Dieoff starting in Africa

Post by **clv101** » 11 Jul 2011, 19:55

Yes, Snailed off, very reasonable.

2 As and a B · Post by **2 As and a B** » 11 Jul 2011, 19:55

Seems very reasonable to me. We can only put our own house in order (to do otherwise is colonialism of one kind or another) and, as I said before, everyone dies sooner or later.

JavaScriptDonkey · Post by **JavaScriptDonkey** » 11 Jul 2011, 19:56

DominicJ wrote:Ah yes, Africa would be paradise were it not for the evil white cartels that control the price of everything.

Mein Kampf is well reasoned compared with theb tosh you lot come out with.

I have to agree.

No one (I hope) is doubting the heinous barbarism that was waged in the war for profit by the European Empires in Africa. Belgium and Portugal have particular crosses to bear but no one is totally clean.

I also hope that no one is devolving this to a race issue.

I took from her comments that when a dispassionate but fundamentally honest and efficient Western culture ran things then the lives of ordinary people were safe and stable. When that bureaucracy was replaced by locals they came with their own axes to grind.

2 As and a B · Post by **2 As and a B** » 11 Jul 2011, 19:59

Oh, I think the colonialists were quite adept at playing one group off against another.

2 As and a B · Post by **2 As and a B** » 11 Jul 2011, 20:08

JavaScriptDonkey wrote:No one (I hope) is doubting the heinous barbarism that was waged in the war for profit by the European Empires in Africa. Belgium and Portugal have particular crosses to bear but no one is totally clean.

Leaving comment from today's Zambian nurse (late 50s) to a question about the reputation of the British in Zambia. "They tried to help the people."

JavaScriptDonkey · Post by **JavaScriptDonkey** » 11 Jul 2011, 20:20

2 As and a B wrote:
JavaScriptDonkey wrote:No one (I hope) is doubting the heinous barbarism that was waged in the war for profit by the European Empires in Africa. Belgium and Portugal have particular crosses to bear but no one is totally clean.
Leaving comment from today's Zambian nurse (late 50s) to a question about the reputation of the British in Zambia. "They tried to help the people."

I think most of the really nasty stuff happened before WW1. If you want to have nightmares then Google for Belgian Congo atrocities and Leopold II.

Later on the British Empire looks almost benign.

2 As and a B · Post by **2 As and a B** » 11 Jul 2011, 20:27

Quite agree, as would anyone who has looked into what King Leopold did in the Congo.

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/congo-wh ... ack-death/

I have a particular fondness for Congolese rumba (from both Congos) - some of the most joyful, vibrant music ever made. Likewise Haiti.

But I asked about "reputation."

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 11 Jul 2011, 20:34

Here's a piece by Felicity Lawrence. She has written extensively about food and agriculture over the years and has, I believe, a sound grasp of the subject. The article appeared about a month ago and talks of the role of the big firms, ADM, Bunge, Cargill and Dreyfus (the ABCD Group) in running the world by controlling most of the worlds grain trade and a lot more besides.

If you're on a scapegoat hunt go for today's real villains instead.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 11 Jul 2011, 20:36

AndySir wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote: Always somebody-else's fault, isn't it? The fact that Africa is disappearing down the toilet faster than everywhere else is entirely the responsibility of non-Africans. How can these people be expected to take responsibility for their own destiny when people like you keep blaming anybody but the Africans themselves for the problems which are endemic in Africa?
Breathtakingly contemptible... on so many levels. I think I need to step away from this board for a while.

Generalised insults and criticisms like this are pointless. You are expressing your contempt, but you aren't expressing why you find what I wrote contemptible. As a result, nobody knows what you mean and I can't meaningfully respond.

Lord Beria3 · Post by **Lord Beria3** » 11 Jul 2011, 20:49

The fatal flaw of the colonialist argument is that it doesn't explain Singapore... anather UK colony which has done staggeringly well since independence.

Whilst it isn't entirely Africa's fault - nobody is saying that - the lack of development has been hugely hampered by the boom in population and a fatal lack of governance.

Both of these factors are to a certain degree the direct responsibility of the African people - for not curtailing their breeding and tolerating shitty governments for decades.

Where is the African Spring? A fatal love of the 'Big Man' has crushed development.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 11 Jul 2011, 22:18

Lord Beria3 wrote:the lack of development has been hugely hampered by the boom in population

Singapore's population density is 7,125 per km^2, making it the 3rd most densely populated nation on the planet.

Even more densely populated is Monaco at 16,406 per km^2. This happens to be the richest nation with a GDP per person of $197,590 (the UK is $46k).

Population and poverty do not correlate well.

Data source, the rather interesting map in last Friday's Guardian, downloadable at http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog ... outh-sudan

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 11 Jul 2011, 22:35

biffvernon wrote:
Lord Beria3 wrote:the lack of development has been hugely hampered by the boom in population
Singapore's population density is 7,315 per km^2, making it the 3rd most densely populated nation on the planet.

With a very low crime rate, relatively low corruption rates and a reasonably low poverty rate.

Why the big difference, Biff? Why is everywhere that is ruled by black people a hell-hole of corruption, violence and poverty? Why does the same not apply to non-black countries which were once colonies?

Or do you think I am simply imagining a load of differences which don't exist.....?

If you doubt that Africa is being horribly mismanaged, you just have to look at the attitude of other African leaders to the problem that is Robert Mugabe. Mugabe is insane, power-crazed and just about as corrupt as it is possible to be. He has taken his country from being the breadbasket of Africa to being the basketcase of Africa. But he has only managed to survive because of the persistent unwillingness of other African leaders to do anything to undermine him. On the contrary, they have consistently supported him. Why? Because most of them are only slightly less corrupt and incompetent than Mugabe is, and they know that if they move against Mugabe then somebody might start pointing fingers in their direction.

None of this has got anything to do with the legacy of white colonial rule and neither does it have anything to do with the actions of present-day developed nations with respect to Africa. The problem is African cultural standards and African inabilities to adapt to a more modern, less corrupt way of doing things. The Africans wanted to do it their way and now you can see the results.

Stop making excuses for them.

Ludwig · Post by **Ludwig** » 11 Jul 2011, 22:41

UndercoverElephant wrote: Why the big difference, Biff? Why is everywhere that is ruled by black people a hell-hole of corruption, violence and poverty? Why does the same not apply to non-black countries which were once colonies?

I'll say this for you UE, you're not scared of subverting some stereotypes of hippies :\

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 11 Jul 2011, 23:01

Ludwig wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote: Why the big difference, Biff? Why is everywhere that is ruled by black people a hell-hole of corruption, violence and poverty? Why does the same not apply to non-black countries which were once colonies?
I'll say this for you UE, you're not scared of subverting some stereotypes of hippies :\

Well, I look like a hippy, smoke like a hippy, have the metaphysical beliefs of a hippy and a hippy's love of the natural world. But I'm also a realist, and the hippy revolution failed the year I was born.

postie · Post by **postie** » 11 Jul 2011, 23:43

2 As and a B wrote:Seems very reasonable to me. We can only put our own house in order (to do otherwise is colonialism of one kind or another) and, as I said before, everyone dies sooner or later.

Except Cliff Richard.

And Clive Dunn.