The root cause of Africa's problems?

[Virus]

I refuse to accept a culture that can't do better than a tyrant ruling over poor, illiterate and angry people as equal to my own. Wouldn't even need an anthropological study to tell me that.

 

[Mark6]

You believe that some human inventions are "just plain bad" ? I think that some human inventions can easily be misused, and for other inventions we haven't found much use for. But I can't think of any that are "just plain bad".

Iron maiden.
Slavery.
Gas chambers.
Genital mutilation.

Need more examples?

It is even harder to look at a culture that one might think is "just plain bad" and recognise aspects that make it understandable that the people living that culture consider it good. It is easy to dismiss things without actually considering them, but that is not the way to understand a culture.

I am well aware than in the cultures which practice cliterodectomy it serves an important social function, and from their viewpoint is a good thing. That does not make it a good thing.

 

[Earthborn]

Iron maiden.
Slavery.
Gas chambers.
Genital mutilation.

Need more examples?

I can think of a lot of things I would consider bad, like guns and bombs, but no matter what I think of there will be people insisting the thing I consider bad is not merely not bad but actually really really good. Since there is no objective standard for what is good or bad, I can't prove them wrong.

I am well aware than in the cultures which practice cliterodectomy it serves an important social function, and from their viewpoint is a good thing. That does not make it a good thing.

The fact that we might think it is a bad thing does not make it a bad thing. You are appealing to an objective standard of good and bad that does not exist.

 

[Virus]

The fact that we might think it is a bad thing does not make it a bad thing. You are appealing to an objective standard of good and bad that does not exist.

Therefore it's not a bad thing right?

Would you like the whole world to start doing it then?

 

[Mark6]

I can think of a lot of things I would consider bad, like guns and bombs, but no matter what I think of there will be people insisting the thing I consider bad is not merely not bad but actually really really good. Since there is no objective standard for what is good or bad, I can't prove them wrong.

The fact that we might think it is a bad thing does not make it a bad thing. You are appealing to an objective standard of good and bad that does not exist.

I guess that's the difference between you and me. I think objective standards of good and bad do exist, or at least can be derived by measuring effects a given item/action/concept has on human beings.

 

[Virus]

Who's to say raping children is wrong. It's all a matter of perspective.

 

[Mark6]

I guess that's the difference between you and me. I think objective standards of good and bad do exist, or at least can be derived by measuring effects a given item/action/concept has on human beings.

Which dovetails with with this thread, also started by Humes_Fork

 

[Earthborn]

Therefore it's not a bad thing right?

With no objective moral standard then it is not a bad thing, not a good thing and also not a neutral thing.

Would you like the whole world to start doing it then?

Asking for my subjective opinion is not the same thing as showing there is an objective standard. It is entirely possible that one some issue my subjective opinion is similar to your subjective opinion, without the existence of an objective standard.

I guess that's the difference between you and me. I think objective standards of good and bad do exist, or at least can be derived by measuring effects a given item/action/concept has on human beings.

Come back when moral objectivists/realist/absolutists have organised a conference and have agreed upon some of those "objective standards of good and bad" or at the very least some standard by which such standards can be derived. Right now it seems there is very little agreement among them; almost as if all their "objective moralities" are just a bunch of opinions.

 

[TriangleMan]

Germany was after World War 2 reduced to rubble. It was far worse affected by the war than any colonialism that affected the Middle East. Yet today Germany is prosperous, the Middle East not so much (despite the oil). How can anyone suggest that culture plays no role?

Um, I would consider Qatar and the UAE as being as much as or possibly even more prosperous than Germany. The citizens of these countries live pretty enviable lives.

 

[Humes fork]

Um, I would consider Qatar and the UAE as being as much as or possibly even more prosperous than Germany. The citizens of these countries live pretty enviable lives.

Sure, there are a few exceptions, but you are looking at the details and missing the whole picture.

The citizens in these countries have way fewer political rights than Germans.

 

[bigjelmapro]

Um, I would consider Qatar and the UAE as being as much as or possibly even more prosperous than Germany. The citizens of these countries live pretty enviable lives.

As a majority, that statement holds true. Minus the upper echelon and the ex-pats that thrive in those two aforementioned countries. The distribution of wealth in the ME overall is significantly worse than seen in Germany, in addition to the most obvious issue, democratic values.

The growth in the UAE and Qatar has mostly been spurred on by oil wealth, excessive building and purchasing of IPOs, to name a few. I would not be surprised if this will implode at some point.

 

[TriangleMan]

Humes fork, let's step back a bit to the bigger issue about culture. You stated:

I'm surprised that people are reluctant to accept the role of culture in the story of a society's success or failure when it's so obvious if you look at what societies have succeeded and failed in the 20th century. . . .

Germany was after World War 2 reduced to rubble. It was far worse affected by the war than any colonialism that affected the Middle East. Yet today Germany is prosperous, the Middle East not so much (despite the oil). How can anyone suggest that culture plays no role?

There is one exception in the Middle East however, and its name is Israel. . . .

And when I pointed out two countries in the Arabian Peninsula that were very prosperous you noted . . .

Sure, there are a few exceptions, but you are looking at the details and missing the whole picture.

The citizens in these countries have way fewer political rights than Germans.

Firstly thank you for agreeing that there is more than one exception in the Middle East. Ultimately your argument was about the role of culture and how it impacts the society's success or failure and I think the Arabian Peninsula serves as an excellent example. You have some countries which have been blessed with significant wealth and small populations (Qatar, UAE). Some with a lot of wealth and either larger populations or just not as much wealth as Qatar (Kuwait, Bahrain), some with lots of wealth but a huge population (Saudi Arabia), and some that just don't have a lot of wealth (Oman, Yemen). The culture throughout the Peninsula is very similar, maybe not completely the same but I think there would be a lot less discrepancy than if you compared, say, the Portuguese to the Danes.

So in the countries that were fortunate enough to have the wealth you see them building hospitals, schools, research facilities, housing, etc, and providing their citizens with free health care, education, even utilities. And all of this with no personal taxes. The citizens are happy and prosperous. Crime rates are some of the lowest in the world.

Yes the wealth was due to oil but so what? They have it and they are wealthy. Arguing that Bill Gates would be poor if he hadn't started Microsoft doesn't mean much since he did start Microsoft and he is wealthy.

Yet Qatar and the UAE are from the same culture as Saudi Arabia and Yemen. So give an Arab culture wealth and opportunity and they’ve showed they can do great things with it. This is why I have concerns that people may be simply dismissing African problems as “culture” when different jurisdictions with similar cultures can have vastly different outcomes based on the good fortune to have something that affects the overall wealth level.

Finally, to what extent does political rights have to do with it? Many African countries started as democracies once the Europeans gave over control, yet South Africa certainly can't have been called an open country with plenty of political rights for all.

So to bring this back to Africa I think simply dismissing the entire continent's problems as due to "culture” is simplifying what has to be a very complicated issue, with a wide array of problems and factors depending on where on the continent you are talking about. African culture is not monolithic, it cannot be the main reason for the problems.

 

[Virus]

Yet Qatar and the UAE are from the same culture as Saudi Arabia and Yemen. So give an Arab culture wealth and opportunity and they’ve showed they can do great things with it.

All that stuff is done by foreigners. Ex-pats from Western countries who do the work they're too incompetent to do and South East Asians who do the work they refuse to do. If they left their society would collapse.

So an idiot who won the lottery is better off than an idiot who didn't. Big whoop.

African culture is not monolithic, it cannot be the main reason for the problems.

You can have diverse cultures that all suck.

 

[leftysergeant]

Every invention, discovery and idea in the last 500 years comes from the West.

That makes it superior. The West could do things that other cultures couldn't even dream of.

total cow cookies. We were just better-armed.

When the French controlled West Africa, they made every effort to sdee that the native cultures did not develop in the same way that the French did. They did not even allow the deevelopment of industries in the occupied countries.

Africa existed to supply France with gold and peanuts. France was expected to sell them manufactured goods in exchange for the money they made selling gold and peanuts.

Worked perfectly, for the French.

 

[Virus]

total cow cookies. We were just better-armed.

When the French controlled West Africa, they made every effort to sdee that the native cultures did not develop in the same way that the French did. They did not even allow the deevelopment of industries in the occupied countries.

Africa existed to supply France with gold and peanuts. France was expected to sell them manufactured goods in exchange for the money they made selling gold and peanuts.

Worked perfectly, for the French.

And who told you that?

 

[leftysergeant]

Kind of hard to find the author of a college text book that I last opened in 1973. I'll have to do some serious googling. It should not be hard to find, yourself, that capital had a lot more to do with it than native intellect.

The British did basicly the same thing to theAmerican colonies, but, luckily, a few of the colonists still had some capital with which to industrialize once it became legal.

BTW, do you think Ireland was poor before the introduction of potatoes because the Irish are stupid?

 

[Virus]

Why were the French in Africa and not the Africans in France? Because the French could and the Africans couldn't. Reason? Superior culture.

What does this have to do with Africa's current predicament? Not much, except to underscore the fact that the West can do things that other cultural paradigms can't.

 

[leftysergeant]

99.9% culture.

And where were those of our ancestors who made the transition from being illiterate spear-chuckers when they made the transition to civilization? Were they in contact with more advanced cultures or surrounded by backward jungle bunnies and camel jockeys?

When the Aryans met other, advanced cultures, did they come in and enhance those civilizations or did they just destroy them?

You really need to show a better grasp of history than you have shown so far.

 

[leftysergeant]

Why were the French in Africa and not the Africans in France? Because the French could and the Africans couldn't. Reason? Superior culture.FIREPOWER

fify

What does this have to do with Africa's current predicament? Not much, except to underscore the fact that the West can do things that other cultural paradigms can't.

Yeah, we can steal like a sunovbitch.

 

[Virus]

fify

Yet when the other cultures obtained weapons developed by the West they still lost to the West.

Because like you, they though it was just a matter of fire-power. And like you, they were wrong.