NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, after looking at a recent thread proposing a solution to Israel/Palestine, I've been pondering again how the world might act to improve the conditions in its perhaps darkest corner: sub-Saharan Africa. This reminded me of a couple earlier discusions I had with my Mom and Brother. She insisted that the world had to do something after reading about the utter anarchy that is the Congo, and the routine rapes taking place there at the hands of various armed groups, some of whom no longer even seem to be fighting for any real cause. My brother and I pointed out that this would involve massive military intervention in an environment that would make Iraq look tame, and my brother suggested that each country should agree to take a certain number of people from Africa until everyone had been relocated to other nations and the waring factions had been separated.

Of course leaving aside the unwillingness of some people to leave, this would require governments to act in an utterly implausibly selfless manner. However, these discussions got me thinking: what could the world's governments do, had they the moral strength and political will, to fix the problems in Africa? Please post your own suggestions. When you here stories of the horrors taking place in these countries, how do you think governments should respond? How would you if you were in power?

I hope to see some serious suggestions. We may not be able to do much, but I'd like to know what people think should be done. Such a tragedy cannot be ignored.

Well, we should first stop supporting dictatorial powers there.
By "we" I mean the Western World, plus Russia, China and India.

Secondly, even more important, in order to help them we would have to open real economic chances for them: Africa is mainly agricultural.
But the world food prices are decided at Chicago.
Worst, both USA and EU have really protective and interventionnist economy, particulary about the whole primary sector thing. Countries like USA and France are very happy to have so much countries depending of their grain exportation.

But this would really hurt us a lot if one day we deregulate this sector, absolutly wouldn't suit our interests.

Oh, and third, we have to kick China out of this continent.

Fourth, helping the African Union doing military intervention, instead of always sending thousands of our soldiers there ( just remember of the French Army involved since 30 years in Tchad, first against Lybian Army, now against Sudanese and Sudanese backed guerilla fighters...or the 4 years of intervention we have done in Côte d'Ivoire for stopping the civil war, securising the country and instauring a democratic process...)

Send FEMA.

How to save Africa?For whom?

Just let HIV do the nasty work of emptying the lands and free them for re-colonization.

Donate 150 billion dollars, then everything is cleared up.

But it is not that simple........:headbang:

Nuke Them All!

The problem with Africa is that the solution can't come from the outside, it has to come from within. Decades to centuries of foreign rule is largely responsible for the problems nowadays, and mandated rule is going to have the same results in the long run. The best the Developed Countries can do is provide financial aid, cease subsidizing their agriculture (and consequently destroying the markets in developing countries with cheap imports), and provide aid when asked. But the problems African countries are facing are something they have to learn to tackle on their own.

Strong action against multinational companies that bribe and corrupt politicians would be a good start.

Strong action against multinational companies that bribe and corrupt politicians would be a good start.

Is it the companies' fault certain tribes always fight each other ?

Is it the companies' fault certain tribes always fight each other ?

It is the lobbyists fault that subsidies of home production result in the crippling of foreign markets through dumping practices, resulting in the collapse of their local agriculture, and inability to make a living, which only serves to exacerbate the situation.

I'm afraid there's nothing we can do to save Africa. The change must come from the African peoples themselves. If they're not willing to stop fighting with each other and breeding like rabbits, all we can do is shut the continent out of the rest of the world for a couple of decades, let things take their natural course, and then help whomever is left. I know it's grim and cruel, but that's what I see as the inevitable future.

I used to think that abolishing the current national borders and redrawing them according to tribal borders would help, but then I realized that this would probably make some tribes feel that they have been unjustly robbed of land, and it would spark dozens of wars of conquest for the next 50 years.
Dividing African people across the richer world would be a very bad idea. Sure, it would help with the overpopulation for a while, until the remaining people bred enough to fill the gap, but mostly it would just transfer Africa's problems here. We have enough HIV already, and it's not like the Africans would just forget their tribal feuds just because they're not at home anymore. Even here in Finland, we sometimes have incidents of tribal-based violence between groups of Africans.
As for food and money, even if it didn't go into the pockets of dictators and warlords, it would still just be postponing the inevitable doom, and the longer it is postponed, the more suffering it will cause when it happens.

It is the lobbyists fault that subsidies of home production result in the crippling of foreign markets through dumping practices, resulting in the collapse of their local agriculture, and inability to make a living, which only serves to exacerbate the situation.

The excessive EU-output subsidies are to blame for that.

Rhodesia was the bread basket of Africa.

As many have said, the solution has to come from Africa. The West can help, though:

1. Not supporting dictatorships. We can help the solution best by not being part of the problem.
2. Working on a cure for AIDS. While the Africans can control the spread via education, a true cure (as in a vaccine or other drug) is something that only the West, with its high tech laboratories and well-trained scientists, can provide. And it must be supplied as cheaply as possible. In the case of universities or government-funded research, the cure is the goal, so no excuse for charging anything. If it is developed by a private lab, then they should provide it cheap, and count on the good will to attract sales. Simply the prestige of being the developer of the cure for AIDS would send any company's stock skyrocketing.
3. Continue supplying aid as we always have. The number of lives saved by Western charity must rank in the millions. We can't let up
4. Beef up aid in areas designed to help with sustainability. As Maimonides said, "Give a man a fish, and he will eat for a day. Teach him how to fish, and he eats for a lifetime." Education should be a priority, as well as programs like micro-loans that stimulate local economies. And cut out subsidizing local agriculture.

Rhodesia was the bread basket of Africa.

Yeah, we saw how well that worked out didn't we? You know, every thing the Brits touch turns to shit. Why they colonized half the world is beyond me.

Instead of food and money all the time how about some birth control.

"Save Africa" is very broad. Nobody should help Zimbabwe, they brought it on themselves.

"Save Africa" is very broad. Nobody should help Zimbabwe, they brought it on themselves.You're a bad person :(

We could leave them the fuck alone. It might just work, it certainly hasn't been tried yet.

We could leave them the fuck alone. It might just work, it certainly hasn't been tried yet.Well, there's also the issue of them not leaving us alone. There's terrorism, economic refugees, and most recently pirates.

You're a bad person :(

What? The (black) Zimbabweans attacked white farmers, the Zimbabweans tried to take over the farms and grow crops, the Zimbabweans failed. I don't see why we should shell out cash to help these people so they can go on to make the same mistakes again.

"Save Africa" is very broad. Nobody should help Zimbabwe, they brought it on themselves.
So, it's the fault of the average Zimbabwean is it? Not the British government, which refused to recognise an African government in Zimbabwe (or, Zimabwe-Rhodesia) and solution, and instead insist that Mugabe be made President - and colonised the country in the first place? Or the white farmers (and government), who ignored the deep poverty among the vast majority of the population and carried on the same old way since 1900, resisting any kind of change until it was too late? Or Mugabe, who when in power installed himself a dictator, and by the time he did screw over his country and his people, they had no say in the matter?

I'm not going to go into the 'what-ifs', because it's too easy to say so with the benefit of hindsight. What I will say is that the average Zimbabwean has been pissed on from a great, great height by a great, great number of people, and have so far had no choice in the matter. If you want to apportion blame for the mess in Zimbabwe, there's plenty to go around, but I've got nothing but pity for your average Zimbabwean joe.

Well, there's also the issue of them not leaving us alone. There's terrorism, economic refugees, and most recently pirates.

All righteous retribution for the continued presence of Sally Struthers. *nod*

What? The (black) Zimbabweans attacked white farmers, the Zimbabweans tried to take over the farms and grow crops, the Zimbabweans failed. I don't see why we should shell out cash to help these people so they can go on to make the same mistakes again.
And all whites are evil rabid neocolonists. Oh, wait, the White Hive-Mind is just as imaginary as the Black Hive Mind. Believe it or not, not every Zimababwean is a Bush War veteran sent by Mugabe to attack White farmers, otherwise Mugabe would not have to use them to suppress his own people and the opposition to his rule. And, as a side note, Mugabe redistributed land to his own cronies, rather than to your average Zimbabwean tenant.

Given that (Subsaharan) Africa's GDPPC has increased substantially in recent times, and given that a fair number of countries are in transition/ have already transitioned into more-or-less (Obviously not on level with, say, Europe, but hey) stable democracies, plus there being absolutely no reason or indication that either will change in the foreseeable future...

Continue what we're doing right now.

Instead of food and money all the time how about some birth control.
Instead of sending food and money, let's invest in re-educating them.

Hunger, famine, wars, racial & religious violence cannot be cured by sending money but by actually caring about the people.

Give man a fish and you'll feed him for a day, teach a family sustainable farming methods, birth control and basic scientific principles* and you'll feed them for generations to come

*(basic stuff like sorcery doesn't shrink cocks)

What? The (black) Zimbabweans attacked white farmers, the Zimbabweans tried to take over the farms and grow crops, the Zimbabweans failed. I don't see why we should shell out cash to help these people so they can go on to make the same mistakes again.But you're saying the White Zimbabweans deserved it :(

Given that (Subsaharan) Africa's GDPPC has increased substantially in recent times, and given that a fair number of countries are in transition/ have already transitioned into more-or-less (Obviously not on level with, say, Europe, but hey) stable democracies, plus there being absolutely no reason or indication that either will change in the foreseeable future...

Continue what we're doing right now.

I honestly can't think of one truly solid democracy in Africa. I thought Kenya until recently. The northern states are autocratic, and South Africa is as corrupt as hell.

But you're saying the White Zimbabweans deserved it :(

There are still white Zimbabweans? If I was a white African, I would have hightailed the hell out of there to the UK or Australia or something.

Yeah, we saw how well that worked out didn't we? You know, every thing the Brits touch turns to shit. Why they colonized half the world is beyond me.

I hope that this is meant as a joke

Get over the fact that colonisation happened, and happened a long time ago. We should be looking to help the countries who need it, not on what their colonial past was, and certainly not on what their resources are.

A lot of ex-colonies are doing well - India for example, and Commonwealth countries tend to do OK in their respective areas (accepted Zimbabwe has gone from bread basket to basket case)

There are still white Zimbabweans? If I was a white African, I would have hightailed the hell out of there to the UK or Australia or something.There are. A couple more got disowned just recently. Also, you spout the fallacy that all black Zimbabweans were involved in this. Then again, wishing starvation and disease on people is inhuman anyway.

Yeah, we saw how well that worked out didn't we? You know, every thing the Brits touch turns to shit. Why they colonized half the world is beyond me.

The USA, India and Hong Kong seem to have worked out pretty well.

And more germane to the point, Rhodesia turned out fine until it was turned over to the natives and renamed "Zimbabwe."

There are. A couple more got disowned just recently. Also, you spout the fallacy that all black Zimbabweans were involved in this. Then again, wishing starvation and disease on people is inhuman anyway.

I don't WISH it on them. I'm just generally indifferent to it if they bring it unto themselves through their own stupidity.

The USA, India and Hong Kong seem to have worked out pretty well.

And more germane to the point, Rhodesia turned out fine until it was turned over to the natives and renamed "Zimbabwe."

Oh yeah, of course. British colonialism kicked ass. There was one country (I think it was Sierra Leone) that begged the British to come back recently because their country had just gone to total shit.

Seriously, name a country that was truly horrific during British rule and has now improved.

The best way to save Africa is to stop helping Africa. These people need to evolve their own infrastructure, governments and societies. They cannot continue to rely on Western aid to live. We should be focusing on our own problems before we go galavanting off into the dark continent, so lets just stop funding madmen and let Africa be.
Give a man a fish, and he has a meal, teach a man to fish, and he can feed himself.

Given that (Subsaharan) Africa's GDPPC has increased substantially in recent times, and given that a fair number of countries are in transition/ have already transitioned into more-or-less (Obviously not on level with, say, Europe, but hey) stable democracies, plus there being absolutely no reason or indication that either will change in the foreseeable future...
I'd say Botswana is a good example of an African success story. But then, it was never really a colony, and for the most part, we left it alone.

Seriously, name a country that was truly horrific during British rule and has now improved.

Scotland:D

Oh yeah, of course. British colonialism kicked ass. There was one country (I think it was Sierra Leone) that begged the British to come back recently because their country had just gone to total shit.

Seriously, name a country that was truly horrific during British rule and has now improved.

Britain. ;)

The best way to save Africa is to stop helping Africa. These people need to evolve their own infrastructure, governments and societies. They cannot continue to rely on Western aid to live.

And stop taking advantage of Africa, as well [i.e. the ruling government in Nigeria is propped up by relevant petroleum companies, such as France's Total]. How can they establish effective governments if there are always issues disallowing them from doing so? Not always relevant to petroleum either, but to the diamond industry and during the Cold War due to ideological reasons. There are some Sub-saharan African governments that are progressing, but with all that non-African nations have done to impede progress it will be a difficult road, and Western aid is imperative, although it should be more selective.

I don't WISH it on them. I'm just generally indifferent to it if they bring it unto themselves through their own stupidity.No you're not. Not everyone suffering under Mugabe was responsible for bringing him to power, so it's hardly their own stupidity that's to blame. Besides, even if they were to blame, indifference to it is still a pretty heinous and inhuman act.

Seriously, name a country that was truly horrific during British rule and has now improved.
Ireland. But I wouldn't expect most people to know about that, considering the way we gloss over that part of our history in school. Of course Australia and others have 'improved', but the people that lived there were either wiped out or forcibly assimilated.

Britain. ;)
We've not improved.

The USA, India and Hong Kong seem to have worked out pretty well.

The United States has always been an exception, rather than the rule, and had the advantage of not having major racial issues [whites have always been the majority ... well, until recently or very soon] and had the advantage of having no natural resources that foreign powers fought over. The United States was also able to establish a large enough army to guarantee sovereignty and protect its interests, while its potential colonizers were too far away [remember that the technology which existed during the colonial period in the Americas was radically different from that during the 1850s+; especially with the introduction of widespread use of coal powered ships].

Hong Kong is a small city that was of strategic value to Great Britain as a trade area; this isn't the true for African states - two different scenarios.

India 'working out' is up for debate, since the majority of the impoverished population probably disagrees with you. It's similar to 'China working out'.

Ireland. But I wouldn't expect most people to know about that, considering the way we gloss over that part of our history in school.

Bless.

At least someone recognises it and so long as a few do, there's hope for your education system after all ;)

Stop supporting either way and let them solve their own problems...

Stop poking our noses in others business...

Seriously, name a country that was truly horrific during British rule and has now improved.

England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, lol....:p

how to 'save' africa:

carpet bomb the **** out of it till all the little monkeys are dead, then send humans in there and develop it into a first-world nation

without the monkeys in the way to impede progress, africa can finally be made into a useful nation

I hope in the name of decency that you are not breeding or planning to breed.

Stop trying to accelerate them to a point of civilization that they, as a people, cannot achieve. A good example is South Africa, which, after changing hands from whites to blacks, has collapsed into crime and poverty.

Stop trying to accelerate them to a point of civilization that they, as a people, cannot achieve. A good example is South Africa, which, after changing hands from whites to blacks, has collapsed into crime and poverty.Police states generally deteriorate after the central authority is removed. See Iraq, Nazi Germany, or the Soviet Union for comparison.

In all seriousnes...

I think the problem with Africa is that they did not Industrialize with the rest of the world...

It has nothing to do with Race, Geography, Culture, whatever...

Its money, Money makes the world Go round...

Africa was left behind when the rest of the world Industrialized, and in todays Global Economy, Agrarian societies just cant compete, just look at others like South America and Oceania, they are dealing with the same problems, because they dont have an Industrialized Economy...

And because they are not Industrialized they do not make the amount of money that the First world Countries make, and since they dont make that kind of money, they cant afford to educate their people on the same level as a First World Nation...

And since they cannot Educate their people they cannot advance beyond a Tribal Society, and if they cannot advance beyond a Tribal Society they will be exploited by Thug Leaders and Corrupt Regimes, just as they have been for Generations...

The advancement of Nations has always been on the back of Money and Education, as a Nation became more Industrialized, it made more Money, as it made more money, more people were Educated, and as they were Educated they took more control of their government, and in turn gained more freedoms, and became more Civilized...

Africa simply didnt get to go through this process, and im afraid it may be too late...

Im not saying i have a solution, but i think that pretty much states the problem...

Well, after looking at a recent thread proposing a solution to Israel/Palestine, I've been pondering again how the world might act to improve the conditions in its perhaps darkest corner: sub-Saharan Africa. This reminded me of a couple earlier discusions I had with my Mom and Brother. She insisted that the world had to do something after reading about the utter anarchy that is the Congo, and the routine rapes taking place there at the hands of various armed groups, some of whom no longer even seem to be fighting for any real cause. My brother and I pointed out that this would involve massive military intervention in an environment that would make Iraq look tame, and my brother suggested that each country should agree to take a certain number of people from Africa until everyone had been relocated to other nations and the waring factions had been separated.

Of course leaving aside the unwillingness of some people to leave, this would require governments to act in an utterly implausibly selfless manner. However, these discussions got me thinking: what could the world's governments do, had they the moral strength and political will, to fix the problems in Africa? Please post your own suggestions. When you here stories of the horrors taking place in these countries, how do you think governments should respond? How would you if you were in power?

I hope to see some serious suggestions. We may not be able to do much, but I'd like to know what people think should be done. Such a tragedy cannot be ignored.

The solution to save Africa is simple. Recolonisation. Give it back to the Europeans. We held it together once. We can do it again. And if luck is on our side we can exploit its resources for profit.

The solution to save Africa is simple. Recolonisation. Give it back to the Europeans. We held it together once. We can do it again. And if luck is on our side we can exploit its resources for profit.

Oh yes, hooray. Let's go back and shoot all the natives who resist and then exploit those who didn't for our own profit.

Disgusting. No bloody wonder most African nations can't get on their feet, colonialism screwed them over.

The solution to save Africa is simple. Recolonisation. Give it back to the Europeans. We held it together once. We can do it again. And if luck is on our side we can exploit its resources for profit.One would assume that the failure to turn Africa into a paradise the first time this was suggested would be clue enough that it doesn't work...

Yeah, we saw how well that worked out didn't we? You know, every thing the Brits touch turns to shit.
...

It only collapsed after they launched a unilateral declaration of independence after we refused to grant them independence on the grounds that it kept black people out of the government.

After that, the sanctions started, then ZANLA and ZIPRA became increasingly active as the plight of the black population of Rhodesia became increasingly bad due to the Rhodies' increasing desperation and decreasing ethical standards.

Basically.
Why they colonized half the world is beyond me.
Because we could, and it was politically, militarily and economically valuable to do so. Obviously.

India 'working out' is up for debate, since the majority of the impoverished population probably disagrees with you. It's similar to 'China working out'.

Both nations are just fine. Their societies merely chose different priorities over the last two centuries- large families over long term economic growth. An India with 400 million people would be a nation with an economy on par with the United States. An India with 1200 million is a nation dragged down by 800 million more people than its land, environment, and natural resources should support if the goal is an American style economy. These nations chose a large, impoverished population- respect the choice.

Granted, China is steering things the other way. Priorities change.

I honestly can't think of one truly solid democracy in Africa.
Why does anybody care about this?

If the countries are reasonably well run, see the north African states, then a bit of authoritarianism here and there doesn't really matter, does it?

Authoritarianism is bad when the country is also really poorly run, see Uganda under Amin etc., because you can't dislodge the extremely pish leadership.

When they're doing alright, then meh imo.
I thought Kenya until recently.
Kenya is solidly democratic. There were large amounts of completely crazy civil unrest after the elections, but they were fair and all of that.
The northern states are autocratic
Feh. They're doing alright.
and South Africa is as corrupt as hell.
It's just generally a complete clusterfuck. Apartheid was terrible. The aftermath has been ostensibly fairer, but the situation hasn't really become that much better overall.
There are still white Zimbabweans?
Aye, see their cricket team and quite a few of their most successful businessmen.
If I was a white African, I would have hightailed the hell out of there to the UK or Australia or something.
We didn't want the Rhodies. Most of them were a bit thuggish, to be quite honest. Got a reputation about them for that.

Both nations are just fine. Their societies merely chose different priorities over the last two centuries- large families over long term economic growth. An India with 400 million people would be a nation with an economy on par with the United States. An India with 1200 million is a nation dragged down by 800 million more people than its land, environment, and natural resources should support if the goal is an American style economy. These nations chose a large, impoverished population- respect the choice.

Granted, China is steering things the other way. Priorities change.I disagree with that assessment. India tried relatively unsuccessfully to implement measures to reduce population growth (forced sterilization, education, etc.). The reason why it worked in China is because China is not a democracy and need not heed the opinions of this group of people called "voting population".

One would assume that the failure to turn Africa into a paradise the first time this was suggested would be clue enough that it doesn't work...

The issue is not, did Europeans turn it into a paradise. The issue is, what was it when they found it, what did they bring, what was it when they left.

The "Noble Savage" is a myth. Pre-technological civilizations are not naked people picking berries and dancing naked in Eden. It is a medical nightmare with most Humans more or less colonized by worms. It is constant low level warfare. The uncivilized tribes of Papua have a murder rate that makes Iraq look like a holiday paradise by comparison. It corresponds pretty well to the Amazon tribes in Brazil, and tribes in Africa. Normal.

All this discussion on Zimbabwe/Rhodesia, and yet no one has brought up the fact that the first European settlers there were invited in, because the local Africans there were getting slaughtered by other Africans with spears, and figured these weird white people with their boom sticks could do something about it.

Africans have no desire to return to pre-colonial lifestyles. They want something ahead, not behind.

I wish we could wave a magic wand and make it go away, but it's not that simple. The problem, I think, is that Africa is too overpopulated for its own good.The world can and has been giving them aid to tide them over, but it's useless unless the Africans can feed themselves.

I disagree with that assessment. India tried relatively unsuccessfully to implement measures to reduce population growth (forced sterilization, education, etc.). The reason why it worked in China is because China is not a democracy and need not heed the opinions of this group of people called "voting population".
Genau. Hence why China will be better off in the long run.

The issue is not, did Europeans turn it into a paradise. The issue is, what was it when they found it, what did they bring, what was it when they left.

The "Noble Savage" is a myth. Pre-technological civilizations are not naked people picking berries and dancing naked in Eden. It is a medical nightmare with most Humans more or less colonized by worms. It is constant low level warfare. The uncivilized tribes of Papua have a murder rate that makes Iraq look like a holiday paradise by comparison. It corresponds pretty well to the Amazon tribes in Brazil, and tribes in Africa. Normal.

All this discussion on Zimbabwe/Rhodesia, and yet no one has brought up the fact that the first European settlers there were invited in, because the local Africans there were getting slaughtered by other Africans with spears, and figured these weird white people with their boom sticks could do something about it.

Africans have no desire to return to pre-colonial lifestyles. They want something ahead, not behind.One of the major arguments in favor of colonization was that the locals needed to be civilized. One of the major arguments in favor of recolonization is that the locals need to be civilized. That people can't see that Europeans aren't particularly successful (see most former colonies) at civilizing is pretty retarded.

I disagree with that assessment. India tried relatively unsuccessfully to implement measures to reduce population growth (forced sterilization, education, etc.). The reason why it worked in China is because China is not a democracy and need not heed the opinions of this group of people called "voting population".

So we have to draw a distinction here, India, meaning the Indian government, and India meaning the people. You are saying that India (the government) tried to reduce the population, but the efforts were defeated because India (the people) chose otherwise.

And yet, as a Democracy, India (the people) empowered India (the government) to make that effort.

Is it any wonder people in non-Democracies never seem to understand how Democracies actually work?

All this discussion on Zimbabwe/Rhodesia, and yet no one has brought up the fact that the first European settlers there were invited in, because the local Africans there were getting slaughtered by other Africans with spears, and figured these weird white people with their boom sticks could do something about it.
Eh, no, the Portuguese sort of blundered in, stuck around for a bit without really doing anything, then left. Then the British got there and we bought the mining rights. And then realised that the best mines had been depleted already and as such it was then started off as a wide expanse of good farming land.

Eh, no, the Portuguese sort of blundered in, stuck around for a bit without really doing anything, then left. Then the British got there and we bought the mining rights. And then realised that the best mines had been depleted already and as such it was then started off as a wide expanse of good farming land.

That would be the European reason for Using their Boom Sticks to defeat the evil Spear Wielders...

the point still stands that the Tribal Leaders invited them there, sold those mines, and later the farmland, and later the people themselves...

The blame falls, with the Thug Lord leaders, as it continues to do so today...

One of the major arguments in favor of colonization was that the locals needed to be civilized. One of the major arguments in favor of recolonization is that the locals need to be civilized. That people can't see that Europeans aren't particularly successful (see most former colonies) at civilizing is pretty retarded.


You are confusing relative and absolute standards.

The institutions the Europeans left behind in most of the world are far superior to those that existed when colonialism began.

I would call that particularly successful.

Yes, corruption is rampant in most of these places- but was corruption (the use of political power to favor friends and family) more or less in the pre-colonial societies they encountered? I would say that in a pre-modern society, what we call corruption is in fact the social norm for government. (Hereditary Monarchy is, after all, an extreme form of corruption)

The Chinese invented the idea that merit, not fealty, should be used to select public officials, but this idea reached most of the world through Europe. If Africa has been slow to pick it up, do not blame Europeans, because without them the idea might not have reached Africa at all.

That would be the European reason for Using their Boom Sticks to defeat the evil Spear Wielders...
I was unaware that killing people with muskets made it less evil than doing the same with a spear...
the point still stands that the Tribal Leaders invited them there, sold those mines, and later the farmland, and later the people themselves...
Not actually true for half of those, and only half-true for the other two.

1) Some of the tribal leaders asked for assistance by the Portuguese. Some didn't. Obviously. And none of them asked for Rhodes to come in.

2) The mining rights were sold because Rhodes and the BSAC made verbal promises about the amount of white people in to run the mines which weren't reflected in the written, binding contract.

3) The farmland was more taken than bought.

4) The people were never sold.

I was unaware that killing people with muskets made it less evil than doing the same with a spear...



Wasnt saying it was less evil...Just saying that was why they were invited in...

Wasnt saying it was less evil...Just saying that was why they were invited in...
More to the point, they had a trained army. Wouldn't have mattered if they were using clubs, they still had more discipline than most of the tribal forces.

The problem, I think, is that Africa is too overpopulated for its own good.The world can and has been giving them aid to tide them over, but it's useless unless the Africans can feed themselves.


Aid has become self destructive, and while it exists, Africa will never be able to feed itself. It is now easier in much of Africa to beg from the West than to farm. The work is less demanding, the pay is better and more consistent. And the farmer's prices cannot compete with the free food handout- so the farmer has no choice but to drop the plow and join the begging line.

Tragically, it is even easier to be a robber. In Africa, Western aid has made brigandry a win-win scenario: The robber gets food, the victim gets to back to the begging line, even more pathetic and desperate than before, and get further aid. (Unless of course, the robber also indulged in murder)

My contemplated, probably not realistic solution: Aid should not be given in the form of food to feed the hungry. Aid should be given in the form of security, to prevent the robbery, and also to make farming a profitable career. When farming is lucrative, people will farm. People are amazingly versatile and enthusiastic when reward is involved.

And yet, as a Democracy, India (the people) empowered India (the government) to make that effort.

No. The forced-sterilization efforts were under the Indira Gandhi regime while she was suppressing democracy and trying to keep herself in power regardless of whether the people still wanted her or not.

WRT Zimbabwe, it is better to assassinate one small tyrant than to curse the darkness.

We could leave them the fuck alone. It might just work, it certainly hasn't been tried yet.
you mean like isolationism?
would not work, because many materials the 'modernised' or western world uses comes from Africa, it would damage many markets etc.

We've not improved.
not true in all areas of Britain, don't believe all those horror stories the newspapers pump out mean Britain is going to hell.

What some folks don't realise is not all of Africa is going to hell, and if they do struggle it's not like they'l take it lying down. people don't work like that.
Also there's lots of issues in the rest of the world to deal with.
Problem would be solved faster if there wasn't class, gender, race boundries.

The number one impediment to progress in Africa is AIDS. It kills the working-age population, destabilizes entire economies and governments, and magnifies the effect of malaria and other diseases. Until we can meaningfully contain it, most other measures we take are just going to be an endless drain on our resources.

Would armed intervention in situations like Rwanda and Sudan end up in a quagmire like Iraq? personally I think that if there is one time that war is not only justified but necessary, its when faced with genocide, and the west disgraces it self by turning a blind eye in these circumstances. But we really don't want more Iraq like messes.

Also, might an Obama presidency make more of a priority of helping Africa, since he has family there, and has been so involved in helping poor people in America in the past?

Would armed intervention in situations like Rwanda and Sudan end up in a quagmire like Iraq?
No, it would end up in a quagmire like Somalia :p

When you say "save Africa". I ask, from whom?

All this talk about saving them presuppose
1) They are in "trouble"
2) They want to be "saved"
3) The western type of government and lifestyle is somehow right for them and can be helicoptered in there


I would subscribe that
A) They are not in trouble. This is how Africa is supposed to be. Tribal warfares have been their staple for longer than the Roman Empire.

B) They don't want to be saved. The more you meddle, you more they get messed up.

C) See B