lake Tanganyika had been completed in July 1914 and was cause for a huge and festive celebration in the capital with an agricultural fair and trade exhibition. Harbor facilities were built or improved with electrical cranes, with rail access and warehouses. Wharves were remodeled at Tanga, Bagamoyo and Lindi. In 1912 Dar es Salaam and Tanga received 356 freighters and passenger steamers and over 1,000 coastal ships and local trading vessels.[3] By 1914 Dar es Salaam and the surrounding province had a population of 166,000, among them 1,050 Europeans, 1,000 of them Germans. In all of the east African protectorate were 3,579 Germans.[4] In its own right, Dar es Salaam became the showcase city of all of tropical Africa.[5]

German East Africa never achieved a profit for the fatherland and needed to be subsidized by the Berlin treasury.

So unlike the British and Belgians who plundered the land, the Germans built up and educated their colonies at treasury expense not taking in any profits.


But scandal soon followed, with stories of corruption and brutality, and in 1907 Chancellor Bülow appointed Bernhard Dernburg to reform the colonial administration, which became a model of colonial efficiency and commanded extraordinary loyalty among the natives during the First World War.

German colonial administrators relied heavily on native chiefs to keep order and collect taxes. Other than local police, garrisons of Schutztruppe soldiers at Dar es Salaam, Moshi, Iringa and Mahenge consisted on 1 January 1914 of 110 German officers (including 42 medical officers), 126 non-commissioned officers and 2,472 local soldiers (Askaris[1])

So after some small troubles, they reformed their colonial rule. To the degree that in World War I, the Germans had the most loyal and beloved colonial army, which didn't require forced conscription and fought to the last day of the war.




So what we should do? Why if we recolonize, give all of Africa to Germany and hope it redoes it's past policies. I mean if we're living in the past, we might as well choose the best of the past. But why not be amazingly revolutionary and not live in the past? Colonialization is a thing of the past, it shouldn't be repeated. It's benefits do not outweight it's damage, except perhaps in the case of a few places such as German East Africa, but even there is freedom worth the price of education and economy (fair economy, not Congo-type plunder all you can economy) build-up? I wouldn't say so.

If one holds that Africa was better run under European guidance, then that could well be used as evidence that Europeans know better than Africans, and it would not be racist to do so.

Africa was better run under European guidance, for the Europeans. Whether or not it was run better for the Africans is a completely different question. Paternalist approaches assume that foreign governments know better than local communities. If we want African governments to take care of Africans, it would be stupid to assume that we know better than them what Africans need and want.

Primitive tribalism is inferior to the Constitutional Republic government system. Europe and Asia advanced culturally while Africa has mostly stagnated since the days of Egypt.

No. Wrong. Each of these types of governments is best suited to a particular type of society. Constitutional republics are better than communal tribalism for large, decentralised populations with disparate ethnic backgrounds. Such a form of government would be cumbersome and idiotic for a small group of people living as hunter gatherers or subsistence farmers with a common culture and heritage.

And Africa has not mostly stagnated since Egypt.

Racism? Why not just look at how Europe is doing and then look at how Africa is doing. You think the difference is just the race or because of race?

You're not getting the point, are you? I will make it clear:

If you think a paternalist approach is a good one, explain to me why you think it's good.

So if Japan was to "adopt" Moldova, set up government institutions that are better organised and have a more stringent organisational culture, Japanese police and courts would lead the fight against corruption, Japanese economists, architects and so on would work closely together with the Moldovan government of the day to decide where aid will be spent (having the last word if necessary)...you think that would be worse than what is happening in Moldova right now?

I mean, the Japanese government knows how to run a government. Its businesspeople know how to run businesses, its economists understand how an economy works. It's not a big leap of faith to say that the Japanese could probably do a better job running Moldova than what we see the current Moldovan government doing - and indeed they'd still be a big help to a new, better Moldovan government if there were any chance of one coming along.

So why is it so bad to suggest that the Japanese get a stronger involvement in this task, for example? Is that racism?

A lot would depend on the level of involvement by locals. Japanese architects might overdesign for seismic stresses while ignoring important aspects of Moldovan culture and environment that affect building design. Japanese professionals run the risk of being blind to the issues that affect Moldovans and rejecting input from Moldovans because of the assumption that the Japanese know better.

The Japanese know how to run all these things better, from a Japanese perspective. Whether or not Moldovans would be happy or successful in such a society is another matter entirely.

And all this is assuming that the Japanese actually have the interests of the Moldovans at heart. It would be far worse, but far more realistic, if we were to assume that the Japanese were there mainly for selfish purposes.

You can't see how a direct, controlling influence from a stable nation would help solve the problems of an unstable nation with a corrupt government that only exists to see who gets to have all the peoples' money?

I can see the logic. But I have never seen an example of that in history. Most of the time it's just a rationalisation for controlling their society and economy. I believe the phrase 'white man's burden' stems from there. Now we call it 'foreign aid'.

What I'm seeing here is "paternalism is bad, but it's far better to let them wallow in the shit they're in right now."

Let's try a different tac. What other viable solution exists?

Exactly. We can not look at this from the false choice of either paternalism or isolation. There are other options. One of the first things we need is knowledge. What are the exact problems? Do we know the root causes of these problems? Have local communities found ways to resolve these problems, but on a different scale? What solutions, if any can we bring from the developed world that could be applicable in Africa?

The solutions to these and many other questions can be found by networking with local communities and NGOs who have experience in these matters. Paternalist interventions are inherently centralised and come from the top levels of government. I am suggesting a grassroots approach that looks for, and implements, solutions at the local level. This would empower the locals, fit into their existing society much better than a paternalist solution, and help preserve local communities and cultures.

Many schools throughout Britain's former Colonies were founded by the British. The Germans educated the local populace of their colonies for efficiency, I doubt the best interests of their colonies as future nations in their own right were even considered by the Germans.

Africa was better run under European guidance, for the Europeans. Whether or not it was run better for the Africans is a completely different question. Paternalist approaches assume that foreign governments know better than local communities. If we want African governments to take care of Africans, it would be stupid to assume that we know better than them what Africans need and want.
It would be similarly stupid to assume that we don't know better. The only way to determine who manages Africa best is to measure Africa under both systems and see which one turns out better.

Using which country as a measure?

After all, different countries came out of Colonialism differently.

Zimbabwe, the USA, Canada, South Africa, Nigeria and Kenya were all British possesions at one time or another.

It would be similarly stupid to assume that we don't know better. The only way to determine who manages Africa best is to measure Africa under both systems and see which one turns out better.

Locals know more about local problems and how they manifest locally. Locals would also know more about what resources are locally available, what infrastructure is already present in the locality, and would have far more local information than non-locals.

So it would not be equally stupid to assume that you don't know better than the locals.

And you can't measure Africa under both systems as some sort of science experiment. Science is fairly useless at finding solutions for unrepeatable events, of which history is full of.

Erm, Let's suppose India was still united.

Locals still have power in that scenario?

Meh. If he was even half competant at what he is supposed to do it wouldn't be an issue.

So you'd argue that Ardchoille is incompetent as a Moderator?

That's a fairly serious complaint.

I'm flattered, TBC, that you are so threatened by my political views that the only way you can address them is by trying to get rid of me from the forums.

Sadly, the fact that you think my views are "left-wing zealotry" is clear evidence that you don't even bother reading what I write to begin with - or at least, that you can't comprehend them. So I'm really taking credit for your own mistake here and shouldn't feel flattered at all.

But I do!

You are a left-wing zealot. By any reasonable political spectrum, you are undeniably left-wing, and the general polemic and invective that accompanies what passes for a post of yours might as well be termed "zealotry".

Incidentally, I consider you no more of a threat than bird-flu, I simply really find you irritating, and quite dislike you. You seem to have precious little personality, humanity or personality,and precious little to commend you beyond a frothing political fanatacism that merits a little respect irrespective of the inveterate immaturity and naiveity with which you post.

So you'd argue that Ardchoille is incompetent as a Moderator?

That's a fairly serious complaint.

Fair enough, perhaps it is. Either that or his perpetual inability to take action against GT is simply the result of unprofessional bias.

FFS. Are you capable of either banning or warning Greater Trostia, or is his particular brand of left-wing zealotry and arbitrary slander and name calling acceptable?

I'm flattered, TBC, that you are so threatened by my political views that the only way you can address them is by trying to get rid of me from the forums.

Sadly, the fact that you think my views are "left-wing zealotry" is clear evidence that you don't even bother reading what I write to begin with - or at least, that you can't comprehend them. So I'm really taking credit for your own mistake here and shouldn't feel flattered at all.

But I do!

I'm flattered, TBC, that you are so threatened by my political views that the only way you can address them is by trying to get rid of me from the forums.

Sadly, the fact that you think my views are "left-wing zealotry" is clear evidence that you don't even bother reading what I write to begin with - or at least, that you can't comprehend them. So I'm really taking credit for your own mistake here and shouldn't feel flattered at all.

But I do!

Apparently he does not read sigs either.

Last time I checked, +2 on the political compass wasn't Left-wing...

Fair enough, perhaps it is. Either that or his perpetual inability to take action against GT is simply the result of unprofessional bias.

Again, a rather serious allegation. Are you going to take a stand in Moderation, or just keep whining?

Again, a rather serious allegation. Are you going to take a stand in Moderation, or just keep whining?

I see little point putting it in Moderation, mainly on the grounds somebody else will anyway, no doubt with a title along the lines of "Naughty poster insults Mr. Mod, oh mr. Mod save us from the posting Barbarians from the east who don't play nice!".

Slightly off topic me thinks...

Why doesn't Britain re-take Zimbabwe to help them?

They would if I was in charge...

I see little point putting it in Moderation, mainly on the grounds somebody else will anyway, no doubt with a title along the lines of "Naughty poster insults Mr. Mod, oh mr. Mod save us from the posting Barbarians from the east who don't play nice!".

Then perhaps you should cease referring to alledged bias and simply debate. Or leave, if the bias is so apparent.

You are a left-wing zealot.

I guess if you're far right enough, this becomes true of not only me, but practically anyone.

By any reasonable political spectrum, you are undeniably left-wing

Pre-emptive no-true-scotsman fallacy. Now if I take a test and am not "undeniably left-wing" as per the results, well, that test is simply not "reasonable."

and the general polemic and invective that accompanies what passes for a post of yours might as well be termed "zealotry".

"What passes for a post?" I'm sorry dude, this IS a post. This is a forum, this is a post. There's no "passing" for posts anymore than this "passes" for a forum and this "passes" for text. In your attempt to spew insults at me you're not making much sense.

Incidentally, I consider you no more of a threat than bird-flu, I simply really find you irritating, and quite dislike you. You seem to have precious little personality, humanity or personality,and precious little to commend you beyond a frothing political fanatacism that merits a little respect irrespective of the inveterate immaturity and naiveity with which you post.

So essentially, this isn't about the mods not doing their jobs, or about me breaking a rule - it's about your own personal dislike of me.

Someone better fucking call an emergency team in here, TBCs likes and dislikes are not being adhered to!

Please, can't we just let it drop?

Everyone's entitled to their opinion.

Please, can't we just let it drop?

Everyone's entitled to their opinion.

Except for GT, 'cause he's a left-wing zealot ;)

The left/right divide is a false dichotomy.

Don't antagonise.

Whats wrong with being a left wing Zealot. At least he's firm enough to stand up for his beliefs! (that I mostly will disagree with as an Imperialist but still).

Depends. I do not think that the fact that the person is white is going to make much difference. I do think that someone with some good political ties and governing experience would be helpfull. The country needs some experienced business men (and investors) to come in and start up an economy.

Just which Congo are we talking about exactly.

Just which Congo are we talking about exactly.
The article refered to the Belgian Congo, so the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Don't antagonise.

Whats wrong with being a left wing Zealot. At least he's firm enough to stand up for his beliefs! (that I mostly will disagree with as an Imperialist but still).

If that was directed at me...
1. use the quote function (this applies even if it wasn't aimed at me)
2. note the ;), it indicates humour.

It would take a large, wealthy, organized military force to get anything out of the Congo. As it is noone has real control over the country and it would take an external force to impose it. Maybe we should let the Chinese try.

It would take a large, wealthy, organized military force to get anything out of the Congo. As it is noone has real control over the country and it would take an external force to impose it. Maybe we should let the Chinese try.

Good plan.

Let me ask the Tibetans if we can borrow some of theirs...

Why not just put the people of Liverpool in as an Army and put Britain in Charge?

Really? So clearly the claimed possession of an IQ of 175 doesn't preclude one's being the most lamentably naive psuedo-academic?

Oh please.

An argument based on historical fact and actual knowledge of the continent is certainly more naive than the arguments being pulled out of goodness-knows-where by certain people who have a complete misunderstanding of African history.

Well, that pretty much disqualifies you from thinking about the matter objectively then doesn't it.
What? I don't know if you realise that what you say doesn't conform the rules of reality and logic the rest of us live by.

But wouldn't that fall into good governance? For such a coalition to exist you need African leaders who are willing to talk to each other about a future that goes way beyond what they can realistically expect to be in power for and spending money that they could also use to finance their own elites, friends and families. Implementation also requires working government institutions. I would think that if you wanted to build a major highway in the DR Congo today, three quarters of the money would immediately fall to regional governors and their friends and business connections, even without a single metre of road being layed. How long do you expect such a coalition to last before it runs out of money?I don't expect such a coalition any time in the near future; and I think expecting any solution to come in the near future is wishful thinking. However, as education equality begins to be built in nations such as South Africa the leaders will emerge, and they will need to be prepared to confront graft face-to-face. If we have any hope of a long-term solution, we need to accept that this is a long term problem.


But does it have to be this bad (http://www.doingbusiness.org/ExploreEconomies/?economyid=48)?

]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/48/Ease_of_Doing_Business_Index.PNG/800px-Ease_of_Doing_Business_Index.PNGTake a look at those countries again, they are all countries with lower socio-economic standards; which underlines my point that corruption is related to poverty. Stop poverty. stop corruption.

But regardless of whether GDP per capita is $500 or $5000, I don't expect the behaviour of government officials to really change. It's not like bureaucrats really have it that bad relatively speaking. I would suspect that in the DR Congo a job with the government is probably the most stable and regular work you can expect to get and that you'd be among the last in the country to miss out on a month's wages. But the temptation to do that little bit better still by making someone else worse off is there anyways, and that wouldn't really change regardless of whether the potential pay-off is a simple TV or a flatscreen plasma.When pay-cheques go uncleared for months on end, those payoffs look mighty tempting.


I haven't really seen any coherent argument to make that point yet. Right now the armed gangs that call themselves African governments have to follow no rules, and the results are as you would expect. Oversight by a western country might serve to establish such rules and introduce the hundreds of years of political philosophy that came with and were part of the cause for the creation of modern national governments, and which Africa is by en large missing.

That would be paternalistic, but I don't think that necessarily means that it can't work in principle.
Africa is not Europe, it is not Asia, it is not America or any other place; it cannot just transplant another society's history and run with it. Africa needs to develop its own history of development, and be allowed the time to do so.

I think Gigantic Leprechauns is right. People are acutely aware of it and quite unhappy with it. Whether it is that their votes just get chucked in a river, all the oil revenue in places like Nigeria or Equatorial Guinea ending up in the hands of a select few clans or just having to bribe every policeman you see set up a random checkpoint on the way into the city, even poor people can see when they're being screwed over. And I think they care.
It is easy to think that from the comfort of a western nation, but of the African refugees I known personally, they find it hard to fathom the "Western obsession with bribery, when people are starving to death"

I just think that leadership is precisely what's not available. I think that if even Kenya can from one day to the next fall into anarchy because the elite doesn't believe in even (http://rss.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10430289) the most basic ethics (http://rss.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10438473) that come with government, I just can't have the same hope you manage to entertain.
Africa needs its own history of development as a compass for future generations, and it needs time to achieve that development.

I don't expect such a coalition any time in the near future; and I think expecting any solution to come in the near future is wishful thinking.
And until then?

Take a look at those countries again, they are all countries with lower socio-economic standards; which underlines my point that corruption is related to poverty. Stop poverty. stop corruption.
The map wasn't about corruption though. It was about the amount of red tape in an economy, so both the ideas the government has and their enforcement. Of course more red tape means greater opportunity for corruption, so if I were to look for a corruption map I think the two would look very similar.

But I am actually agreeing with you. I think the fact that no one can rely on a stable income from official sources makes people want to secure one from somewhere else, and government corruption is the most lucrative way of doing it. But I think that simply shouting "stop poverty" is naive - corruption is perhaps the big reason Africa is still poor and South Korea isn't, along with the sheer ineptitude of most African leaders. So either poverty or corruption (or both at once) have to be targeted to break out of the circle, and I have seen pretty much nothing from the continent to suggest that governments there are either able or even willing to do it.

When pay-cheques go uncleared for months on end, those payoffs look mighty tempting.
Certainly. But the provincial governors in Nigeria, who are by now worth tens of millions of US Dollars or more did at some point not suffer poverty anymore, but still kept going. Poverty is a contributing factor, but not an absolutely decisive one. Otherwise Beijing wouldn't be fighting so hard to get rid of corruption since the extra wealth and success against poverty should be doing the work for them.

Africa is not Europe, it is not Asia, it is not America or any other place; it cannot just transplant another society's history and run with it. Africa needs to develop its own history of development, and be allowed the time to do so.
"Africa" can have all the time it wants. I'm more concerned with the people dying in the meantime.

And as hilariously ironic as that is, that's the implication of the line TAI has unwittingly been pushing in this thread - that it doesn't matter whether it's Europe or Africa or Asia, that cultures and histories and ethnicities don't make a difference to the fact that there are people's lives at stake, that rules of moral political philosophy and of economics are universal to human societies and that "culture" is not a valid defense against or support for a policy or action.

And in this discussion, the alternative doesn't look particularly attractive. As far as I can figure this out, you'd have to acknowledge that this mess is Africa's history of development, since the alternative (namely free, democratic and prosperous nations like those in the west) is somehow foreign to Africa and not applicable there.

It is easy to think that from the comfort of a western nation, but of the African refugees I known personally, they find it hard to fathom the "Western obsession with bribery, when people are starving to death"
But as you may have noted at some point (even from the comfort of a western nation), not everyone in Africa is a starving refugee. And even those refugees would certainly have noticed if their trek has to bribe people to get through checkpoints, even if they perhaps had other things on their minds they considered worse at that point.

Africa needs its own history of development as a compass for future generations, and it needs time to achieve that development.
Okay, what does that actually mean though? What can we take from this sentence in terms of the real world and practical responses to what is clearly a situation that merits them?

You're saying Africa needs to develop on its own (though presumably you wouldn't mind western tax money to be spent on that). Fine, though I think if you really look into the economic history of the world you'll see that on the whole there is a very limited number of options when it comes to developing, and that is further narrowed down if you want it to last longer than a decade.

But there's been half a century now of opportunities to develop, brought down again and again by idiot leaders and plain evil people. And because of that, we are witnessing a structure that just keeps producing idiots and criminals - as African as they come, perhaps, but hardly what is actually good for African people. So I think if you are really honest and take race out of this equation, you see that the option is between idiots and criminals on one hand, and hardly perfect but at least somewhat competent and well-behaved leaders on the other.

But as you may have noted at some point (even from the comfort of a western nation), not everyone in Africa is a starving refugee.

I'm pretty sure he's aware of that.

Considering he was born in Africa...

But there's been half a century now of opportunities to develop, brought down again and again by idiot leaders and plain evil people. And because of that, we are witnessing a structure that just keeps producing idiots and criminals - as African as they come, perhaps, but hardly what is actually good for African people. So I think if you are really honest and take race out of this equation, you see that the option is between idiots and criminals on one hand, and hardly perfect but at least somewhat competent and well-behaved leaders on the other.

Well over half a century ago there were still "plain evil people"...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/Leopold_ii_garter_knight.jpg

Please tell me how we are "witnessing a structure that's producing idiots and criminals"? I'm aching to know.

How can you suggest that someone take race out of the equation when you yourself use phrases like "as African as they come"? I'm thinking of a word that begins with an 'H' and ends with a 'ypocrite'.


Really? So clearly the claimed possession of an IQ of 175 doesn't preclude one's being the most lamentably naive psuedo-academic?

I love how no matter how many big words you use, you still sound like a douche.

I'm pretty sure he's aware of that.
;)

Well over half a century ago there were still "plain evil people"...
Obviously. But no one is suggesting we install European monarchs or actually bring back colonialism as it was. The idea is to have the democratically elected governments of western/developed nations (bound by their own laws on how to treat people) play an interventionist mentor role in African countries to guide those elected governments, but with the first allegiance being to the democratic system there and the living standards of the citizens, not the government of the day.

Please tell me how we are "witnessing a structure that's producing idiots and criminals"? I'm aching to know.
Well, who goes into politics in African countries these days? It's either
people who are fighting for their particular ethnic group, meaning that's where their loyalties lie and that's how they are treated on the ballot box;
the children of former leaders, members of the elite that sustains itself through graft and most often through dictatorships (daddy was a military dictator for 15 years, and now I'll follow in his footsteps); or
ruthless business people who are sick of red tape and think they can make more cash by putting themselves on top of the bureaucracy.

This doesn't mean that every African leader is like that, but I don't think you can deny that even today politics there is demonstrating a high propensity to produce just such leaders. Proper party politics is virtually non-existant, with politicians switching parties quicker than they switch mistresses. Parties are just vehicles for individuals to get into power, rather than representative of a broader popular political movement or ideological direction.

So even if you get a good leader rising out of the masses somewhere, it'll be hard to get to the top. The established people don't want to leave and tend to use election fraud or violence to prevent it. The leader can't just take charge of a political party and create a real mass movement either, because in all likelihood he'll be backstabbed by his own party colleagues. And once he's gotten close, someone might just start to complain about what ethnic group he belongs to and he won't actually be able to make policies against half the country.

We've seen a disproportionate number of incompetent or criminal leaders in Africa, and it doesn't seem to be stopping. Since I don't think Africans are a priori more likely to be incompetent or criminal, there's got to be some structural reason for why political selection processes keep returning these people. The Cold War played a role, but an even bigger one IMHO is played by the way politics seems to work in Africa.

How can you suggest that someone take race out of the equation when you yourself use phrases like "as African as they come"? I'm thinking of a word that begins with an 'H' and ends with a 'ypocrite'.
I was just pointing out that he wanted to see Africans in charge, to which I replied that if someone is an idiot or a criminal, it doesn't matter how African they are, they're still not a good choice.

I know it would be a lot easier to deal with me if I was a racist of some sort. Of course I can't really convince you otherwise, but I assure you that there isn't a racist bone in me. It's precisely because I don't care who someone is or where someone comes from that I don't see the problem with letting an experienced and competent government act as the coach and umpire for an inexperienced and so far incompetent one.

We've seen a disproportionate number of incompetent or criminal leaders...

Ahh... misread your original post.


I know it would be a lot easier to deal with me if I was a racist of some sort. Of course I can't really convince you otherwise, but I assure you that there isn't a racist bone in me. It's precisely because I don't care who someone is or where someone comes from that I don't see the problem with letting an experienced and competent government act as the coach and umpire for an inexperienced and so far incompetent one.

Still, I suppose it's better to avoid phrases such as "as African as they come", because they can be interpreted as racist.

What the country needs to do is not give up on a democratic system when America went in to the great depression did you see us go to war or over throw the government and put the military in charge. No the government put people to work building roads and dams have money in social programs and yes we ran up the defect but it was the only thing we could do was for the government to spend money. Spend it not on guns but on class rooms and civic improvement not a new place for the president but to regulate industry and establish standard’s and safety codes.

:DWhere as in Britain we just got the people to wonder about until it was over.:D

Africa will never be free until they full industrialize, abandon light industry and export-orientated market economies which impoverish the people, and focus on national heavy industrial self-sufficiency.

Anyone living in Australia (that's mainly you, Rotovia and Amor) should watch SBS tonight. They've got something on Africa to make a point for me on Cutting Edge. ;)

Africa will never be free until they full industrialize, abandon light industry and export-orientated market economies which impoverish the people, and focus on national heavy industrial self-sufficiency.

It's been tried.

Africa will never be free until they full industrialize, abandon light industry and export-orientated market economies which impoverish the people, and focus on national heavy industrial self-sufficiency.

That is part of the solution. It may have been tried before but doesn't mean it should not be done again.

Colonialism needs Statesmen.

Britain has none.