Africa: How and why its current state

thefountainhed

09-05-03, 11:00 PM

erm......EDUCATE with INTERNET ?
Why? You said "urgently". Just how will the internet solve Africa's problems?

Well that was reffering to the lack of knowledge of Aids in underdeveloped parts of Africa.

Also the nations scarred by civil war need a sense of unity under the control of a RESPONSIBLE governing body headed by a sensible council.

Ok I can see how educating on AIDS can help counter theproblems with population...But how do you resolve the problems that resulted in civil war in the first place? Specific example would help greatly. thx.

Nico:
Africa the region that will never be
No? Why?

sadly the continent would have been economicly better off with white ownership. (No I am not a racist), but it is a fact. The question is why? Simple the reason why is because the borders of Africa are divised by European needs, not African. Yet we still have the borders.
So because the Europeans powers of the later 19th century partitioned Africa into regions based on resources and power, the continent would be better off under White ownership? The reasoning escapes me. For history also presents counters in South America and Europe and central Asia. Do not forget the partitionings after the breaks of the Roman empire, holy roman empires, Prussia, the soviet union, etc while at it.

I find laughable that the African leaders want to rid every vestage of imperialism except for the borders.
I miss the humor, but I suppose we simply share different senses of humor. You realise one, that nationalism, regardless of who drew the borders, does exist in Africa right? Secondly, you realise a body such as the UN exists, neh? There can be repartitioning done the African way because there cannot be national divisions along tribal lines for that would result in thousand of countries in Africa. Plus the cultural variations between most are very little. Repartitioning in Africa will be and can only be done by uniting already existing boders, not the reverse. And the unions will be done under political and economical lines-- the European way.

The reason why I believe Africa with her way of living today is a direct result of the status quo.
Please explain. I do believe ancient history has a lot to do with it by the way.

i) Stop Aid, encourage development, and investment.
ii) Agricultural tariffs from the west must be lowered or even dropped.
iii) Government resposibilty.

Stop Aid: Why does that benefit Africa? Most sub-saharan Africa owns more than half its budget.

Encourage development: OK. But how? encouragement is one thing, Having the resources andability is another.

Investment: look above

ii) OK.

iii) How

thx.

Ghassan, where are you?

Chaosin

09-05-03, 11:01 PM

Well, looking at how China and India have relatively recently turned things around, by being a lower cost alternative for american manufacturing etc. , Africa needs to do the same. So you have to ask yourself why african nations aren't getting all these jobs. It is the african governments that are the problem. Some are too unstable and high risk to make financial investments in. Others have goverments that meddle too much in business' , or tax foreigners too much. The solution? There needs to be an african country with easy transport access(needs ocean access), and has a stable, and non meddling goverment(probably strong, but innactive military, and trustworthy democracy), and it needs a large urbanized pool of potential workers. I don't know if all these factors are likely, or which countries would be the best candidates though, I would need to look into African politics and demographocs further.

thefountainhed

09-05-03, 11:07 PM

Chaosin
Good, thx. I present two likely countries: Senegal and Ghana.

Nico;

This thread brought to you by advertising!
LMAO. I try. I learnt from the master: Tiss. Whatever works I say.

Clockwood

09-05-03, 11:19 PM

Why is nearly every country in Africa so messed up? I can think of quite a few reasons. You may note that the only way the average African nation has a civil war every couple of decades and has all sorts of inter-clan warfare going on in the best of times. Their economy is still centered afound ripping out its own natural resources to sell to the highest bidder and they have little or no manufacturing base. The continent just hasn't progressed as fast as the rest of the world. It never left the dark/ feudal ages.

Being for the most part a malaria filled wasteland constantly stricken by famine might also have something to do with it.

truth

09-05-03, 11:49 PM

Originally posted by nico
Africa the region that will never be, sadly the continent would have been economicly better off with white ownership. (No I am not a racist), but it is a fact. The question is why? Simple the reason why is because the borders of Africa are divised by European needs, not African. Yet we still have the borders. I find laughable that the African leaders want to rid every vestage of imperialism except for the borders. The reason why I believe Africa with her way of living today is a direct result of the status quo. I mean the real question is how to solve Africa's way of life? Simple three things:

i) Stop Aid, encourage development, and investment.
ii) Agricultural tariffs from the west must be lowered or even dropped.
iii) Government resposibilty.

I have to agree the borders were drawn as the Europeans set up. The question, in my mind, is what would have been a better way? I frequently hear that arbitrary colonial drawn boundaries are the problem. To me that seems too trite.

My reasoning:

I see three realistic options that were available:

1. Draw the boundaries as they did.
2. Set borders based on linguistic and/or tribal lands.
3. Do nothing and leave.

1. By drawing the borders as they did, well partly historical colonies, but in order to make the countries viable, they would need to have a certain amount of territory, resources, population, etc. Granted, those things were most likely not on their minds, but reality would dictate that.

2. If the borders were based on linguistic/tribal areas, then there would have been a lot of micro states with no realistic opportunities to succeed. Look at the states of Swaziland and Lesotho with in the confines of S. Africa. Not much in resources, arable land, not much chance for success.

Additionally, you still have most likely had the same problems that Rwanda had, except it would be Tutsi and Hutus as separate countries warring with each other. Essentially, no real change from the beginning. Look at the ethnic/religious strife in the Sudan or Nigeria. These problems have been in existance for a long time.

3. See #2. This might have even left more problems.

As I see it, the people have to want to have success and try to work together, set aside the rivalries. Mozambique, I believe it was, was allowing white farmers to be driven off. I can understand to a point that desire, but there goes stable food production, employment, economic gain.

Frankly, I believe the problem is the same in Iraq and Afghanistan. You have different groups intent on killing each other and being in power and/or who hate each other. I think no nation building in any of these places or continents towards a free government will have any real chance for success until the people themselves all can change. I think it is possible. I think America, even with its problems and growing pains, has shown this can be successful and different groups can live together under one government. Granted the African challenge and Mid East are more so. I think the African countries would be actually either worse off or still living their early existance with no opportunity at all. It certainly will require help from the 1st world countries.

nico

09-05-03, 11:56 PM

Because as long as there are resources, and ineqity of wealth Africa cannot be a region that can divulge itself from poverty. I have to disagree with Chaosin on the basis that South Africa is that very state, yet living standards have decreased since the end of apartheid. I can see Nigeria being a major power but of course it's fake like the rest of Africa's states. Reference the war of Biafra, which could easily happen again.

So because the Europeans powers of the later 19th century partitioned Africa into regions based on resources and power, the continent would be better off under White ownership?

I should have explained a little better, for instance Southern Africa was much better organized under white rulership from the Portugese, Rhodesians, South Africans why? Well it's simple that are the overarching ppl. They don't care about clans, they don't care about tribal disputes all they do is essentially adavnce the economy. Obviously to the benefit of the white population. But racist investors trust whites more then blacks especially back then. Also since these states had close relations with there former/concurrent colonial power they had a nice base. Now we have states that are only know getting back up after some 25 odd years of civil war. So in essence more stablity, and credibility.

There can be repartitioning done the African way because there cannot be national divisions along tribal lines for that would result in thousand of countries in Africa.

Problem with that would be? And I doubt that all tribes would gain independance. More of a Federation is a solution. But seperation is my solution.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27821

Read my debate with Ghassan about Iraq it has parells to Africa.
And I suggest u read my thread on Pariah states:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23570&highlight=states

Plus the cultural variations between most are very little.

Thus Federation is possible.

Repartitioning in Africa will be and can only be done by uniting already existing boders, not the reverse. And the unions will be done under political and economical lines-- the European way

Do u actually believe Africa can follow Europes lead? I mean Euro only became one after ohh.... 1200 years.

Stop Aid: Why does that benefit Africa? Most sub-saharan Africa owns more than half its budget.

Says alot, what needs to be stopped is debt, and incurring it.

Encourage development: OK. But how? encouragement is one thing, Having the resources andability is another.

Simple, government efficency, low taxes, highly educated workforce, I suggest Africa copy China not Europe nor india. Democracy is not advisible.

Investment: look above

Ditto.

iii) How

Stalinism would be a good start.

:D

Chaosin

09-06-03, 12:20 AM

S.Africa is hardly ideal to my suposition. It isn't completely stable(lots of ethic violence), and was very precarious in recent times. Not to mention that it's wage isn't low enough to be an attraction, at least not the urbanized wages(and urbanized workers are what is needed). South Africa is in much the situation of south american countries, it is TOO developed to be a huge attraction for cheap labor, but not developed enough to have a self sustaining system of internal investment.

Ghassan Kanafani

09-06-03, 09:49 AM

Fountain :

civil wars

There are 3 things with these wars of which 2 are completely under Western responsibility :

* Tribal conflicts have always existed , supposedly there would have been fights today that would have existed without Western influence , however :

1) Most of todays reasons for ethnical conflict can be found in the imperial maps and their Western purposes . Many of todays have a history of Western incitement and ofcourse Cold-War . Most reasons for war , really are not theirs . They fight another mans battle , a battle the other man doesnt even care for anymore .

2) The amount of devistation could have never been as huge as today without Western industrialization and the enforcement of its products (weapons) upon the peoples for the previously mentioned purpose , fighting their battles .

relatively small populations

I dont see the problem of this without any relation to post-imperial maps . In Europe we can see that many small populations have been preserved with their own identity . It is rather the circumstances in which these small populations evolved that made the difference . It is the entire nation-state concept that has been enforced to be cause of the issues , not the populations that it has used to form this nation-state .

relative lack of technology and industrialization

Why ? The industrialization that has had a serious effect on them was negative and yet from the outside , why is their lack a problem in compare to the others having of it ? I would rather emphasize that part , as what actually accured is a cause not what didnt accur .

What is Africa's future?

I dont see any serious potential for the future , as they today still let themselves be used , still fight anothers battle , still care for their imperialist created identity and have ruthless moneyhungry dictators and rebels whose drive is nothing but sniffing glue ........ Im affraid it will only get worse .

What really disturbs me is that of all pseudo-nations to seperate into ethnic groupings ........ Somalia seperates :(

How and where can a positive change occur?

Man ..... impossible

You would need altruistic leaders who identify with their own peoples and are willing to treat others with respect , who arent subject of the $ ...... These things wont ever happen .

Its not as much the solution that has no possibility , the wars , starvation and even aids could be dealt with from African initiative , but such initiative will simply never be , not in sufficient ammount to confront and overcome the surroundings that dwell an Africa's misfortune .

If we are to remain realistic , 2 things can be aconsidered to bring improvement :

* The nation-states are replaced by ethnic representing unions .
The problem with this is that the smaller the entity the more risk it has to be used for outside-purposes .

* The nation-states merge under Stalinism and exterminate all opposition .

In anyways it cant go on as it is today , that has no progress whatsoever .

So because the Europeans powers of the later 19th century partitioned Africa into regions based on resources and power, the continent would be better off under White ownership? The reasoning escapes me

I would agree with Nico in sofar that if you strictly compare it with current situation , ofcourse it would have been best if the European never would have set foot on that land (in the way that he did) . I do believe that if again we would take some altruistic perspective , the colonists should have not released the countries into independance as they did . Not because they cannot take care of themselves , but because the situation in which they would have to do so was completely impossible to succeed , especially with the fact that "independance" changed little other than from direct influence to indirect influence through the wonderfull "free" market . Ofcourse everytime the West uses the word free it considers itself the definition of it , IMO that is how it should be honored and should every western usage of the word "free" be translated as "Western" .

In anyways , if there would have been altruism as was claimed in granting nations independance , the independance would have never been granted untill the context in which would have been changed .

Today the same thing happens but insted of granting independance it is called liberation .

realise one, that nationalism, regardless of who drew the borders, does exist in Africa right?

Where does it exist ? In the minds of the leaders or the peoples ?

And if so , does that mean it cannot be replaced ? That is what ought to happen .

There can be repartitioning done the African way because there cannot be national divisions along tribal lines for that would result in thousand of countries in Africa.

If unification isnt an option , it is an improvement compared to todays system .

Plus the cultural variations between most are very little.

Their conflicts dont really depend on cultural differences , they depend on another man's interests .

I do believe ancient history has a lot to do with it by the way.

Ancient history ? How so ?

Nico :

Africa the region that will never be

"again" , is the word you are missing . Well someday maybe .....

And I suggest u read my thread on Pariah states:

Nico please stop bringing up that pariah farce of yours .... :D

Clockwood :

You may note that the only way the average African nation has a civil war every couple of decades and has all sorts of inter-clan warfare going on in the best of times.

Im surprised your comment isnt surprising , fortunatly I foresaw and corrected the error at the beginning of my post .

The continent just hasn't progressed as fast as the rest of the world. It never left the dark/ feudal ages.

You shouldnt apply European-based identification of time-periods to something that isnt European . And ofcourse by "the rest of the world" you would mean the West and their sell-out nations elsewhere .... really Africa has reached already a very long time ago what the European (and its decendants in the colonies) have never reached before .

truth :

2. If the borders were based on linguistic/tribal areas, then there would have been a lot of micro states with no realistic opportunities to succeed. Look at the states of Swaziland and Lesotho with in the confines of S. Africa. Not much in resources, arable land, not much chance for success.

How about a combination between ethnicity and ideology ? How about nobody drawing any borders but African themselves for African reasons ?

Look at the ethnic/religious strife in the Sudan or Nigeria. These problems have been in existance for a long time.

Im sure you speak from a historically knowledged perspective :rolleyes:

think it is possible. I think America, even with its problems and growing pains, has shown this can be successful and different groups can live together under one government.

Please ....... Amerika is a nation found on slaves no good example can be drawn from there . And its not that great today either , which is a disgrace for such a nation .

I think the African countries would be actually either worse off or still living their early existance with no opportunity at all.

No glue-sniffing rebels fighting against Western-sponsored mass-murders ...... what a miss

sweet Pentax

09-06-03, 10:14 AM

fountainhed

Why? You said "urgently". Just how will the internet solve Africa's problems?

i know,it sounds too easy...... but i swear ,create everywhere FREE surfstations and people will use it !
internet would be good for them,just think how much help they could get ( just image a man from africa post a question on sciforums/biology ,asking about new ways of water-supply for his plants .... )

a problem would be the high number of illiterates ,but for every problem there is a solution ! people could learn reading/writing really fast with ... perhaps kiddie-software !

you get my point ?
just create thousands of free internet-accesses ( they need no high-tech-super-speed-accesses ,so the cost for this solution should be fair )

as i said ,they are improving ,here a pic of Africa One ( from 1999)

http://www.interasia.org/results/afrika/images/Image005.jpg

nico

09-06-03, 11:47 AM

Here TFH this Africa's real borders:

http://www.sil.org/silesr/2002/016/2bantu8.gif

That is real Africa. :D

Christian Sodomy

09-06-03, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by thefountainhed
I am curious and thus will embrace all viewpoints on why Africa is in its current shape: civil wars, relatively small populations, relative lack of technology and industrialization might, and no sure sign of a cessation or change in the trend. What is Africa's future? How and where can a positive change occur?

Africa's condition hasn't changed for 5,000 years. Its future is its past.

Ghassan Kanafani

09-06-03, 01:21 PM

Its past is Kemet where were you 5000 years ago ?

http://www.ad-mart.co.uk/cards/caveman.gif

and where are you today ?

http://www.yedidia.net/caveman.gif

Go back into the hole scratch-man

sweet Pentax

09-06-03, 01:26 PM

Africa's condition hasn't changed for 5,000 years. Its future is its past.

are you serious :confused:
i know that there was a high culture in some places in africa !

nico

09-06-03, 04:38 PM

Great Zimbabwe
Mail
Ghana
Nubia
Kemet
Axum
Zanzibar
Zulu
Carthrage
Ashante
Yorbua
Ife
Ngombe
Benin.

This is backwardness?

http://www.uic.edu/depts/ahaa/classes/ah111/L25/25-9.jpg

http://www.addo.ws/graphics/pics/kente.jpg (HELLO!)

http://www.mrdowling.com/609zimbabwe.jpg (great Zimbabwe)

Remember the Art Deco movement was developed after African art, and Art Deco is one of the greatest forms of art in the world. And it was based on Congolese Art.

:D Enjoy.

thefountainhed

09-06-03, 11:47 PM

I think no nation building in any of these places or continents towards a free government will have any real chance for success until the people themselves all can change.
Yes.

Nico:
So in essence more stability, and credibility.
If exploitation of the resources was for the benefit of another country, then stability—Yes; credibility—Yes to the colonizing country and its allies., but progress, No. The ‘gold coast’ was once one of the richest portion of Africa in terms of resources. One chief export was the cocoa fruit. When after independence the government demanded, in fact begged for relative equality in trade, the British simply started to grow lower yielding cocoa in South America. The intentions of the colonists were never the development of the “country” that they were exploiting. If you look at the ALL infrastructure built during the colonization periods, all were strictly for the purposes of exploiting the resources of the colonies. The only reason South Africa escaped this somewhat is simply because a larger white population inhabited the area and some identified with it; and diamonds.

Do u actually believe Africa can follow Europes lead? I mean Euro only became one after ohh.... 1200 years.
It is not about how long it took nationalism to overtake Europe. It is about how long others followed after the first. I am not suggesting a Union of Africa as Nkrumah, when an idealist, was suggesting; far from it. I do believe regional federations or unions are possible and will most likely happen because it is necessary. When Nkrumah was preaching pan-Africanism less than 50 years ago, feelings of African unity and nationalism were very different then.

The tribal situation in Africa is really not as diverse as most would like to suggest. In vast regions of West, East, and South so called tribes are mere derivatives of larger entities. These groupings occurred for instance in the West because after the falling of the Songhai Empire. No other kingdom arose great enough to pacify and group the others into one- much like the fallout of the Roman Empire. But you see in Europe, an underlying unity of sorts existed brought about by the way that Rome conquered Europe—by ‘romanizing’ them; and in the west that paved the way for the kingdoms that eventually led into modern Europe.

Says a lot, what needs to be stopped is debt, and incurring it.
It says that Europe still used Africa after independence. It also says the cold war was as destructive to Africa as it was to eastern block of Europe. The debt must be forgiven for the lending parties knew the individuals being lent to--- most purposely implanted so exploitation can be made easier, were also exploiting their peoples. Look at Congo.

Stalinism would be a good start.
Nkrumah failed. Anyone who tries will fail because the west won’t allow it. If China becomes powerful enough and challenges the USA, focus will shift to Africa, and hopefully lessons would have been learnt then. Eitherway China won’t challenge the US anyway as economic dependency is only going to further increase.

Ghassan:
About civil wars
Tribal conflicts are relatively a small portion of the civil wars that have ravaged and continue to ravage the continent.

It is the entire nation-state concept that has been enforced to be cause of the issues , not the populations that it has used to form this nation-state .
Population is an issue and has been for the past 500 years in Africa. Africa is under manned and with a growth similar to Europe prior to 1900 should have a populace as least thrice what it is now.

The industrialization that has had a serious effect on them was negative and yet from the outside , why is their lack a problem in compare to the others having of it ?
Reality is that Africa exists in the modern world. Reality is also that Africa’s chief exports are her natural resources. Reality also has it that its biggest imports are products from these very same exports. See now…

I dont see any serious potential for the future , as they today still let themselves be used , still fight anothers battle , still care for their imperialist created identity and have ruthless moneyhungry dictators and rebels whose drive is nothing but sniffing glue
True that some allow themselves to be used and that some leaders are money grabbers. But I tell you that democracies exist in Africa that are or will be stable, especially in West Africa and when Ecowas starts to actually maintain a command. This will come to pass.

I”ll discuss the rest later. I am getting tired.

sweet Pentax

09-07-03, 01:10 AM

The intentions of the colonists were never the development of the “country” that they were exploiting.

of course it was (well,sometimes) since the colonies mostly were seen as part of the homeland .....
examples ? you know this famous chinese beer ? they export it in the whole world today ,but it started when some germans build the first brewery there (i bet this brewery is still working)

now don´t bash on me ,i know that colonization wasn´t a good thing :p

Ghassan Kanafani

09-07-03, 06:02 AM

TFH :

Tribal conflicts are relatively a small portion of the civil wars that have ravaged and continue to ravage the continent.

Are you saying that tribal wars are not sufficiantly present to be a large potion or are you saying that the tribal element is not the drive behind the conflicts that divide themselves in tribes , as I mentioned previously ?

As I have little knowledge on the issues I wont contradict , but i do think that the relevancy lies where it origins , weither it shows itself as tribal or not .

I weas thinking from a perspective attached to the Islamic world , almost all conflicts there are presented as tribal/ethnical/religious while none of the conflicts has its drive there .

Population is an issue and has been for the past 500 years in Africa. Africa is under manned and with a growth similar to Europe prior to 1900 should have a populace as least thrice what it is now.

I would assume that being under-manned is a conclusion drawn from measurements that are based on western background and technology and needs . It is undermanned for these practices , however I would completely denounce these practices as any good for Africa , living up to Western-standards is what has caused todays problems in the first place ..... it is this entire path that should be rid off .

Reality is that Africa exists in the modern world. Reality is also that AfricaÂ’s chief exports are her natural resources. Reality also has it that its biggest imports are products from these very same exports. See nowÂ…

Reality is that Africa is enforced to exist in modern world under Western domination , that is where your problem lies . China exists in the modern world as well do they not ? And although it is far from perfect , it shows the potential of a road on independance rather than living up to Western standards under Western domination of dealings .

What does Africa gain from her exports ? What does it gain from those imported products ? Africa ought to set her priority's straight .

True that some allow themselves to be used and that some leaders are money grabbers. But I tell you that democracies exist in Africa that are or will be stable, especially in West Africa and when Ecowas starts to actually maintain a command. This will come to pass.

And then what ? Then West-Africa takes the traditional Western role .... where does that leave the rest ? In the same pile of shit as always , U cannot achieve socially stable countries with the economical system Africa is in today .

Existing democracies in Africa worries me only somuch more .

nico

09-07-03, 01:16 PM

Damn I can't quote that! Well let me expand, true some European nations developed those countries for resources. But not all, for instance South Africa (as you mentioned), Rhodesia, Angola, Mozambique, Namibia were all rather developed to a level of at least 1st - 2nd world. I concede that the majority of the development happened in the white areas, but it was development nevertheless. Also In the cases of Angloa, Mozambique, and Guniea- Bissau Portugal was imperial head until 1975. She left only due to superpower pressure. The Portugese offered all her overseas territories to be part of Portugal as much as Lisboa, or the Azores. Here is a overview on Salazar's policy on Race:

Angola Salazar's Racial Politics

Source: The Library of Congress Country Studies

Until 1940 Portuguese constituted less than 1 percent of Angola's population, and it was not until 1950 that their proportion approached 2 percent. This increase in the number of Europeans and the continuation of forced labor (not abolished until 1962) and other labor abuses led to an intensification of racial conflict. Before 1900 mestiços had been engaged in a variety of commercial and governmental roles, but as the white population came to outnumber them, the status of mestiços declined. In the first two decades of the twentieth century, laws and regulations requiring a certain level of education to hold some government positions effectively excluded mestiços from access to them. In 1921 the colonial administration divided the civil service into European and African branches and assigned mestiços and the very few African assimilados to the latter, thereby limiting their chances of rising in the bureaucratic hierarchy. In 1929 statutes limited the bureaucratic level to which mestiços and assimilados could rise to that of first clerk, established different pay scales for Europeans and non-Europeans in both public and private sectors, and restricted competition between them for jobs in the bureaucracy. Given this legal framework, the immigration of increasing numbers of Portuguese led to considerable disaffection among mestiços, who had hitherto tended to identify with whites rather than with Africans.

Beginning in the 1940s, the system of forced labor came under renewed criticism. One particularly outspoken critic, Captain Henrique Galvão, who had served for more than two decades in an official capacity in Angola, chronicled abuses committed against the African population. The Salazar government responded by arresting Galvão for treason and banning his report. Despite the introduction of some labor reforms from the late 1940s through the late 1950s, forced labor continued.

Legislation that was passed in Portugal between 1926 and 1933 was based on a new conception of Africans. Whereas Portugal previously had assumed that Africans would somehow naturally be assimilated into European society, the New State established definite standards Africans had to meet to qualify for rights. The new legislation defined Africans as a separate element in the population, referred to as indígenas (see Glossary). Those who learned to speak Portuguese, who took jobs in commerce or industry, and who behaved as Portuguese citizens were classified as assimilados. In accepting the rights of citizenship, assimilados took on the same tax obligations as the European citizens. Male indígenas were required to pay a head tax. If they could not raise the money, they were obligated to work for the government for half of each year without wages.

The colonial administration stringently applied the requirements for assimilation. In 1950, of an estimated African population of 4 million in Angola (according to an official census that probably provided more accurate figures than previous estimates), there were less than 31,000 assimilados. But instead of elevating the status of Africans, the policy of assimilation maintained them in a degraded status. The colonial administration required indígenas to carry identification cards, of major importance psychologically to the Africans and politically to the Portuguese, who were thus more easily able to control the African population.

The authoritarian Salazar regime frequently used African informants to ferret out signs of political dissidence. Censorship, border control, police action, and control of education all retarded the development of African leadership. Africans studying in Portugal--and therefore exposed to "progressive" ideas--were sometimes prevented from returning home. Political offenses brought severe penalties, and the colonial administration viewed African organizations with extreme disfavor.

As you can see the situation was not great in Portugese Africa, but it was better then in South Africa. With a enlightened Portugese leadership post Salazar then maybe racial laws would have been mostly lifted. But Portugal went socialist and even allowed Cubans to fight the war in Angola land and refuel in the Azores. Southern Africa was much better off then the rest but it was wasted on fractional fighting.

It is not about how long it took nationalism to overtake Europe

what I atalking about is not nationalism what I am talking about is it's abandonment in Euro. The EU is essentially going to become a superstate, thus Austrian nationalism would be fruitless. I do not see this in Africa, there aren't even nationalism to be had, it's all tribal. As I provided the map of Africa, that is the real solution.

You brought a interesting point about Ghana, that state was indeed a state that was better off. And at first it grew at a healthy pace setting the pace for the rest of Africa. But that growth quickly was squandered on useless projects. And debt grew tremendously. That cannot be blammed on the west, If i am not mistaken Ghana was socialist at the time.

Eitherway China won’t challenge the US anyway as economic dependency is only going to further increase.

:bugeye: I suggest you rethink that statement for a while. China is going to depend less and less on Americans, meanwhile visa versa for the US. The Chinese imports to the US are increasing big time, meanwhile American exports cannot keep pace. The eventual service economy of the US will feed the Chinese manufacturing hyperpower:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27939

As for Ghassan I agree with him 100% the Africans should really stop trying to be what they are not. They have to get tough on the econony and do it the hard way.
:cool:

Vortexx

09-07-03, 08:16 PM

blaxploitation?

Dr Lou Natic

09-08-03, 08:10 AM

Its simple, africas tough, it can still kick our asses. Its where we originated so the eco-system can handle our crap and keep a lid on us.
Other parts of the world weren't ready for humans, so we are essentially introduced species when we are anywhere but africa, and we act accordingly.
What you see as a "successful country" is actually a destroyed eco-system, overrun by an introduced species.
Africa can't be destroyed, its our homeland and, like any animal, when we are in our homeland we are controlled by our homeland.
People are supposed to be starving and dying of disease, they are supposed to be deeply enthralled in vicious conflict, it is the places outside of africa that should be areas of concern, no continent can boast being any where near as in tact as africa.
The current state of africa is excellent, the only other competitor for the least-fucked continent award is antarctica, and thats only because no humans live there.

Vortexx

09-08-03, 12:41 PM

Ah, so that's why all these dangerous diseases come from africa, Nature has learned to deal with the human species

thefountainhed

09-09-03, 04:30 PM

Ghassan:

Are you saying that tribal wars are not sufficiantly present to be a large potion or are you saying that the tribal element is not the drive behind the conflicts that divide themselves in tribes , as I mentioned previously ?

The latter

As I have little knowledge on the issues I wont contradict , but i do think that the relevancy lies where it origins , weither it shows itself as tribal or not .

I agree but that is besides the point. Most conflicts have and are about greed and from originated from ouside influences. If you look at the Congo for instance, it is was the US’ fear that the Congo would become a satellite of the USSR that it started to interfere and change the government—a fear that was grossly unfounded.

I would assume that being under-manned is a conclusion drawn from measurements that are based on western background and technology and needs . It is undermanned for these practices , however I would completely denounce these practices as any good for Africa , living up to Western-standards is what has caused todays problems in the first place ..... it is this entire path that should be rid off .

I am saying that the transatlantic trade and the eastern slave trades decimated and drastically slowed Africa population before and now, immigration into the western world and diseases are affecting Africa’s population.

I am not saying that Africa should live up to Western standards. However, Africa cannot live without technology for it would continue to be exploited. In the face of an outside threat dangerous to your livelihood, you do not prowl further inwards; instead you learn of the outside threat to protect you fro that outside threat so you can continue your livelihood--- Japan. About today’s problems: they exist, and will exist as it is a western dominated world.

eality is that Africa is enforced to exist in modern world under Western domination , that is where your problem lies . China exists in the modern world as well do they not ? And although it is far from perfect , it shows the potential of a road on independance rather than living up to Western standards under Western domination of dealings .

China is trying to modernize/westernize whilst keeping its core values, it would fail otherwise.

What does Africa gain from her exports ? What does it gain from those imported products ? Africa ought to set her priority's straight .

Africa gains western goods because its essence is forever changed. Africa must exist in the modern world or it will forever be left behind and exploited again and again. Heck, it is specifically the lack of contact that existed with the Ottoman/Islamic blanket of northern Africa that limited, in fact stopped any attainment of modern ideas in the first place.

n what ? Then West-Africa takes the traditional Western role .... where does that leave the rest ? In the same pile of shit as always , U cannot achieve socially stable countries with the economical system Africa is in today .

What it creates is a region capable of putting its interests first and most importantly being able to ensure that its interests are met. If N. Korea for example was not militarily strong, it would be a puppet to be exploited. Japan understood this over 100 years ago, Africa should.

Nico:

Besides what I already mentioned to Pentax, understand this: Man wants to rule himself. If any development—your definition, occurred or the land was stable, it was simply because the colonists ensured it. Being a satellite of another state, being used of your natural resources, when you are a second-class citizen within your own land, when you are mere labor so that your jungles can be destroyed for a house thousands of miles away; in effect when you live for someone else, other than yourself, a man does not want that. If Africa must suffer to lift itself up, but then so be it. But it cannot let itself be ruled by another who’s sole purpose is to improve itself while throwing bone’s the other way.

[QUOTE]what I atalking about is not nationalism what I am talking about is it's abandonment in Euro. The EU is essentially going to become a superstate, thus Austrian nationalism would be fruitless. I do not see this in Africa, there aren't even nationalism to be had, it's all tribal. As I provided the map of Africa, that is the real solution. [QUOTE]

You presented me with a tribal mapping of Central Africa. A map that must be over tens of years old for it is devoid of any accounting of urbanization-- a map that takes the western approach of partitioning via language groups. Then you state that Europe is abandoning nationalism in return for uniformity. Well if you are saying thus, then why are you suggesting further division?

[QUOTE]You [rought a interesting point about Ghana, that state was indeed a state that was better off. And at first it grew at a healthy pace setting the pace for the rest of Africa. But that growth quickly was squandered on useless projects. And debt grew tremendously. That cannot be blamed on the west, If i am not mistaken Ghana was socialist at the time[QUOTE]

You obviously do not understand Ghana. Nkrumah was overthrown by the British and the US precisely because he was embracing Soviet help and ideas. Subsequent leaders until Rawlings in 1979 were mere dictators lasting less than a year, but supplied with foreign armaments. In fact anything, as long the Ashanti goldfields could be exploited. Please read more on Ghana/

nico

09-09-03, 04:51 PM

Africa needs to be seperate to be one, Europe, Latin America, North America, have all learned this. You cannot just plunge into a unified union with varing states of social, economic, and political development. That is why I am against expansion of the EU into E.Europe at this point in time. Africa cannot even dare to develop without western assistance. With the Soviet option goners, and China going to take at least 15 years to plunge deep into the world of FDI Africa will depend on the west. If Africa really wants to develop she has to come to the realization that not all her will develop. That her borders represent nothing more then a tinder box of hypocracy, civil strife and continued economic stagnation.

when you are mere labor so that your jungles can be destroyed for a house thousands of miles away;

I hope you do realize that imperialism has been replaced by Globalization and Free Trade, new names same game. So you are just explaining nothing but the obvious.

If Africa must suffer to lift itself up,

Which is impossible, look at North Korea as a example, Juche economics is not advisable.

But it cannot let itself be ruled by another who’s sole purpose is to improve itself while throwing bone’s the other way

Again you want that to stop (it never did) then get out of the capitalist game.

You presented me with a tribal mapping of Central Africa. A map that must be over tens of years old for it is devoid of any accounting of urbanization

Urbanization in Africa is scarce compared to other regions in the world, and to make up for that is the massive growth rates in population. What in Africa it would be?

Rural: 75%
Urban: 25%

Then you state that Europe is abandoning nationalism in return for uniformity. Well if you are saying thus, then why are you suggesting further division?

Aforementioned, and Europe had to literally struggle with over 1000 years of evolution to come to this point.

You obviously do not understand Ghana. Nkrumah was overthrown by the British and the US precisely because he was embracing Soviet help and ideas. Subsequent leaders until Rawlings in 1979 were mere dictators lasting less than a year, but supplied with foreign armaments. In fact anything, as long the Ashanti goldfields could be exploited. Please read more on Ghana/

I know he was a socialist and I know he spent money like mad. Don't blame others for the economic decline of Ghana, that was on the hands of Mr. Nkrumah. I was not talking about aramaments, those are irrelevant arguements I am talking about the economic mis-management and economic malliase Ghana has endured.

thefountainhed

09-09-03, 06:37 PM

I hope you do realize that imperialism has been replaced by Globalization and Free Trade, new names same game. So you are just explaining nothing but the obvious.

Yes I realize. but you still mis it: Noone want to be controilled directly by foreign hordes.

Which is impossible, look at North Korea as a example, Juche economics is not advisable.
You take my statement out of context

Urbanization in Africa is scarce compared to other regions in the world, and to make up for that is the massive growth rates in population. What in Africa it would be?
We are not talking about the rest of the world, just Africa, so the somparison is non-sequitur. The point is that a lot of the populations in all the African countries live around or in the capital cities. All mappings of the tribes are simply that of the past.

I know he was a socialist and I know he spent money like mad....
You really should read up on NKrumah. He spent on the level of his country in an era when all were borowing. And the key infrastructures he built during his time--The Akosombo dam, tema motorway, etc are still the backbone of Ghana's economy. Again read on Nkrumah...

Aforementioned, and Europe had to literally struggle with over 1000 years of evolution to come to this point.
When France developed nationalism, it spread like wildfire for it had, or noone else could compete. An analogyu would be conversion. Whether ill-advised, bla bla bl;a, nationalism exists in Africa, especiallyin the smaller nations whose leaders were amongst the first to pen pan-africanism.

nico

09-09-03, 08:32 PM

What difference does that make in reality. Money is still being funneled out of Africa at a accelerated rate then prior. At least with colonization we are talking about the money being invested back into the country. Now it's going to the Forbes 500 instead of the Poor 300 million in Africa. I'd rather have someone who at least has some interest in developing my land instead of raping it for the ultimate in profit.

You take my statement out of context

Did I? You claimed that you wanted Africa to deal with itself, economy, to develop alone. Which of course is impossible, alas NK.

The point is that a lot of the populations in all the African countries live around or in the capital cities. All mappings of the tribes are simply that of the past.

By alot I assume that u mean most? Let's see:

DRC: 56 million ppl. - 39.3 % Urbanized (2015)
Ethiopia:67.3 million ppl - 15.9% Urban (2001)
Zimbabwe: 12.8 million ppl - 36.0%Urban
Senegal:9.6 million ppl- 48.1% Urban
South Africa: 44.4 million - 57.6 % Urbanized

So as we see the vast majority of Africa's populations are not even close to be near the capitals nor are they near cities or in them to the extent you claim. Not one in even in projection (exception) was over 50% by 2015. (source: UN HDI)

All mappings of the tribes are simply that of the past.

That has been refuted of course.

You really should read up on NKrumah. He spent on the level of his country in an era when all were borowing. And the key infrastructures he built during his time--The Akosombo dam, tema motorway, etc are still the backbone of Ghana's economy. Again read on Nkrumah...

Was it really development? Development of burdeonsome debts and bankrupted the most prosperious W.African nation.

Pan- African

Cannot and will not happen.

thefountainhed

09-09-03, 09:00 PM

Nico,
U cannot possibly be serious. These are the facts:

Africa:
1. Western Sahara 96% (2001)
2. Libya 88% (2001)
3. Djibouti 84% (2001)
4. Gabon 82% (2001)
5. Tunisia 66% (2001)
6. Seychelles 65% (2001)
7. Mauritania 59% (2001)
8. South Africa 58% (2001)
9. Algeria 58% (2001)
10. Morocco 56% (2001)
11. Cameroon 50% (2001)
12. Equatorial Guinea 49% (2001)
13. Botswana 49% (2001)
14. Senegal 48% (2001)
15. Sao Tome and Principe 48% (2001)
16. Liberia 46% (2001)
17. Nigeria 45% (2001)
18. Cote d'Ivoire 44% (2001)
19. Benin 43% (2001)
20. Egypt 43% (2001)
21. Central African Republic 42% (2001)
22. Zambia 40% (2001)
23. Sudan 37% (2001)
24. Sierra Leone 37% (2001)
25. Ghana 36% (2001
Zimbabwe 36% (2001)
27. Angola 35% (2001)
28. Togo 34% (2001)
29. Kenya 34% (2001)
30. Comoros 34% (2001)
31. Tanzania 33% (2001)
32. Mozambique 33% (2001)
33. Guinea-Bissau 32% (2001)
34. Mali 31% (2001)
35. Gambia, The 31% (2001)
36. Congo, Democratic Republic of the 31% (2001)
37. Namibia 31% (2001)
38. Madagascar 30% (2001)
39. Lesotho 29% (2001)
40. Somalia 28% (2001)
41. Guinea 28% (2001)
42. Swaziland 27% (2001)
43. Chad 24% (2001)
44. Niger 21% (2001)
45. Eritrea 19% (2001)
46. Burkina Faso 17% (2001)
47. Ethiopia 16% (2001)
48. Malawi 15% (2001)
49. Uganda 15% (2001)
50. Burundi 9% (2001)
51. Rwanda 6% (2001)
Average 40.16

Asia:
1. Korea, South 83% (2001)
2. Japan 79% (2001)
3. Russia 73% (2001)
4. Ukraine 68% (2001)
5. Armenia 67% (2001)
6. Korea, North 61% (2001)
7. Mongolia 57% (2001)
8. Georgia 57% (2001)
9. Kazakhstan 56% (2001)
10. Azerbaijan 52% (2001)
11. Turkmenistan 45% (2001)
12. China 37% (2001)
13. Uzbekistan 37% (2001)
14. Kyrgyzstan 34% (2001)
15. Pakistan 33% (2001)
16. India 28% (2001)
17. Tajikistan 28% (2001)
18. Maldives 28% (2001)
19. Bangladesh 26% (2001)
20. Sri Lanka 23% (2001)
21. Afghanistan 22% (2001)
22. Nepal 12% (2001)
23. Bhutan 7% (2001)
Average 44.04

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/peo_urb/AFR#

Get it through your thick head: colonization by a foreign a power is not good for the poeple, if all they want is to rule themselves. By fucking God. Who wants to be a slave? All African countries with the exception of those in War are better developed for the populace now than they were during colonization. What the fuck are you talking man ?

ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRSDGYHJDFSHIGLKJLKJLKJJLKKJ;LL;KJFLK JGFLKJGFLJKGFJLKLKJFLKJ!!!!!!!!!! Nitwit. The CIA overhrew and replaced him with a military leader who had no experience! All in the of the West!!! Read Read! You are frustrating me man.

http://www.seeingblack.com/x060702/nkrumah.shtml
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles8/DN_Iran-Coup-1953.htm

nico

09-09-03, 09:23 PM

Don't get emotional man, it's a stupid, rather pointless and un-influencial debate. ;)

Nico,
U cannot possibly be serious. These are the facts:

Those numbers still prove my point a lot (meaning most) are not urbanized enough to warrant your original point. Also what good is urbanization in Africa, look at Lagos what a disaster that is.

1. Western Sahara 96% (2001)
2. Libya 88% (2001)
3. Djibouti 84% (2001)

Like these ppl have a choice, the entire country is freaking desert!

Average 40.16 vs. Average 44.04

So the Average is much higher and the source is rather unreliable if you ask me. According to the UN there are the real urbanized numbers:

Africa-
1975:21.0 %
2001:34.8%
2015: 42.8%

Asia:
1975:20.2%
2001:38.8%
2015: 50.3%

Get it through your thick head: colonization by a foreign a power is not good for the poeple, if all they want is to rule themselves.

Yes in principle that is all fine and dandy, but in reality self-rule for fracticious states, in a globalized world, who depend on varying commodity prices and at the whimp of the West more then ever? Idealism vs. reality?

All African countries with the exception of those in War are better developed for the populace now than they were during colonization. What the fuck are you talking man ?

And which nation in Africa (Sub Sahran) is better then before? Zimbabwe was until Mugabe went all wild on the farmers, once the breadbasket now is on the verge of famine, DRC 3 million dead, and almost all her surrounding nations intervening, coup d'etat a normality, corrupt officials throughout the continent? Although I have to give "props" to Senegal, and Namibia.

The CIA overhrew and replaced him with a military leader who had no experience! All in the of the West!!! Read Read! You are frustrating me man.

Ghana was only one of the many victims of the Cold War.

Ghassan Kanafani

09-10-03, 11:29 AM

TFH : Most conflicts have and are about greed and from originated from ouside influences.

As are most conflicts within the third world , this was exactly what I was talking about . What I mentioned was that oftenly these conflicts divide themselves in groups that become identifyers for the cause in the simplistic perspective of many .

Religion is oftenly used in the same sense as how tribal or ethnic conflicts are , there is no cause within them but there is difference in how it presents itself onto the outside world . And the idiot will take those as causes , and whines how everybody kills eachother over there anyways .

Yesterday I saw a video that included this issue , that is the religious form of it . You can see it at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/hardtalk/3081666.stm , its a very interesting interview with the Nigerian Governor of Zamfara State , Ahmed Sani .

However, Africa cannot live without technology for it would continue to be exploited. In the face of an outside threat dangerous to your livelihood, you do not prowl further inwards; instead you learn of the outside threat to protect you fro that outside threat so you can continue your livelihood--- Japan.

Most conflicts have and are about greed and from originated from ouside influences.

You gave the worst example that you could have given , Japan has merely changed its status , unless all Africa desires is to
become the West and its first world , they are on the wrong path . In anyways is this path that you mention a dead-end , we cannot all become first world the reason the first world exists is because of the third world . Such socialization is a dream that holds no logics , the first world will never allow suchnge of identity that would actually jeopardize their own , and that is exactly why Africa needs to distance itself if it wants to actually reach something .

China is trying to modernize/westernize whilst keeping its core values, it would fail otherwise.

But look at the timing , would they have done the same with good results without their socialist state-capitalism ideology ? China is in a different fase , and in this different fase they have benefits of the changes you speak of . Africa has not .

As for modernization , all China needs to be doing (and she is) is applying capitalist techniques within her system to progress . I dont see anyother specific modernization that is necesarry for China in her survival ......

Africa gains western goods because its essence is forever changed. Africa must exist in the modern world or it will forever be left behind and exploited again and again. Heck, it is specifically the lack of contact that existed with the Ottoman/Islamic blanket of northern Africa that limited, in fact stopped any attainment of modern ideas in the first place.

Africa has enough power to become self-sufficient enough not to be exploited , what gets them exploited is running after the leading West that profits from that running while the advancement of Africa itself remains marginal .

Also I do not think we can compare any contacts or lack of contacts to have this specific result of undevelopment or lack of benefit . The Western world and Islamic world arent exactly the same thing , nor have been the Islamic periods the same under Khlapih or Ottoman .

What it creates is a region capable of putting its interests first and most importantly being able to ensure that its interests are met. If N. Korea for example was not militarily strong, it would be a puppet to be exploited. Japan understood this over 100 years ago, Africa should.

Im sorry but if Africa would actually be allowed to end in the position Japan is in today , Im wondering who we are gonna exploit to make that happen ? Certainly not the West , maybe Asia ? Yes this solves the economical problems for Africa (if the West would allow such and they wont) , in the same way Europe and USA would have solved theirs .

IMO this is a huge moral issue which lies in the fact that the only thing that would happen (again IF the West would allow) is the upgrading of the "effect" called Africa into a cause for a new to be appointed effect of impoverishment .

This is only moving the problems around from a global perspective .

And have you seen what happened to Japan in culktural sense ?

I cannot believe you see them as an example .

thefountainhed

09-15-03, 10:14 PM

*Just so I can remember to reply to thread

thefountainhed

09-19-03, 06:57 PM

Nico
Those numbers still prove my point a lot (meaning most) are not urbanized enough to warrant your original point.

I pointed out to you that the map of the “real” Africa is flawed because it does not take urbanization, which is going on right now into effect. Your point is mush even if “only” 40% of Africa is urbanized—average, if you consider that immediately after independence—which is when those maps were probably drawn, most African countries were less than 10% urbanized. Also significant is that most of the countries have one or two urban centers.

Also what good is urbanization in Africa, look at Lagos what a disaster that is.
Blatant non sequitur.

Like these ppl have a choice, the entire country is freaking desert!

Again, irrelevant and non sequitur.

Yes in principle that is all fine and dandy, but in reality self-rule for fracticious states, in a globalized world, who depend on varying commodity prices and at the whimp of the West more then ever? Idealism vs. reality?
Assuming this reality you present, are you seriously claiming it better than a rule of a foreign power deliberately exploiting your land, granting you second class citizenship, denying you access to certain facilities including education, etc all for what you term as economic stability? Do you not understand that the stability is only available and relevant to the colonizing power?

[/quote]And which nation in Africa (Sub Sahran) is better then before? Zimbabwe was until Mugabe went all wild on the farmers, once the breadbasket now is on the verge of famine, DRC 3 million dead, and almost all her surrounding nations intervening, coup d'etat a normality, corrupt officials throughout the continent? Although I have to give "props" to Senegal, and Namibia. [/quote]
LMAO. You present one example: Zimbabwe. Ignoring when Zimbabwe was independent. Providing Namibia and Senegal as those for my argument. I think your problem is that you are uneducated about Africa.

Ghana was only one of the many victims of the Cold War.
And how does that change the argument?

Ghassan
quote:

As are most conflicts within the third world , this was exactly what I was talking about . What I mentioned was that oftenly these conflicts divide themselves in groups that become identifyers for the cause in the simplistic perspective of many ….
You have simply described war as has been fought for milliner now.

You gave the worst example that you could have given , Japan has merely changed its status , unless all Africa desires is to become the West and its first world , they are on the wrong path . In anyways is this path that you mention a dead-end , we cannot all become first world the reason the first world exists is because of the third world . Such socialization is a dream that holds no logics , the first world will never allow suchnge of identity that would actually jeopardize their own , and that is exactly why Africa needs to distance itself if it wants to actually reach something .
Your argument is flawed for many reasons:
1. If the 1st world depends on the 3rd world for its status, then why would they even allow such distancing?
2. I provide Japan as an example of a nation—albeit one amazingly homogeneous, which managed to use the West to gain a status as a first world nation. I want Africa to be strong enough to be without excessive famines, and secure enough to resist needless civil wars, etc. True, a lot of western ideas pollute Africa, but it is with western ideas that Africa can be better.
3. And no it is not illogical to think an African country cannot rise beyond “third” to “first” world. Stability, resources, leadership, population, and locality: All these COULD describe Nigeria, South Africa, Egypt, Ghana, and even Congo.

But look at the timing , would they have done the same with good results without their socialist state-capitalism ideology ? China is in a different fase , and in this different fase they have benefits of the changes you speak of . Africa has not . As for modernization , all China needs to be doing (and she is) is applying capitalist techniques within her system to progress . I dont see anyother specific modernization that is necesarry for China in her survival ......
Come on now Ghassan, China’s status as a world power was inevitable because it is such a huge nation that is homogenous, and with strong leadership dating from antiquity. Of course modernization is paramount in China’s rejuvenation—it is through her industry and services that she is an economic power. Even her government is modern if you want to go that route. Why do you assign modernity to capitalism but not to socialism?

Africa has enough power to become self-sufficient enough not to be exploited , what gets them exploited is running after the leading West that profits from that running while the advancement of Africa itself remains marginal .
This is very very untrue when you consider that Africa depends on the west for medical, technological, etc goods that it cannot live without. Such a hypothetical solution is not possible because in the larger scheme of things, Africa must become part of the global world. A situation that can be explored is, if and when “second” world nations like India, Brazil, etc reach the point in their development when they can provide for Africa what its colonial powers provide in terms of goods, whether the former nations shall not try to usurp, thereby creating competition which can only be good for Africa.

Also I do not think we can compare any contacts or lack of contacts to have this specific result of undevelopment or lack of benefit . The Western world and Islamic world arent exactly the same thing , nor have been the Islamic periods the same under Khlapih or Ottoman .
It is precisely of this difference that I even mentioned it….

Im sorry but if Africa would actually be allowed to end in the position Japan is in today , Im wondering who we are gonna exploit to make that happen ? Certainly not the West , maybe Asia ? Yes this solves the economical problems for Africa (if the West would allow such and they wont) , in the same way Europe and USA would have solved theirs .
The notion that exploitation of another is needed to ensure the maintenance or enhancement of the one market is rooted in flawed economic policies belonging in a past. Corporations, not nations will be in the next… and any government smart enough…

IMO this is a huge moral issue which lies in the fact that the only thing that would happen (again IF the West would allow) is the upgrading of the "effect" called Africa into a cause for a new to be appointed effect of impoverishment .
This obviously counters you assertion, since from you the west “won’t” allow it. The economic center of the world is moving to the east and will continue and eventually stay there.

And have you seen what happened to Japan in culktural sense ?
What that they maintain most of their old culture? Did you expect bushido and rigid social stratification to survive?

I cannot believe you see them as an example .

believe

Ghassan Kanafani

09-19-03, 08:52 PM

Originally posted by thefountainhed You have simply described war as has been fought for milliner now.

I have described indirect imperialist war , the kind that has reached its climax in the cold war .

If u mean millenia and not a hat-salesman , it is true that such wars have existed for quite a while , but they have not always been , wars have been fought for ones own purposes and in ancient times this has been rather frequent in compare to the times of colonialism and modern age . In these periods of times it was indeed indirect war of the great imperialists through smaller nations that has been the representative of most warfare .

1. If the 1st world depends on the 3rd world for its status, then why would they even allow such distancing?

If there is no distance there is no difference , if there is no difference there is no first or third world . Unfortunatly such socialism isnt anywhere near reality .

I provide Japan as an example of a nation—albeit one amazingly homogeneous, which managed to use the West to gain a status as a first world nation. I want Africa to be strong enough to be without excessive famines, and secure enough to resist needless civil wars, etc. True, a lot of western ideas pollute Africa, but it is with western ideas that Africa can be better.

Untill this day no Western idea has brought Africa serious improvement , enough to make relevance for the point that there is hope for improvement with Western ideas . History proved different , why have such blind faith ?

On the other hand we have seen in history how African has developped under African ideas , ideas that have proved succesfull , why then is that path not taken as it is shown benefiscious by history , in contrast to Western thoughts .

And no it is not illogical to think an African country cannot rise beyond “third” to “first” world. Stability, resources, leadership, population, and locality: All these COULD describe Nigeria, South Africa, Egypt, Ghana, and even Congo.

As long as the first world desries to maintain its position as such it cannot include nations into it in this way regarding Africa . Not just because the exploitation-field becomes smaller when they do so , but also because large shifts bring economical instability .

As you see in Europe today , the inclusion of others less fortunate into a first world (West-European in this case) level have not brought economic prosperety on the countrary , the Euro fucked us all .

You dont want to hear what the Euro's feel about expansion of economical unity and sharing wealth . Especially not from Euro's that are on top .

But the most direct problem is the lacking of third world with such a shift , tell me if Nigeria et all would become the first world , clearly within perspective of the first world status to be maintained more or less on todays levels , who will you be exploiting to maintain this status ? Where will Africas field of work be ?

Although I would support such a shift for its first days , its first generations , but when the Congoleze become disneylanders and others become the Congoloze , globally nothing has changed , a shift that is all .

I dont mind a shift , but please let it be in the right direction . Nigeria first world and France third ? Fine with me

But thats not what would happen .

Why do you assign modernity to capitalism but not to socialism?

I would apply it to both , however weither one or the other is considered modernization deals with the status of the country in question .

This is very very untrue when you consider that Africa depends on the west for medical, technological, etc goods that it cannot live without.

And they would not have a possibility to provide these for themselves if they werent attached politically/economically as they are today ?

Such a hypothetical solution is not possible because in the larger scheme of things, Africa must become part of the global world. A situation that can be explored is, if and when “second” world nations like India, Brazil, etc reach the point in their development when they can provide for Africa what its colonial powers provide in terms of goods, whether the former nations shall not try to usurp, thereby creating competition which can only be good for Africa.

I understand the path you are speaking of , my question remains who will be the new Africa ? And again the new first world countries will not get into the first world as easy , there is a strog opposition within the first world regarding letting ott\hers in on the loot . Merely logical however since this trail of thought is what created the first world to begin with . Its as natural for them to reject as for Africa to aspire their position . Both are very wrong however , IMO .

It is precisely of this difference that I even mentioned it….

Then I must have missed your point , can you explain ?

The notion that exploitation of another is needed to ensure the maintenance or enhancement of the one market is rooted in flawed economic policies belonging in a past. Corporations, not nations will be in the next… and any government smart enough…

I am sorry but I do not see the essential relevant difference that would lead to not needing exploitation to endure maitenance . The companies are as western as the governments , so what is the difference ?

This obviously counters you assertion, since from you the west “won’t” allow it. The economic center of the world is moving to the east and will continue and eventually stay there.

The economic center will be where the first world allows it to be , the first world is not shifting anywhere other sufficiently to consider potential inclusion of Africa .

What rather is happening more than east-ward shift is the extension from the local economical centre , as we see in latin America as well as Europe . Again , this doesnt make Africa come anyway near , somuch will be lost to make this happen that I realy do not see how the first world population would accept this .

Without their acceptance there is little possibility for things to go their "natural" way .

What that they maintain most of their old culture? Did you expect bushido and rigid social stratification to survive?

Look at the Arab world and you will see exactly how the development we speak of includes loss of culture .

believe

I cant . I honestly cannot believe how Japan of all countries is your example of how things should be going . Japan is wealthy yet in a reigion of undevelopment , Japan is using globalization in the exact same manner as the tradional first world countries do and Japan has completely changed its cultural identity into some ......... man I dont even know what to call it what they have going on there its beyond Amerika even .

I just cant believe

thefountainhed

09-19-03, 09:17 PM

I choose Japan because it modernized whilst keeping its values, but this is irrelevant. Why don't you tell me how Africa can bring itself up, whilst escaping vulgarities?

nico

09-19-03, 09:49 PM

I pointed out to you that the map of the “real” Africa is flawed because it does not take urbanization, which is going on right now into effect. Your point is mush even if “only” 40% of Africa is urbanized—average, if you consider that immediately after independence—which is when those maps were probably drawn, most African countries were less than 10% urbanized. Also significant is that most of the countries have one or two urban centers.

Firstly tfh, urbanization is not nessecarily a good thing. You see this is what u think... people come to city to get work, because there is work. REALITY check there is no work, there is hardly if any industrialization outside South Africa, and Egypt. And yes the maps may be dated, but Africa hasn't changed much since the time the map was made really. Urbanization changes little, when u look at the map u see areas or tribe A, B,X,etc. It;s like saying that the French live in Austria now because of this and that, especially urbanization.. do u see how odd that sounds? ppl's just don't all go and settle somewhere else. The urbanization of Africa is not a good thing, for a western state.. sure 100% but you see unlike western states Africa dosen't have enough jobs, never mind high paying ones. So what if a country has one or two main urban centres, that indicates less development. Ironic I realize but in a modern state, there should be at least 4+. About 40% that is all of Sub-Sharan Africa, with Zimbabwe, and South Africa proping that up big time. With out them two it would have been significantly lower. And both urbanized due to white rule... weird.
:bugeye:

Blatant non sequitur.

I am sorry but it does have relevance and I suggest you read National geographics story on urbanization and Lagos. It was a scathing report.

Again, irrelevant and non sequitur.

Ahh no it's not, your telling me ppl are going to like this?

http://www.eurekatours.com/tunicia/imatges/sahara.jpg

Again very relevant.

Assuming this reality you present, are you seriously claiming it better than a rule of a foreign power deliberately exploiting your land, granting you second class citizenship, denying you access to certain facilities including education, etc all for what you term as economic stability

I see 100% where u are coming from on this..but look at Africa;s state today? I would argue that if colonization still existed today racial laws would have been struck down. And the rash of anti-white sentiment in Congo, Mozambique, Zimbabwe has proven the point that Africa is suffering because of those racist attitutes.

LMAO. You present one example: Zimbabwe. Ignoring when Zimbabwe was independent. Providing Namibia and Senegal as those for my argument. I think your problem is that you are uneducated about Africa.

Zimbabwe, DRC, Mozambique, Angola, Uganda, even. Were all states that used or are using racist policies against the ppl who have hte $$$ and the power... sadly but honestly the Euros. I am not uneducated about Africa man, please don't patronize. :cool:

Ghassan Kanafani

09-19-03, 10:18 PM

Originally posted by thefountainhed
Why don't you tell me how Africa can bring itself up, whilst escaping vulgarities?

Cultural revival and Afro-centrism . I do believe Afro-centrism can eplode eventually but with the right amount , it can have a very constructive affect on Africa .

Within the Pan-African Afro-centric thought cultural revival can play a huge role , not as a whole but for various greater groups of peoples to have a new outlook on ntheir identity and their role within Africa . The culutral identity does not have to have a racial/linguistic or religious common ground but it is not excluded to be used as a basis , it depends on the exact peoples involved .

For instance the African non-Arab Muslims should merge and evovle into one representation of peoples within Africa . Other identities can depend on other matters , I dont know enough of all the African peoples to actually have a good idea of how it would look .

When things become problematic regarding identity , historical revisionism can solve issues . Israel is an example that such revisionism of identity can be very succesfull in certain ways .

With a clear cultural/national identity within this Afro-centric African region , a moral controll can develop that keeps peoples a little bit sane and civilized , work-ethics can develop from their identity as a peoples that stimulate the economy (which as I said should aspire self-reliance ....... a bit Juche perhaps) , and Africa can start developping , modernizing and leaving behind its awfull oppressive history .

thefountainhed

09-19-03, 10:33 PM

quote]Firstly tfh, urbanization is not nessecarily a good thing.[/quote]
I never said it was Nico. Just brought it up to contradict map.

You see this is what u think... people come to city to get work, because there is work.
LMAO. I donot think this, Nico.
REALITY check there is no work, there is hardly if any industrialization outside South Africa, and Egypt.
LOL. I know this and this is mentioned. Where is this going and what relation to topic?

And yes the maps may be dated, but Africa hasn't changed much since the time the map was made really.
The map is outdated and Africa has changed.

Urbanization changes little, when u look at the map u see areas or tribe A, B,X,etc.
Incorrect, urbanization chnages a lot. If a country has 10 million people and about 5 million live around the capital and consist of all tribes, you can see how a map of the historical tribal regions is really irrelevant, neh?
It;s like saying that the French live in Austria now because of this and that, especially urbanization.. do u see how odd that sounds?
It is not like saying that Nico.

The urbanization of Africa is not a good thing, for a western state.. sure 100% but you see unlike western states Africa dosen't have enough jobs, never mind high paying ones.
Urbanization is not good for any country if the sole driving force behind the urbanization is jobs and there are none. It does not matter where you are.

So what if a country has one or two main urban centres, that indicates less development.
That fact is brought to show you that, in most third world countries and especially in Africa, people congregate near the urban centers for that is where jobs, education, etc are. If 50 percent of the population is around 1 or two urban centers, assigning 20 percent of the land to a given tribe because of its history is stupid and illogical if all that exists are sparse villages. Ths situation gets even worse when the urban center(s) is assigned to one tribe.

Ironic I realize but in a modern state, there should be at least 4+. About 40% that is all of Sub-Sharan Africa, with Zimbabwe, and South Africa proping that up big time. With out them two it would have been significantly lower. And both urbanized due to white rule... weird. 4+ for modern state? Fine, who cares. Irrelevant to argument. Both urbanized "due to white rule...weird". LMAO. I am tempted to insult, but I won't for I know you are intelligent, you are just outside your element in this instance. What does South Africa and Zimbabawe have to do with anythning? Still preaching tripe about colonization? Zimbabwe is indicated by chart as 36% industrilized. This is under the average Nico. It defeats you nonexistent Argument. Pretoria and Johannesburg grew around areas that... I will let you complete.

I am sorry but it does have relevance and I suggest you read National geographics story on urbanization and Lagos. It was a scathing report.

It is non sequitur because it does not follow the argument

Again very relevant.
No it is not because the question is WHETHER they are urbanized and not WHY. Get it?

I see 100% where u are coming from on this..but look at Africa;s state today? I would argue that if colonization still existed today racial laws would have been struck down. And the rash of anti-white sentiment in Congo, Mozambique, Zimbabwe has proven the point that Africa is suffering because of those racist attitutes.
I swear Nico, can you not see the flaw in your arguments? Are you that blind? How does anti-white sentiment now have to do with what would have happened if these areas were colonized? Why are you missing why the wars in the Congos are still going on: diamonds and timber. Suffering like the people in south Africa suffered so that they can like in "economic stability' with a white upper class that still exploits and are indirect first rate citizens? Even now, economic stability barely affects a huge amount if not the majority of South Africans. Really what importance do you put on this economic stability theory of yours and why the hell do you think it is so important?

No whites were living in huge amounts in Africa except in Zimbabwe and South AFrica, what makes you think that "development" would have existed for the native population when for 400 years there was none?

Zimbabwe, DRC, Mozambique, Angola, Uganda, even HUH? LMAO

I am not uneducated about Africa man, please don't patronize
I am not belittling, The fact is I do think you are, beyond bits and pieces you get from the net. Sorry m8.

thefountainhed

09-19-03, 10:33 PM

Modernizing how?
When Nkrumah was preaching pan-Africanism, his main problem was how to get the peoples together, how to encourage respect for one's culture and to abandon it at the same time. Also that was vague. Where do yo start? What time economic, political, etc environment would one start to preach such ideology? Afrocentrism, I am not sure would have as much effect, as the culture/civilization of choice for most Afro-centrists is ancient Egypt and Axum.

nico

09-20-03, 04:34 PM

Please can u express to me and others here. What should Africa do to develop? I mean you are offering nothing but explaining why this and that happened. We all know what happened. Yet I hear NO solution. All I hear is typical whining that comes out of Africa. Blame west, blame colonization. What is to be done to save her from perpectual improvishment? Please answer this question. Isn't it the crux of this thread?

Clockwood

09-20-03, 11:34 PM

I would say to get some sort of profitable industry blooming that would have it in its best intrests to improve the local infrastructure. You wouldn't believe how important good roads, electricity, and water are.

Few do anying out of the goodness of the heart. If you play your cards right your intrests and their intrests coincide. You both benifit.

Alas at the moment it isn't stable enough. What they need is a standing government that lasts 60 years without a civil war. It dosn't have to be a democracy... something like Castro's despotic government in Cuba would be good enough. After that it would be looking like eden in comparson to the average African-hell hole.

god-of-course

09-21-03, 01:12 PM

War:

Firstly Africa is hugely divided geographically, down the center is the rift valley, all the way across are the great lakes and rivers and through the middle is the sahara dessert. Africa for this reason has never had an internal movement of population and its demographic devisions have been enforced not only through culture but genetically aswell.

Disease:

Very basically, the human species originates from Africa and in terms of evolution only spread outwards relatively recently, so that many human diseases developed in Africa and it is their prefered climate and conditions etc.

Technological development:

Africa has never entered the industrial revolution. They did not start using coal, iron etc. In europe for example Britain was first to start smelting iron on a lareg scale, they then built steam ships, guns, cheap equipment etc. But because of the homogenous nature of the european population other countries soon discovered this too, the technology spread to france then spain.

Colonization:

The fragmentation of Africa made it an easy target for imperial addition.

Poverty:

A combination of the above factors have kept the continent in practically the dark ages. The divisions i mentioned earlier for example, mean that Africa has never had an internal trade. Take a relatively prosperous area like the medaterainian; all the countries surrounding it are facing each other across this stretch of water, perfect for trade. Whereas Africa is thre sort of inverted version of this all the towns and cities are along the coast facing outwards.

Hope

In the long run there has to be a centralization of people, not only in an urbanized sense as already mentioned, but areas of the continent have to be united and look towards individual centers. For example:

Southern Africa will eventually look towards south Africa which is relatively prosperous, has large trade links and would be a good supporting state for surrounding countries. The same goes for:
Kenya to east Africa, Nigeria to west Africa, Sudan for central Africa and ultimately Europe to nothern Africa.

Note: The horn of Africa is fucked and will always be fucked.

thefountainhed

09-21-03, 04:42 PM

Nico,
I try to contradict or counter a statement or suggestion that is made because I am trying to understand how to make Africa a better place. A suggestion should not simply be made without criticism, else it is worthless. I am thinking how to make Africa...., and I am having a very hard time. I will eventually formulate my own suggestion and how you try to rip it apart. This is the nature of a discussion.

nico

09-21-03, 08:46 PM

Here is my solution for Africa:

i) Re-schedule debt with west.

ii) Encourage FDI as much as possible that entails:
a) To encourage peace, and recognition of other parties.
b) To cut government spending in the military, buredonsome and inefficent government employees.
c) Revamp laws in order to have a efficent judicary
d) Make a efficent judicary

iii) Countries with a lot of natural resources should spend that money on export -led indutries, NOT import subsitution.

iv) Their wages have to competitive to those in Asia

v) They should make their currency weak in comparison to the US, or Euro to attract investment.

vi) Argiculturally is not up to them really it is up the west to make structural changes. (i.e Cancun failure)

Otherwise I cannot see a really way to get real development. Now in Africa's case it would be good to have a socialist/Stalinst government in power so that stability is ensured. But that wouldn't be attractive to investors since they believe in the Democracy/Capitalist ideology. Africa sadly has passed the era of globalization passed when other regions, like where I am from Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay developed from the 1900-1950 that was a great era for development. In Asia it was the 70's- present. Africa will get her turn.

thefountainhed

09-22-03, 01:56 PM

What they need is a standing government that lasts 60 years without a civil war. It dosn't have to be a democracy... something like Castro's despotic government in Cuba would be good enough. After that it would be looking like eden in comparson to the average African-hell hole.
No country in the world besides the USA, some European nations and Japan has had internal peace that long...

Firstly Africa is hugely divided geographically, down the center is the rift valley, all the way across are the great lakes and rivers and through the middle is the sahara dessert. Africa for this reason has never had an internal movement of population and its demographic devisions have been enforced not only through culture but genetically aswell.
True to an extent.

[quopte]Very basically, the human species originates from Africa and in terms of evolution only spread outwards relatively recently, so that many human diseases developed in Africa and it is their prefered climate and conditions etc.[/quote]
OK

Africa has never entered the industrial revolution. They did not start using coal, iron etc. In europe for example Britain was first to start smelting iron on a lareg scale, they then built steam ships, guns, cheap equipment etc. But because of the homogenous nature of the european population other countries soon discovered this too, the technology spread to france then spain.
And that is why it must embrace the digital revolution this time around or it is fucked.

The fragmentation of Africa made it an easy target for imperial addition.
Lack of guns too.

A combination of the above factors have kept the continent in practically the dark ages. The divisions i mentioned earlier for example, mean that Africa has never had an internal trade. Take a relatively prosperous area like the medaterainian; all the countries surrounding it are facing each other across this stretch of water, perfect for trade. Whereas Africa is thre sort of inverted version of this all the towns and cities are along the coast facing outwards.
Again true to an extent

long run there has to be a centralization of people, ... example:
Southern Africa will eventually look towards south Africa which is relatively prosperous, has large trade links and would be a good supporting state for surrounding countries. The same goes for:
Kenya to east Africa, Nigeria to west Africa, Sudan for central Africa and ultimately Europe to nothern Africa.
How?

he horn of Africa is fucked and will always be fucked.
LMAO.

Reschedule debt with west.
Nico. HOW?

ii) Encourage FDI as much as possible that entails:
Isn't the FDI terminated? You mean Food Distributors International, right?

a) To encourage peace, and recognition of other parties.
How to encourage peace amidst rife and division evident in tribal, religious and cultural boundaries?

b) To cut government spending in the military, buredonsome and inefficent government employees.
Most African nations don't spend that much on the military and really should. A strong, centralized military of independent branches will counter military coups. Military coups have been so easy because the military isn;t strong, insn't watched, is grossly underpaid and is not composed of different branches able to counter each other. You have an army and that's it. I agree with government employees, especially ghost employees.

c) Revamp laws in order to have a efficent judicary
OK. Which system do you suggest Africa emulates? Or do you have a better idea?

iii) Countries with a lot of natural resources should spend that money on export -led indutries, NOT import subsitution.
The problem with this is first having the capital and human intelligence to develop those industries, and second being able to manage a profit from the exports. The West simply won't buy or encourage others buying goods manufactured in Africa, especially when they depend on the export profits themselves-- this has been tried. Even now, Russia is facing the same problem with China. Instead of buying for instance, furniture made from wood in Siberia, they would rather buy the raw material--the timber. It is cheaper, and they know Russia must sell for they need the money.

iv) Their wages have to competitive to those in Asia
They are in fact cheaper; also there is a huge huge base of educated individuals who finding no opportunities, are will to migrate to other nations. Some PhD's would go to France to be cabbies. Sickening.

v) They should make their currency weak in comparison to the US, or Euro to attract investment.
Already is. The problem however is inflation. Investment may rely on an intial weak currency, but then currency cannot inflate or the investment becomes worthless or less profitable.

vi) Argiculturally is not up to them really it is up the west to make structural changes. (i.e Cancun failure)
True to an extent--I also think the individual nations need to make drastic chnages in their agricultural ways. Horticulture is inefficient, yet abundant. Also, way too mnay independent farms-- these cannot compete with the huge commercial farms in the west. When agriculture composes the majority of most countries' GDP, the farmer is looked down upon.

Otherwise I cannot see a really way to get real development. Now in Africa's case it would be good to have a socialist/Stalinst government in power so that stability is ensured.
Why do you assume democracy cannot work or be stable in Africa?

Africa will get her turn.
Lets hope. Question: Why do you think the "turns" took the form they did? Why Asia before Africa when Africa was especially attractive after independence?

:cool:

Flores

09-23-03, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by thefountainhed
Question: Why do you think the "turns" took the form they did? Why Asia before Africa when Africa was especially attractive after independence?

It's not really a matter of turn. The world doesn't work that way.
And who made it America's turn to be a superpower?

Africa is old as dirt, maybe older. Places that are this old are communicating with time, time is trying to tell them how to behave. The problem is that these places don't listen to time and thus prolong their agony. Places like that including the middle east must reach their own equilibruim by themselves no matter how long it takes. Once they reach that equilibruim, they will be more successfull than any America and Europe combined. It's sort of silly of us to excpet our cookie cutter cut and paste democracy to work out in their situation. It's actually very silly of us to even think that our methods do work, while they have only been under the microscope for such a short time and certainly didn't pass the harsh test of time.

Why does one in four have deadly hepatitis and liver malfunction in Egypt. Why do much AIDS in Africa? Why so much violance and death? The answer is it's emminent and any intervention to stop it is a bandage temporary solution. Just ask Argentina if they longer trust in capitalism? Ask them what is most important for economic survival? and they'll tell you economic independance. When an area become overpopulated to a degree that the resources can no longer sustain the people, as in Africa and the middle east, then good ol diseace and death take over to establish a new equilibruim, and that is far better than any fake capitalism... that make you taste champaign and caviar one day, while there is nothing to eat the next. Africa and the middle east are real, they don't drink champaign or eat caviar, but their future is far more secured than any other country in the world.

I still remember stories that my grandma used to tell me. Egypt used to feed the world, and that made Egypt proud. The day that Egypt lost it's agrigulture, Egypt lost it all including its pride. Without pride, the people fell in a lazy transe and easy making money routes even if included importing guns, ect, were sought. Of course USA and europe are awaiting such misery, for who else would buy the useless harmfull products that they make. Agriculture is the MOST important economic tool for any country and it has been destroyed in Africa and the middle east due to poor planning and greed that would rather excavate the fertile soils to make bricks, and confine a Nile to a ditch to develop the overbanks. So the Nile puniches the people back for their stupidity, no more agriculture, no more fertile land, and all this fertile soil will be dumped in the mideteranean as pollution. The ecosystem is punishing the people and it's winning the war. People will finally get it through their stubborn skull that respecting their envrironment and using their resources wisely is the key to their survival. It will take time, but it will happen.

thefountainhed

09-23-03, 08:17 PM

good post Flores

The problem is that some of us simply cannot wait for the cycle of time to complete. My people are starving, killing and getting killed; to wait for an equilibrium would be impossible on my part. African and the mIddle East will and must adapt to the ways of modernity. How it can successfully adapt is what I am having a problem with--maybe it's simply because Africa has to go by it's own clock, which doesn't exist. Nevertheless, I will think. Any temporary solution, if time will reverse or balance things, is still a solution! And many will benefit as a result.

nico

09-23-03, 09:01 PM

Many African nations have re-scheduled her debt already. Also to add a point, African nations have to learn from their mistakes. They have to try to avoid aid, and instead attract the west, with neo-liberal (shutters down my spine) reforms. But a word from the wise, I example of how not to go through those reforms is Argentina... eek!

Isn't the FDI terminated? You mean Food Distributors International, right?

:bugeye: LOL.... ehm no... Foreign direct investment.

How to encourage peace amidst rife and division evident in tribal, religious and cultural boundaries?

Come in close.... SEPERATE! create unions of likewise tribal relations and scrap the old borders. Now some states can be saved, but states like DRC, or Sudan,etc. Need to be split up no option on this one man.

Most African nations don't spend that much on the military and really should. A strong, centralized military of independent branches will counter military coups.

No, larger militaries are not going to help anything. What the military hates is instability and militaries worldwide have always had a great mis-trust of democraticly elected officials. To have a larger military invariably means socialism, and that is against the neo-liberal reforms u need. Which would entail debt incursion for what?

. Military coups have been so easy because the military isn;t strong, insn't watched, is grossly underpaid and is not composed of different branches able to counter each other.

Whose fault is that? It is obvious that in that sense the $$ is being corrupted out into swiss bank accounts, then they conveniantly blame the central government. So they seize power and get more money in the bank account. Africa is a prime example of this. What has to be done is to curb courruption which is BY far the biggest problem in Africa.

OK. Which system do you suggest Africa emulates? Or do you have a better idea?

Maybe their system is good already, just that cases take too long, the courts are (shockingly enough) corrupt, and are old systems.

The problem with this is first having the capital and human intelligence to develop those industries, and second being able to manage a profit from the exports.

Do what asia does, first you get some highly educated, or potential students to go to the US or Euro. They are subsidized by the African government. Now to profit from exports takes time, you see government subsides is the only way at first to prop up a industry, but make the porducts competitive and cheap so that the west can buy, and most importantly, name recongniztion.

Even now, Russia is facing the same problem with China. Instead of buying for instance, furniture made from wood in Siberia, they would rather buy the raw material--the timber. It is cheaper, and they know Russia must sell for they need the money.

Oh man that is a totally new thread.

They are in fact cheaper; also there is a huge huge base of educated individuals who finding no opportunities, are will to migrate to other nations. Some PhD's would go to France to be cabbies. Sickening.

Well at least that is a advantage, now what is need is good infrastruture, and judicary. Sickening yes, but reality.

Already is. The problem however is inflation. Investment may rely on an intial weak currency, but then currency cannot inflate or the investment becomes worthless or less profitable.

Forget about floating the currency for a long while.

True to an extent--I also think the individual nations need to make drastic chnages in their agricultural ways. Horticulture is inefficient, yet abundant. Also, way too mnay independent farms-- these cannot compete with the huge commercial farms in the west. When agriculture composes the majority of most countries' GDP, the farmer is looked down upon.

Are u suggesting collectivization? I suggest you think twice about that. What I think should happen is to get the west to get rid of subsidies and tariffs. Apart from that, Africa can have a model agri biz, but they would be wasting money.

Why do you assume democracy cannot work or be stable in Africa?

I didn't assume anything, I was just providing a more effective short term solution.

Lets hope. Question: Why do you think the "turns" took the form they did? Why Asia before Africa when Africa was especially attractive after independence?

i) race
ii) resentment among investors who lost money
iii) Congo 1960
iv) fear of coming instability without white rule (which was true)

Asia had the advantage of a engine, being Japan. And it was in Japan's interest to develop the region. Africa has no such patron.

thefountainhed

09-23-03, 09:22 PM

Many African nations have re-scheduled her debt already.
incorrect.

Also to add a point, African nations have to learn from their mistakes. They have to try to avoid aid, and instead attract the west, with neo-liberal (shutters down my spine) reforms.
trust me, they are trying.

But a word from the wise, I example of how not to go through those reforms is Argentina... eek!
LOL.

LOL.... ehm no... Foreign direct investment.
This is what I thought at first but I figured you'd use FI.

Come in close.... SEPERATE! create unions of likewise tribal relations and scrap the old borders.
Remember the old czech republic? Good.

No, larger militaries are not going to help anything.
I said structured and competing/watching, not larger.

What the military hates is instability and militaries worldwide have always had a great mis-trust of democraticly elected officials.
How do you think instability gets initiated in the first place?

To have a larger military invariably means socialism,
Besides the point, but no. Especially when starting off with virtually nothing.

hose fault is that? It is obvious that in that sense the $$ is being corrupted out into swiss bank accounts, then they conveniantly blame the central government. So they seize power and get more money in the bank account. Africa is a prime example of this. What has to be done is to curb courruption which is BY far the biggest problem in Africa.
There were two points and you comveniently ignored one. Russia;s military is underpaid, yet I see no successful coup attempts. Why? I agree with corruption.

asia does, first you get some highly educated, or potential students to go to the US or Euro.
Japan used to do this a lot when it had jobs for the students. Now the students stay in the USA or Europe. Same with Africans.

[qupte]o profit from exports takes time, you see government subsides is the only way at first to prop up a industry, but make the porducts competitive and cheap so that the west can buy, and most importantly, name recongniztion. [/quote]
You are ignoring that Africa can never match Europe in subsidies nor will Europe buy manufactured goods from Africa unless it is European companies making those goods. Buying and not selling these manufactured goods would mean the fall of Europe.

Are u suggesting collectivization? I suggest you think twice about that.
I did. Why not?

What I think should happen is to get the west to get rid of subsidies and tariffs. Apart from that, Africa can have a model agri biz, but they would be wasting money.
And by what reasoning shall the west do such a thing?

I didn't assume anything, I was just providing a more effective short term solution.
Why more "effective"? Isn't that contradictory to your earlier points?

i) race
ii) resentment among investors who lost money
iii) Congo 1960
iv) fear of coming instability without white rule (which was true)

Asia had the advantage of a engine, being Japan. And it was in Japan's interest to develop the region. Africa has no such patron.

Good. So now how does this compare to now?

thefountainhed

09-23-03, 09:22 PM