African Debt Relief

[Jon_in_london]

If you look at the recent history of Europe, it is one of continual wars and bloodshed, so I don't think that the propensity to wage war is necesarily a measuring stick for a society.

PS. 'Abo's' is the equivlent of n****er.

Im not talking about just beating up the other guy! Im taling about the formation and annihalation of entire cultures within the last 100 years.

Oops....

 

[Jon_in_london]

Irish TV did a feature on Zimbabwe last night. It looks like all the colonial guilt, apologies and aid in the world won't make a blind bit of difference there while Mugabe and his odious regime remain in power. Food was being witheld from those sections of the population out of favour with Zanu-PF, while Victoria Falls, once the cornerstone of a vibrant tourism sector was now deserted.

I've read that Botswana has bucked the economic and humanitarian trend in Sub-Saharan Africa in terms of government stability and economic growth. How true is this?

On that note:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4618341.stm

The African Union has rejected calls from the UK and the US to put pressure on Zimbabwe to stop its demolition of illegal houses and market stalls.
------------------------------------------------------------------
"South Africa refuses to accept the notion that because suddenly we're going to a G8 summit, we must be reminded that we must look good and appease the G8 leaders," he said.

"We will do things because we believe they are correct and right."

riiiiight! Personally, I'd say "no aid for you until you change your mind" Maybe not being able to aford his own private airbus would change Mbeki's mind?

But perhaps this is why

Correspondents say that many African leaders see Mr Mugabe as a hero for leading the fight against colonial rule.

Which puts it in a nutshell. Leader in sub-Saharan Africa are more interested in romatic notions of anti-colonialism and marxism than actually improving the lot of their people.

 

[Earthborn]

Just quoting somebody else who is pulling them out of their hat?

IMF

If you are making a claim about more than one African country, don't try to back it up with information about a single country and expect us to generalise from it. Just because something is true of one country doesn't mean it is true of another.

If you back up a claim you make with a multipage PDF file, at least tell us what it is we're supposed to look at.

If it is more than 2 years old, try to convince us that there is no more recent information available, or that the information still applies.

And if you complain about a Wikipedia page that is not in dispute, show that the information on it is incorrect. I know that for a lot of people complaining about the openness of Wikipedia is a handy out for anything they disagree with. But it is a fallacy: just because it is on Wikipedia does not make it untrue. Often the opposite is true: pages that are not in dispute are true more often than not. They reflect the collective knowledge of many individuals who care very much about its accuracy.

If you can prove something is incorrect, change it. If you can't prove something incorrect, don't claim or imply that it is.

 

[a_unique_person]

Im not talking about just beating up the other guy! Im taling about the formation and annihalation of entire cultures within the last 100 years.

Oops....

Hmmm, you may remember the Holocaust.

 

[zenith-nadir]

"Debt relief"....I wonder why they are in debt...

£220bn stolen by Nigeria's corrupt rulers - 25/06/2005

The scale of the task facing Tony Blair in his drive to help Africa was laid bare yesterday when it emerged that Nigeria's past rulers stole or misused £220 billion.

That is as much as all the western aid given to Africa in almost four decades. The looting of Africa's most populous country amounted to a sum equivalent to 300 years of British aid for the continent.

 

[Mycroft]

Hmmm, you may remember the Holocaust.

That doesn't refute Jon's claim:

"As to "these societies functioning well for many thousands of years" well, I question that. The human dynamics of sub-Saharan Africa were much more fluid. You may make such a claim for a hundered years but not many thousands."

I think it's easy to assume native societies "function well" because we don't learn (and it may not be recorded) their history befor Europeans came along. Therefore, we don't learn about the wars and conflicts they had that have nothing to do with us. It's this ignorance that makes it easy to romanticize indigineous cultures.

 

[Jon_in_london]

I think it's easy to assume native societies "function well" because we don't learn (and it may not be recorded) their history befor Europeans came along. Therefore, we don't learn about the wars and conflicts they had that have nothing to do with us. It's this ignorance that makes it easy to romanticize indigineous cultures.

It also fits with the left-wing anti-imperialist/anti-establishment view that the Noble Natives lived lives of peace and plenty, perfectly in tune with nature and neighbours alike, for millenia until the big bad evil white-man came along with his guns, spare-parts and money and ruined their sh!t.

It is also why lefties hate it when you point out that far from being warm, cuddly, egalitarian, idyllic little democracies- native societies (like the Zulus for example) where more often than not unstable, bloodthirsty and superstitious, run by visciously oppresive tyrants who relied on torture and frequent summarary excecutions to maintain thei grip on power......

plus ca change.....

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
It also fits with the left-wing anti-imperialist/anti-establishment view that the Noble Natives lived lives of peace and plenty, perfectly in tune with nature and neighbours alike, for millenia until the big bad evil white-man came along with his guns, spare-parts and money and ruined their sh!t.

Since our recorded histories are essentially records of wars that forced significant political changes, it's so easy to assume that those native populations with unrecorded histories (like the ones that had no written language before the Euro's introduced it to them, had no wars. Even though there is no rational basis for this conclusion, and much evidence against it.

Oh yea, "Perfectly in tune with nature" means your population dies in numbers large enough your population can't grow large enough to have an impact on the environment. Population control not through birth control, but through death.

 

[Jon_in_london]

Here's what I think, juts to give you a general idea:

The ex-colonising powers, and the post colonisation influence of the west is, in part (it depends on the country) responsible for the bad governance and policy of many African countries.

I concede "in part" but only "in part"- you seem to be saying "in entirety"

The ex colonisers left these countries with artificial borders, a habit of corruption and exploitation, and unresolved internal conflicts (in part caused by the artificial borders). The bad African governments just perpetuated and exacerbated the bad governance of the colonisers. I talk about the "bad governance" of the colonisers because, in all European colonies, politics were made for the benefit of a small european elite. All European colonies were, to different degrees, racially segregated. The African population was generally poor, ignorant and exploited. When the small European elite left, a small African elite, usually educated in the west, took their place.

I fail to see what "artifcial borders" has to do with the fact that Nigeria, for example, has embezzeled £220billion of aid. Its also worth remebering that countries like Malaysia also have "articfcial borders" but their economies arent going backwards. In fact, its worth pointing ou that all that you have said about ex-colonies in Afica also applies to ex-colonies in Asia. Yet somehow, Asia is romping ahead, with many Asian economies due to outsize many European economies in the next ten years- while African economies are heading backwards at full pelt. Your logic is thus rendered null and void!

Besides, I have been at pain to point out the vast difference between the nation-builing of the colonisers vs. the nation-destroying of Africans!

But since they were less powerful local dictators, and their power was new, these African kleptocrats were unable to control their countries as efficiently as the Europeans.

You are making excuses for inexcusable and shamless charlatans. Ever heard of 5th Brigade? Doesnt seem like they had much trouble "controlling their countries"

And then, to top it all, many of these countries became the stage for a proxy conflict between the old USSR and the west, sometimes even before complete independence (as in Angola and Mozambique). The west propped up the dictators and rebel groups on its side, the soviets supported the dictators and rebel groups on theirs.

More excuses for the inexcusable!! I guess all those Soviet spys are to blame for the poverty in Ghana, Nigeria, Malawi and Swaziland?

All you are doing is trying to blame Europe for Africa's problems. The problem rests with Africa and with Africa alone. To quote Thabo Mbeki, we need African solutions to African problems.

 

[Orwell]

I concede "in part" but only "in part"- you seem to be saying "in entirety"

No I'm not. I have repeatedly talked about "african kleptocrats".

I fail to see what "artifcial borders" has to do with the fact that Nigeria, for example, has embezzeled £220billion of aid. Its also worth remebering that countries like Malaysia also have "articfcial borders" but their economies arent going backwards. In fact, its worth pointing ou that all that you have said about ex-colonies in Afica also applies to ex-colonies in Asia. Yet somehow, Asia is romping ahead, with many Asian economies due to outsize many European economies in the next ten years- while African economies are heading backwards at full pelt. Your logic is thus rendered null and void!

Not it's not. We're talking about different parts of the world with different histories. For instance, Southeast Asia never was the victim of a large well implanted slave trade.

Besides, I have been at pain to point out the vast difference between the nation-builing of the colonisers vs. the nation-destroying of Africans!

Nation building of the colonisers! Yeah, right! Colonial society was highly hierarchical and often segregated. Europeans lived in their own compounds and quarters, while most of the "coloured" population eked out a living serving the white masters. All the infrastructures the europeans built were dedicated to the exploitation of the natural resources of their colonies. The european colonisers never had any interest in massively educating the colonised populations or in industrialising them.

You are making excuses for inexcusable and shamless charlatans. Ever heard of 5th Brigade? Doesnt seem like they had much trouble "controlling their countries"

I'm not excusing anyone. You, on the other hand, seem to be defending the colonisers.

More excuses for the inexcusable!! I guess all those Soviet spys are to blame for the poverty in Ghana, Nigeria, Malawi and Swaziland?

That's not what I said. I said "many of these countries". Every african country has it's own history. Also, it is quite hard for a country to develop itself while the surrounding countries are troubled and dirt poor. Of the top of my head, there were civil wars made worse by the cold war in Angola, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria (look into the Biafra war), Ethiopia, Somalia, Uganda, Tchad, the Central African Republic.

All you are doing is trying to blame Europe for Africa's problems. The problem rests with Africa and with Africa alone. To quote Thabo Mbeki, we need African solutions to African problems.

I'm blaming Europe for part of all the problems of Africa, yes. I've repeatedly mentioned bad african leadership too. You, on the other hand, sound like an apologist for the "good old days" of colonisation.

 

[a_unique_person]

It also fits with the left-wing anti-imperialist/anti-establishment view that the Noble Natives lived lives of peace and plenty, perfectly in tune with nature and neighbours alike, for millenia until the big bad evil white-man came along with his guns, spare-parts and money and ruined their sh!t.

It is also why lefties hate it when you point out that far from being warm, cuddly, egalitarian, idyllic little democracies- native societies (like the Zulus for example) where more often than not unstable, bloodthirsty and superstitious, run by visciously oppresive tyrants who relied on torture and frequent summarary excecutions to maintain thei grip on power......

plus ca change.....

I never made that claim, and specifically stated that they were not necessarily "my cup of tea".

As to the rest, your description of a tryant fits well with many a European specimen.

 

[Mycroft]

I never made that claim, and specifically stated that they were not necessarily "my cup of tea".

As to the rest, your description of a tryant fits well with many a European specimen.

The claim you made:

" these societies functioned well for many thousands of years."

Which I think is what Jon is contradicting when he says:

"...the Noble Natives lived lives of peace and plenty, perfectly in tune with nature and neighbours alike, for millenia until the big bad evil white-man came along with his guns, spare-parts and money and ruined their sh!t."

 

[a_unique_person]

'They functioned well' is not, to my mind, the same as saying they lived in a noble savages paradise, nor what I had claimed. As I said before, and will repeat again, 'they were not necessarily my cup of tea'. Then again, the life in Medieval England was pretty brutish at times, as well.

 

[epepke]

Not it's not. We're talking about different parts of the world with different histories. For instance, Southeast Asia never was the victim of a large well implanted slave trade.

You're slipping here. To keep in culture, you have to show that the well implanted slave trade that existed before all the Honkeys got there was somehow noble and pure and wonderful and was ruined by the Honkeys. Otherwise, it sorta kinda falls down.

 

[a_unique_person]

You're slipping here. To keep in culture, you have to show that the well implanted slave trade that existed before all the Honkeys got there was somehow noble and pure and wonderful and was ruined by the Honkeys. Otherwise, it sorta kinda falls down.

No. The slave trade that was brought upon Africa was different in magnitude. It was also accompanied with by a system of borders that had nothing to do with ethic boundaries. In many ways, Africa became a kind of massive Balkans.

 

[Orwell]

You're slipping here. To keep in culture, you have to show that the well implanted slave trade that existed before all the Honkeys got there was somehow noble and pure and wonderful and was ruined by the Honkeys. Otherwise, it sorta kinda falls down.

What do you mean? Why do I have to do that? The African slave trade was pretty ancient. But it was the slave trade with the Americas that had the greatest impact on Africa (particularly West Africa). Also, the slave trade played a very important role in shaping European attitudes towards Africans. And yes, many Africans were business intermediaries in the trade.

 

[Jon_in_london]

What do you mean? Why do I have to do that? The African slave trade was pretty ancient. But it was the slave trade with the Americas that had the greatest impact on Africa (particularly West Africa). Also, the slave trade played a very important role in shaping European attitudes towards Africans. And yes, many Africans were business intermediaries in the trade.

The Arab slave-trade also warrants a mention does it not? You know, the one the Evil White Man Colonisers(tm) fought to abolish? Or does the whole "brown people enslaved by other brown people- only to be saved by aforementinoned Evil White Man Colonisers(tm)" not quite fit with your world view?

 

[Orwell]

One last thing: as far as I know, when Europeans actually showed an interest for the "development" of the colonised populations, this interest was almost always very paternalistic and demeaning. They were "civilising the natives", turning them into good little citizens of the empire, model frenchmen or englishmen...

 

[Orwell]

The Arab slave-trade also warrants a mention does it not? You know, the one the Evil White Man Colonisers(tm) fought to abolish? Or does the whole "brown people enslaved by other brown people- only to be saved by aforementinoned Evil White Man Colonisers(tm)" not quite fit with your world view?

Oh gimme me a break! The british colonisers (the ones actually living in the colonies) were overwhelmingly against abolition! And slavery wouldn't have been abolished throughout the British empire if the Industrial Revolution hadn't taken place. Slavery survived precisely in those places where the economy was the least industrialised (like Brazil and the Southern US states).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/society_culture/protest_reform/antislavery_05.shtml

British anti-slavery was one of the most important reform movements of the 19th century. But its history is not without ironies. During the course of the 18th century the British perfected the Atlantic slave system. Indeed, it has been estimated that between 1700 and 1810 British merchants transported almost three million Africans across the Atlantic. That the British benefited from the Atlantic slave system is indisputable. Yet, paradoxically, it was also the British who led the struggle to bring this system to an end.

why did the British turn against slavery and the slave trade? Part of the reason is undoubtedly the rise of compassionate humanitarianism, particularly amongst an increasingly leisured middle class. Scholars also point to the influence of Nonconformist religion, on the one hand, and Evangelical Protestantism, on the other. But of greater significance was a shift in economic thought. In the British case slavery flourished because West Indian planters were effectively subsidised by the British taxpayer. By the late 1820s, when many Britons began to see the benefits of a world economy untrammelled by restrictions and controls, such privileges seemed outmoded and frankly unwarranted. Indeed, it is probably true to say that the British slave system was 'not so much rendered unprofitable, but by-passed by the changing economic and social order in Britain'.