The root cause of Africa's problems?

[funk de fino]

Restating the claim with different words isn't proof.

If you think big oil has little influence on the plight of Nigeria (or other oil rich nations) right now then you are blind.

Do we need to link to the many fines and judgments against the oil companies and service companies for breaching the FCPA due to dealings in Africa nations?

My company ended up paying a $40,000,000 fine.

 

[Jontg]

But it's not at all unique to the Romans--that's what every successful people have done since the dawn of time, and it's what every empire ceases to do right before it starts to decline. To me, ideas are a resource, just like tin or fish--you get them by coming into contact* with as many other peoples as you can.
Think fast--what do the founders of Rome have in common with the barbarian usurpers who kept it afloat in the last few decades before the fall** of the Western Empire?

And Virus, please recalibrate your loondar. I don't mean intentionally--I mean the same way we gave them assault rifles.

*For various definitions of the word, including but not limited to post-conquest assimilation and rooting through your stuff after we kill you.
**Meaning the commonly accepted end of the line of Western Roman Emperors that goes like so: (inhales) CaesarAugustusTiberiusCaligulaClaudiusNeroGalbaOthoVitelliusVespasianTitusDomitianNervaTrajanHadrianAntoninusCommodusPertinaxDidiusSeverusCaracallaMacrinusElagabalusAlexanderMaximinusGordianIGordianIIPupienusBalbinusGordianIIIPhillipDeciusHostilianTrebonianusAemilianValerianGallienusClaudiusAurelianTacitusFlorianProbusCarusCarinusNumerianDiocletianandCoGaleriusandCoConstantineTheConstantinianSuccessionCluster****JulianJovianValentinianValensGratianValentinianIITheodosiusArcadiusHonoriusTheodosiusIIConstantiusIIIValentinianIIIMarcianMaximusAvitusMajorianLibiusAnthemiusOlybriusGlyceriusNeposandRomulus! Gah. Did I miss any?

 

[funk de fino]

It's a choice you have to make.

You make no sense.

 

[Bad Lieutenant]

Whenever I try to apply logic, critical reasoning and scientific temper to issues during public debates, I am often accused of not thinking like an African. I am always told that I think like a white man or that I have a western mentality.

Seems to me like a lot of Africans have got a chip on their shoulder about "white man culture" because of slavery.

I had a long argument with a Namibian ex-colleague of mine recently because he insisted it wasn't possible to be black and English. Stupid racist.

 

[McHrozni]

But it's not at all unique to the Romans--that's what every successful people have done since the dawn of time, and it's what every empire ceases to do right before it starts to decline.

It depends heavily on how you interpret "unique". You will be very hard pressed to find anything cultural that can be labelled "unique" this way, and the word looses all meaning.

To me, ideas are a resource, just like tin or fish--you get them by coming into contact* with as many other peoples as you can.

However unlike physical resources, ideas can be created out of thin air. In fact this is the only way they spring up in the first place. There is no limit as to how many can be created, again unlike tin or fish, nor is there any forseeable chance they will run out. Also, unlike physical resources, they are not limited by where you are (with an exception or two - Sahara, Arctic etc) but almost exclusively on how your culture operates.

And Virus, please recalibrate your loondar. I don't mean intentionally--I mean the same way we gave them assault rifles.

Are you talking about HIV?

McHrozni

 

[Jontg]

It depends heavily on how you interpret "unique". You will be very hard pressed to find anything cultural that can be labelled "unique" this way, and the word looses all meaning.

Well, that's partly my point. There's nothing terribly special about one culture or another--it's all descended from the same basic ideas, just as we're all descended from the same high school football stadium's worth of cavemen. Some get into the right position to ride the flow of history to the top, and usually they go through a few recognizable phases--almost always culminating in stagnation, when new ideas are shut out and pressing problems are kicked down the line. To me that doesn't seem like a feature of a given culture, either--it's just a phase that all cultures go through under certain stimuli.

However unlike physical resources, ideas can be created out of thin air. In fact this is the only way they spring up in the first place. There is no limit as to how many can be created, again unlike tin or fish, nor is there any forseeable chance they will run out. Also, unlike physical resources, they are not limited by where you are (with an exception or two - Sahara, Arctic etc) but almost exclusively on how your culture operates.

But they are! Trade hubs and political capitols--which are so often the same thing that I almost didn't bother to draw a distinction between the two--have far more access to foreign peoples, goods, and ideas than out-of-the-way towns. Ideas may not have weight, but until fairly recently they could only travel as fast as we could. People don't often invent new things on their own--we learn best by watching others.

I think you can describe almost any nation in the world in a bell curve based on this one trait--not that ceasing to be open to new ideas singlehandedly unmakes empires, mind you, but that it makes all your problems way, way worse. Do you remember the riddle I gave you about what the first and last rulers of Rome had in common?

 

[McHrozni]

Well, that's partly my point. There's nothing terribly special about one culture or another--it's all descended from the same basic ideas, just as we're all descended from the same high school football stadium's worth of cavemen. Some get into the right position to ride the flow of history to the top, and usually they go through a few recognizable phases--almost always culminating in stagnation, when new ideas are shut out and pressing problems are kicked down the line. To me that doesn't seem like a feature of a given culture, either--it's just a phase that all cultures go through under certain stimuli.

And I call BS on that, as I have before. The difference between Gallic natural resources and Roman ones was minimal, the difference of cross-cultural contact wasn't nearly as significant as to explain the end results. North American Indians never built a powerful empire (or indeed a settled society), despite having just about all necessary geographical factors, etc.

But they are! Trade hubs and political capitols--which are so often the same thing that I almost didn't bother to draw a distinction between the two--have far more access to foreign peoples, goods, and ideas than out-of-the-way towns. Ideas may not have weight, but until fairly recently they could only travel as fast as we could. People don't often invent new things on their own--we learn best by watching others.

As North Korea - and Korean history in general, especially if we add Japanese history - clearly demonstrates cultural traits easily trump most geographic ones.

McHrozni

 

[Jontg]

And I call BS on that, as I have before. The difference between Gallic natural resources and Roman ones was minimal, the difference of cross-cultural contact wasn't nearly as significant as to explain the end results. North American Indians never built a powerful empire (or indeed a settled society), despite having just about all necessary geographical factors, etc.

But the Gauls were still a collection of tribal societies, just like the Latins and the Etruscans were a few hundred years before. What they lacked was the catalyst--again, you have yet to answer my question. Until you understand what sets a people on the path to empire, you can't compare the two.

As North Korea - and Korean history in general, especially if we add Japanese history - clearly demonstrates cultural traits easily trump most geographic ones.

This, I admit, I don't understand--I've got a very faint understanding of Korean and Japanese history.

 

[McHrozni]

But the Gauls were still a collection of tribal societies, just like the Latins and the Etruscans were a few hundred years before. What they lacked was the catalyst

Pray tell what was that catalyst the Gauls didn't have.

again, you have yet to answer my question. Until you understand what sets a people on the path to empire, you can't compare the two.

I admit I don't know what the answer you seek might be.

This, I admit, I don't understand--I've got a very faint understanding of Korean and Japanese history.

Both nations were hermit kingdoms by choice for centuries, but the Japanese had active study groups that studied Western ways and technologies. When Japan was forced to opened up, these people were instrumental in Japans rapid rise as a military and economic power in the East.

Add North and South Koreas, both started out with the same people, North had vastly superior resources, but it chose to isolate itself and look at the two now (operative word: chose).

McHrozni

 

[Humes fork]

You make no sense.

Neither does you.

 

[Humes fork]

Seems to me like a lot of Africans have got a chip on their shoulder about "white man culture" because of slavery.

How about the still ongoing slavery in parts of the Arab world?

If you think slavery was invented by Europeans and was a uniquely European practice, you have fallen for some serious political crackpottery.

 

[Neally]

It's getting rather silly how people deny the importance of culture and blame it on colonialism and other pseudo-reasons. Observing the last few decades of development in North Korea and South Korea should tell you something.

But..but..saying that one culture is better than another is just so culturist and that's almost like being a racist.

 

[Virus]

But..but..saying that one culture is better than another is just so culturist and that's almost like being a racist.

Which amounts to saying that something is not true because you're not allowed to say it's true.

 

[Jekyll's Guest]

Africans.

Exacerbated by a bunch of other countries making money off of them.

 

[Bad Lieutenant]

How about the still ongoing slavery in parts of the Arab world?

If you think slavery was invented by Europeans and was a uniquely European practice, you have fallen for some serious political crackpottery.

You seem fond of putting words into my mouth. It's quite amusing

 

[leftysergeant]

Pray tell what was that catalyst the Gauls didn't have.

The Gauls still had a lot of sparsely-populated land into which they could move as population in one area increased. There is only so much arable land in the Mediterranian basin.

Both nations were hermit kingdoms by choice for centuries, but the Japanese had active study groups that studied Western ways and technologies. When Japan was forced to opened up, these people were instrumental in Japans rapid rise as a military and economic power in the East.

They pretrty much had to do so or submit to colonization,which was utterly unacceptable. Luckily, they already had skilled craftsmen who could deal with the technological challenges of building an industrial infrastructure.

US dealings with Japan intended tostrengthen American trading interrests in the area encouraged the Japanese to expand into the Korean Penninsula and to subjugate the Korean people. This subjugation extended to the attempt to eradicate the very Korean language.

 

[Virus]

Africans.

Exacerbated by a bunch of other countries making money off of them.

Are you saying nobody should invest in Africa? Because that's why they're poor. Nobody wants to invest in countries with corrupt institutions and weak rule-of-law when you could simply take your money to Singapore or Hong Kong.

 

[Jontg]

McH, I have to admit, you make sense. I never really thought of culture as a determining factor in these kinds of things, but the more I think about it, examples pop up all over history--especially if you consider military doctrines to be a cultural trait, which does make sense in the case of the Romans and the Gauls, whose differing styles of warfare basically boil down to differing definitions of honor and glory. As I polish up on them, I realize that they DID have the resources to outfit heavy infantry if they had ever bothered to develop them, but they emphasized personal prowess over unit cohesion--no armor, no shield walls, no real cooperation.

Africa, however, is a different story. Here's a second question for you: Africa has hosted a couple dozen empires--a few of which are noteworthy. What do most of them have in common?

Now, to answer my first question... Rome was founded by racially-mixed Latins and Etruscan nobles who were excluded from the highest rungs of both societies. Rome's last leaders--and I say leaders instead of rulers for a reason--were Germanic nobles who were likewise excluded from holding legitimate power. In both cases, the old order had calcified to the point that they rejected men who were otherwise the best and brightest on the basis of race--so the greatest men of their generation decided they'd just start their own club.