Meanwhile, in Congo

[Elind]

Apologist of what ? (don't bother, I've got a good idea of what you're implying, every person trying to put the situation in Africa in perspective is called an apologist of the atrocities committed there by the apologists of colonization and of the bigoted view of Africans as retarded, just like those doubting the necessity of the war in Iraq can be called a Saddam's atrocities apologist).

This is what comes from trying to have a rational discussion? I didn't say they were retarded, which is a typical knee jerk reaction from retarded apologists who have no concept of responsibility for self.

They are in a rut, as defined by tribal conditions and traditions. I understand the difficulty in breaking out of that mold; it means challenging everything one has ever known, and everything in one's history. You are an ass trying to make my comments a disgusting racist comment and have my contempt for being the type who does so at the slightest disagreement or simple misunderstanding. But you thought you understood perfectly well; didn't you?

 

[Flo]

This is what comes from trying to have a rational discussion? I didn't say they were retarded, which is a typical knee jerk reaction from retarded apologists who have no concept of responsibility for self.

They are in a rut, as defined by tribal conditions and traditions. I understand the difficulty in breaking out of that mold; it means challenging everything one has ever known, and everything in one's history. You are an ass trying to make my comments a disgusting racist comment and have my contempt for being the type who does so at the slightest disagreement or simple misunderstanding. But you thought you understood perfectly well; didn't you?

Your contempt is nothing, especially since I've seen you distribute it liberally all over this forum at the first sign of disagreement with your positions.

Furthermore, you reiterate a typical (disgustingly racist) cliché directed at Africans: "They are in a rut, as defined by tribal conditions and traditions", which conveniently ignores that Africa (and other colonies the world over) has been for almost four hundred years defined by the conditions set by colonisation, one of the first being to destroy all of the original civilisations, cultures, traditions, and governments, and replacing them by arbitrary rules at the benefit of the colonizers, then negating there ever were some. Given the fact that most of those rules were enforced by brute force, either directly or by proxy, responsibility for the current disastrous situation doesn't repose on the Africans alone.

 

[Flo]

Let 'em play. Water will find its own level.

I'm afraid that given the current mess (and all those puting oil on the fires), we can only expect a rather low lever ...

If the lines on the map are wrong, then they need to redraw them. Funny old thing, it often takes a war to do that.

Which was pointed to the colonizers at the time of the first struggles for independence. Those doing the pointing were at best ignored, at worse murdered (Felix Moumié, Lumumba, ...).

The Brits were a bit better at leaving a good structure in place than their French, Spanish, and Portuguese brothers in Imperialism, but there is still that thorny problem of the lines on the map . . .

The Brits left better structures in some countries (India, Kenya, ...), but no better than the French otherwise. Both systematically left in place corrupt governments and economic structures they could keep manipulating into favouring "mother country's" interests. Both systematically played one ethnic/religious group, or caste, against another, leading in great part to the dreadful mess we're seeing now in many parts of Africa.

This of course doesn't absolve the Mobutu or the Bongo of the continent from their crimes of pillaging whatever positive remained from colonisation time, but it explains how they were made so easy ...

 

[Elind]

Your contempt is nothing, especially since I've seen you distribute it liberally all over this forum at the first sign of disagreement with your positions.

Furthermore, you reiterate a typical (disgustingly racist) cliché directed at Africans: "They are in a rut, as defined by tribal conditions and traditions", which conveniently ignores that Africa (and other colonies the world over) has been for almost four hundred years defined by the conditions set by colonisation, one of the first being to destroy all of the original civilisations, cultures, traditions, and governments, and replacing them by arbitrary rules at the benefit of the colonizers, then negating there ever were some. Given the fact that most of those rules were enforced by brute force, either directly or by proxy, responsibility for the current disastrous situation doesn't repose on the Africans alone.

Please, try to debate without throwing out the racist commentary all the time.

I express my opinions, some people take offense when they don't see agreement, like you do.

I have already said that the colonization process, which is one that humanity has performed for all of known history, did not design borders with a view to nation building in the future. So? In some cases it worked better than others; in central and southern Africa there were in that time period no real "civilizations" in the modern sense. There were a multitude of relatively small tribal groups with loosely defined territories within the areas now called nations, and those same loyalties still supersede national identities to a large extent. Hence corruption, nepotism and favoritism by whoever is in power.

Why do insist on calling that a racist statement (which is a far worse insult than the apologist I call you) and why do you insist on blaming all their ills on others?

 

[Flo]

Please, try to debate without throwing out the racist commentary all the time.

I express my opinions, some people take offense when they don't see agreement, like you do.

I have already said that the colonization process, which is one that humanity has performed for all of known history, did not design borders with a view to nation building in the future. So? In some cases it worked better than others; in central and southern Africa there were in that time period no real "civilizations" in the modern sense. There were a multitude of relatively small tribal groups with loosely defined territories within the areas now called nations, and those same loyalties still supersede national identities to a large extent. Hence corruption, nepotism and favoritism by whoever is in power.

Why do insist on calling that a racist statement (which is a far worse insult than the apologist I call you) and why do you insist on blaming all their ills on others?

Because the statement is absolutely not true: there were states and nations with well defined territories, governments, and laws (Kongo, Bakuba, along the Zaire river, for example, and others in various countries) before first the Portuguese, then the other colonizers, came and systematically destroyed whatever they could find, then claimed they found uncivilized and semi-deserted lands. Corruption, nepotism, segregation, and favoritism, together with land graft and other discutable practices, were the order of the day by the colonizers for ~ 400 years.

It is therefore unsurprising that the next generation of corrupt leaders keep doing what proved so profitable over the centuries, especially with the help of various governments and corporations that can profit from the mess.

In the meantime, the local civilian populations have no choice but to follow whoever is wielding the bigger stick, since there's obviously not many carrots on offer. There's nothing to do with national or even tribal loyalty (try to talk with a Congolese who sees a new troup walking through his/her town every 6 months...).

Things will start to change only when the former colonizers insist on good governance, and use whatever levers they have - and they do have some, the crooks that lead so many African countries keep their money there -, instread of treating Africa as their "pré carré", Africans like big children who "until now were outside History, living at the rythm of their fields" like this idiot Sarkozy dared say recently, after visiting his "good friend" Omar Bongo, one of the most corrupt dictator in Western Africa.

 

[Elind]

Interesting that I see no apology for calling me a racist. No matter, I find it a common fall back in some circles.

Because the statement is absolutely not true: there were states and nations with well defined territories, governments, and laws (Kongo, Bakuba, along the Zaire river, for example, and others in various countries) before first the Portuguese, then the other colonizers, came and systematically destroyed whatever they could find, then claimed they found uncivilized and semi-deserted lands. Corruption, nepotism, segregation, and favoritism, together with land graft and other discutable practices, were the order of the day by the colonizers for ~ 400 years.

Do you think that none of that existed before? Are you one of those who read too much about the "Noble Savage" from Mead? All societies have had laws, always. One of the advantages many of those you quote received when the European came was raiding nearby tribes (within their nation as you call it) to provide slaves for the Europeans to pick up on the coasts. Give me a break with the naivety please.

It is therefore unsurprising that the next generation of corrupt leaders keep doing what proved so profitable over the centuries, especially with the help of various governments and corporations that can profit from the mess.

It is therefore also surprising that one of the previously most successful nations in Africa, now called Zimbabwe, is also now one of the poorest dysfunctional on the planet and perhaps not because of the "tribalism" I quoted, but because of the most blatant racism. No doubt you have an apology for that too.

In the meantime, the local civilian populations have no choice but to follow whoever is wielding the bigger stick, since there's obviously not many carrots on offer. There's nothing to do with national or even tribal loyalty (try to talk with a Congolese who sees a new troup walking through his/her town every 6 months...).

There are always choices. Did your parents not teach you that? Perhaps not yet? If not there is a reason why and it has to do with culture, or lack of one. You can assign blame elsewhere if you wish, and probably will, but I say that history shows that it can only work itself out in messy time.

Things will start to change only when the former colonizers insist on good governance, and use whatever levers they have - and they do have some, the crooks that lead so many African countries keep their money there -, instread of treating Africa as their "pré carré", Africans like big children who "until now were outside History, living at the rythm of their fields" like this idiot Sarkozy dared say recently, after visiting his "good friend" Omar Bongo, one of the most corrupt dictator in Western Africa.

Apology again. Always someone else's fault or responsibility. Where did you stand on sanctions against Iraq? You know, the one killing millions of children. That was a lever was it not?

That it may be "plus ca change plus ce'st la meme chose" to some Frenchmen is simply a fact of life which assigns no absolution of responsibility on a people. I believe, as a little lesson for example, that some 600,000 Americans died in the civil war in order to define what is America today.

You think it is everyone else's responsibility whenever an African dies by their neighbor's hand?

Your triviality is irritating to the extreme. (Is that what you mean by knowing what you have seen of my comments elesewhere?)

 

[Gurdur]

Your triviality is irritating to the extreme.

The fact that we don't share your bigotry may seem irritatingly trivial to you. But OTOH, let's face it, your kind of bigotry is becoming ever more unsuccessful in this world as history and humanity progresses, so quite possibly it's your attitudes which end up in the garbage bin of history's trivia, not us.
Cheers.

 

[Elind]

The fact that we don't share your bigotry may seem irritatingly trivial to you. But OTOH, let's face it, your kind of bigotry is becoming ever more unsuccessful in this world as history and humanity progresses, so quite possibly it's your attitudes which end up in the garbage bin of history's trivia, not us.
Cheers.

Can we please have a vote on who WE are in this matter?

I would really like to ask how many support this little person, whoever it is.

Anyone care to stand up?

I have my fingers crossed.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's either "Nature" or "Nurture." Elaborating on either premise will get you a reputation as a racist.

If you elaborate without sufficient evidence to support your position, perhaps.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

I venture that they would be much better off if the colonizers had stayed longer.

Spoken like an apologist for the other side.

If it was so wonderful, why is rebellion against colonial rulers so common?

I think what you are minimizing in your version of reality is the role the powerful play in the exploitation of the colonized whether it be slave labor, unrestrained (IE free of paying the cost of) pollution, or simple removal and profit from resources while only paying off an elite few and never reinvesting any profits from a country's natural resources back into the country's infrastructure.

Yes, poor countries do need partnerships in order to gain capital investments or they might never be able to utilize their natural resources. If only big corporations would have recognized there was more to be gained by raising the standard of living of the poor themselves, thus creating more customers, than there was to be gained from simple exploitation, the world would look quite different today. But big corporations didn't and the world doesn't.

I think your version of reality says a lot about why you believe the things you do. Do you really think the Western world brought civilization to the 'backward peoples' of the world? If so, that is an extremely ignorant point of view.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Europe was torn by wars that lasted hundred of years.
Hitler was not an African guy..

And neither was Stalin or Mussolini.

Histories' despots come in all colors.

From Hitler to Hussein, Napoleon to Pol Pot, Alexander the Great to Idi Amin – ...

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This is what comes from trying to have a rational discussion? I didn't say they were retarded, which is a typical knee jerk reaction from retarded apologists who have no concept of responsibility for self.....You are an ass trying to make my comments a disgusting racist comment and have my contempt for being the type who does so at the slightest disagreement or simple misunderstanding. But you thought you understood perfectly well; didn't you?

Using slogans like "apologist" is the quickest way to ignore any of the bad that one's own country may have contributed to another. We may not be all bad, but ignoring what bad is there is foolish.

They are in a rut, as defined by tribal conditions and traditions. I understand the difficulty in breaking out of that mold; it means challenging everything one has ever known, and everything in one's history.

I take it you haven't traveled much.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Please, try to debate without throwing out the racist commentary all the time.

I express my opinions, some people take offense when they don't see agreement, like you do.

I have already said that the colonization process, which is one that humanity has performed for all of known history, did not design borders with a view to nation building in the future. So? In some cases it worked better than others; in central and southern Africa there were in that time period no real "civilizations" in the modern sense. There were a multitude of relatively small tribal groups with loosely defined territories within the areas now called nations, and those same loyalties still supersede national identities to a large extent. Hence corruption, nepotism and favoritism by whoever is in power.

Why do insist on calling that a racist statement (which is a far worse insult than the apologist I call you) and why do you insist on blaming all their ills on others?

Elind, you have posted the most racist comments here so far. Really, get out of the country once in a while and don't stay in a tourist hotel. Intelligent and stupid people are rather evenly distributed. Circumstances are not.

 

[gumboot]

And before you brush off everything else I post, Bill Clinton did almost no better in this particular region of the world, though one has to note he did send troops to Somalia and the public back home said, "no, bring the soldiers back".

When there were starving children in Somalia on the American TV news, there was sort of a public outcry to do something. Then in trying to help, our soldiers were attacked. Americans had this idea we were going to go in and assist with food deliveries. Instead we found ourselves in the middle of a cruel and violent culture. That wasn't what the public expected when they urged Clinton to go ahead and take action. And the resulting BlackHawk downed was too much to take.

Of course the Republican leadership acted in their own best interest instead of the country's and promoted their usual blame Clinton for anything and everything but that's a side track. It did, however, result in the public focusing almost entirely on Clinton's actions instead of the humanitarian crisis which preceded it. I'm sure the Somalia mess is one reason you see almost no public push for action in Darfur.

Actually it was George Bush who sent troops into Somalia under UNITAF (25,000 US troops). It was Clinton's withdrawal of most of the US troops in May 1993 which led to the dismal UNOSOM II, which in turn caused the social break down that led to Admiral Howe requesting Task Force Ranger, which in turn led to the Battle of Mogadishu and total withdrawal of US troops from UNOSOM II.

Somalia was starting to get stable until Clinton withdrew the 25,000 US Marines deployed there.

-Gumboot

 

[Flo]

Interesting that I see no apology for calling me a racist. No matter, I find it a common fall back in some circles.

I don't know if you are a racist, but you're systematically repeating typical racist comments used since at least the 19th century by the apologists of colonisation, while showing a lack of knowledge of the history of Africa, and a pronounced tendency for personal insults ...

 

[Flo]

Elind, you have posted the most racist comments here so far. Really, get out of the country once in a while and don't stay in a tourist hotel. Intelligent and stupid people are rather evenly distributed. Circumstances are not.

I'm not sure he has totally realised how what he said was racist ... Could be he really believes that pre-colonisation Africa was full of naked savages living in small warring tribes, and that once the colonizers left they reverted to their time-honored customs of blindly killing each others

 

[Soapy Sam]

Overpopulation, inadequacy of traditional methods of government, inadequacy of externally imposed system, abundance of modern weapons, general shortage of McDonald's.

I knew a priest who spent all his adult life in African missions, in schools , hospitals and NGO disaster relief work. He commented once that there isn't one country in Africa ready for self government, including Egypt. That was before Burundi, Zimbabwe- and indeed before the power shift in South Africa. The extended state is a European idea. There's no a priori reason why it would work elsewhere- including the middle east. It's notable that the only mid east nation state which seems to thrive against all odds is Israel, which has western backers and to a greater extent than its neighbours, western attitudes.
Maybe it just takes longer than we would like. Hell, Maybe Watson has a point.

 

[Flo]

Overpopulation, inadequacy of traditional methods of government, inadequacy of externally imposed system, abundance of modern weapons, general shortage of McDonald's.

Overpopulation isn't a problem everywhere in Africa. Traditional methods of government disapeared with colonisation: what we're seeing now is an hybrid of the worst leftovers from colonization and of badly remembered/imagined snippets of what was before. McDonalds would certainly be an improvement over a diet of "Fou-fou"

I knew a priest who spent all his adult life in African missions, in schools , hospitals and NGO disaster relief work. He commented once that there isn't one country in Africa ready for self government, including Egypt. That was before Burundi, Zimbabwe- and indeed before the power shift in South Africa.

Given the fact that everything was done until the last minute to prevent Africans being able to govern themselves, it isn't surprising: If you make sure that a population almost never benefits from the rule of law, education, democratic elections, etc., you can't expect it to immediately grasp their finer points once you leave them to themselves ...

The extended state is a European idea. There's no a priori reason why it would work elsewhere- including the middle east. It's notable that the only mid east nation state which seems to thrive against all odds is Israel, which has western backers and to a greater extent than its neighbours, western attitudes.

Not so much a problem of western attitude as of an imposed attitude ...

Maybe it just takes longer than we would like.

Surely it will take longer than we, and Africans, would like.

 

[Elind]

I'm not sure he has totally realised how what he said was racist ... Could be he really believes that pre-colonisation Africa was full of naked savages living in small warring tribes, and that once the colonizers left they reverted to their time-honored customs of blindly killing each others

Hey guys, I really appreciate the attention, and so kind of you to suggest I know not what I say, particularly since you clearly don't.

I think it was who went back some 400 years in the list of crimes holding Africa back. I'm pretty sure they were pretty much at least semi naked small(ish) tribes routinely killing each other, just like the Europeans were doing not much earlier, if not on a larger scale at the same time.

I would like to point out to your rose tinted views that most of Africa was colonized without "war" in any real sense, and that is because the conditions were as described above.

This attitude you seem to hold that, except for colonization, they would automatically have created major nations of peace loving tribes agreeing on one common language (amongst the hundreds or thousands that they had) and live happily ever after, asking only for honest capital investment from the corrupt west, is laughable.

Your ISP is on planet earth is it not?

BTW, how come you haven't given your vote of approval to your friend Gurdur? Forgive me if I wrongly assume you are one of his ditto crowd that he imagines he has.

 

[Elind]

Apologist of what ? (don't bother, I've got a good idea of what you're implying, every person trying to put the situation in Africa in perspective is called an apologist of the atrocities committed there by the apologists of colonization and of the bigoted view of Africans as retarded, just like those doubting the necessity of the war in Iraq can be called a Saddam's atrocities apologist).

That is a classic apology for their failures. The Americas are colonies, but they are not in a comparable boat. Not always ideal in case you are tempted to state irrelevancies, but the difference is that the colonists, who had more stable structures of societies stayed. (Yes they were not nice either, but the result is better regardless).

The most advance nation in Africa proper is South Africa, because of the skills that the colonists who are still there brought with them. Zimbabwe had that too, until the racists there decided to do away with them.

I don't hear you ranting about the utterly racist regime there. Why is that? Apologist perhaps.

Also, you are dishonest to the extreme. I have NOT EVER said Africans were retarded and I don't believe so.

Europe was for a long time composed of hundreds of minor "tribal" kingdoms of one sort or another, and has been left to make its own fate. There's no reason why other continents shouldn't have had the same chance, and there's no reason to believe the world would necessary be the worse for it.

It was a long bloody and ugly process. For some strange reason you think Africa would have avoided that if left alone.

I'm afraid that the recent history of the Indian sub-continent puts those benefits in a problematic light. As for Africa, I'm afraid that governments left by colonizers are not all that structured, and have nevertheless led to countless civil and regional wars ... Again, the benefits are a little hard to see.

Governments "left" by colonizers? Governments are legal structures that are an absolute requirement for civil nations. The colonizers left the structure. The locals did with it what they pleased.

Spoken like an apologist, but given that most colonizers left in rather a hurry because they couldn't afford to keep those so well administered colonies, that's a bit rich.

Rubbish. They left because the locals naturally wanted to govern themselves and they in various degrees of sanity realized they didn't want or couldn't, fight wars to keep them, and the general consensus of the West changed. Not all left under conditions you describe, and many colonizers were by then, in their minds, natives too.

If you think they deserved to be booted out generations later, I would be interested to know how you feel about those still in the Americas, or to simplify, the illegal Mexican colonizers in the US?