Africa Demands....

[rcne]

When you contributed to the state of their continent as it is today, they're right.

Matt, I did nothing of the sort, neither did my father or his father or his father. To link deeds of the past as due today is arrogance in its own right.

How far back in history to go when considering reparations? The English during their empire building?, the Spanish for raping Latin America?, Attila the Hun for sacking Rome?, Genghis Kahn for his deeds in China?.

The list is as long as mankind's history. Seats on the security council are not based upon who voices the loudest objections.

[Matt W]

rcne - I don't mean 'you' as in anyone here personally. However, to suggest that the G8 nations are not culpable in living memory is ridiculous. Trade tariffs, the Cold War conflicts, the botched handover of the colonies to their inhabitants....it all played a significant part.

[tinybear]

Botched handover of the colonies? What do you mean? They asked for independence (some kicked their former colonial rulers out by force) and they got what they wanted. If it later turned out they were not ready for independence, well, don't blame the colonizers, they asked for it.

[Nono]

Quote by: tiny They asked for independence (some kicked their former colonial rulers out by force) and they got what they wanted.

Yes, but within impossible borders. Most African countries are not politically viable. And guess what? Conflict is endemic in much of the continent.

Yes, they have to solve this on their own, but the West can and should help.

[oranged]

Quote by: Matt W I certainly think 'we' should stop making empty promises about Africa and actually do something which would help.

I agree, but giving money wouyldn't help all that much. It would just be stolen by war lords in Africa. I think people need to give food and education. Not that my country is part of the G8.

[Prometheus]

Africa - huh - whats an Africa?

What are they going to do about it - starve at us?

[tinybear]

Quote by: Nono Yes, but within impossible borders. Most African countries are not politically viable. And guess what? Conflict is endemic in much of the continent. Yes, they have to solve this on their own, but the West can and should help.

Nono, a recent article I read said that donors who have poured more than $300 billion into African nations since 1980 have since watched much of it vanish into a sinkhole of corruption, fraud, malfeasance and waste.

Tell you what. Let's ask the African nations to go five years without a war/genocide and we'll start giving aid in the form of food, technology and education to their people. How's that?

[oranged]

Quote by: Prometheus Africa - huh - whats an Africa? What are they going to do about it - starve at us?

It's not that anyone is scared, it's just a moral thing.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: tinybear donors who have poured more than $300 billion into African nations since 1980

Heh, you need a source on this before I trust your tiny memory, tinybear. I think you are talking not donations, but LOANS, which have an ulterior purpose to create indebtedness (a type of slavery). The money you refer to was likely wasted largely as you term it, in "corruption, fraud, malfeasance and waste."

But the recipients were the elites in those nations who collaborate with the globalist agenda to enslave and starve the working people there. And then the World Bank and the IMF require "restructuring" of their economies which lead to fire sales on the infrastructure like water supplies, communications nets, etc.

[ibm]

Quote by: rcne Matt, I did nothing of the sort, neither did my father or his father or his father. To link deeds of the past as due today is arrogance in its own right. How far back in history to go when considering reparations? The English during their empire building?, the Spanish for raping Latin America?, Attila the Hun for sacking Rome?, Genghis Kahn for his deeds in China?. The list is as long as mankind's history. Seats on the security council are not based upon who voices the loudest objections.

please don't take things personal. western prosperity was, and still is, in a large part, built on colonization and exploitation (to put it nicely) of poor countries/regions, including the entire continent of africa. the matter is about morality and conscience, not legality.

[rcne]

IBM, you should also include the continent of America in the morality studies. History is history. I stand by my opinion that it is not just Western exploitation, but exploitation throughout history. The Egyptians (African Continent) in their time did a fair job of exploiting those peoples of the West, East North and South, so what does that have to do with seats on the UN security council?



.

[ibm]

Quote by: rcne IBM, you should also include the continent of America in the morality studies. History is history. I stand by my opinion that it is not just Western exploitation, but exploitation throughout history. The Egyptians (African Continent) in their time did a fair job of exploiting those peoples of the West, East North and South, so what does that have to do with seats on the UN security council? .

"sorry i ripped y'all off in the past. but let's forget about that and look forward (although the forward-look is still pretty much the same), shall we?" isn't that what you are saying?

ancient egypt has diminished long ago. that's why it is irrelevant today. but what the western world did in the past few centuries still sees its effect today. and that's why it's relevant to today's world.

if the un is an international family where issues are supposed to be resovled, i don't see why africa should not be part of the council.

[rcne]

ancient egypt has diminished long ago. that's why it is irrelevant today. but what the western world did in the past few centuries still sees its effect today. and that's why it's relevant to today's world.

So is it a question then of eminence or time. For instance if France or Spain were still as powerful as they were a a century ago would they still be relevant?

As far as the UN goes - aren't the African nations members?, if so then they do have a voice.

[ibm]

rcne, i have little interest to go any further with regards to the topic of history and its relevance. sorry.

as to the un council, globalization of economies has called for additions of new members. india and japan have "demanded" it. now so does africa. will it come true? i don't know. but i think it should. but you and i both know, in the reality of international stage, only power speaks volume. and politicians of all countries will act based on the exchange in satisfaction of interests.

[Matt W]

rcne - as I pointed out, a lot of the damage has been done within living memory. Sod history, what about the fact that there are still people in power, still policies in place, that prevent them from even remotely playing by the same rules as the G8 states?

Promotheus - I sincerely hope that was sarcasm.

[tinybear]

Look, bottom line is if I wanna dish out charity (yes, charity; we owe them nothing for what happened a century ago, OK?), I'd like to see where the money goes. If Africa is asking the G8 to eradicate poverty but stands by and watches Robert Mugabe uproot hundreds of thousands of Zimbabwe's poorest citizens and turns a once prosperous nation into wasteland, I'd say charity ought to visit someone else. In fact, I believe the President of South Africa rebuked the EU recently for even suggesting that something ought to be done about the wholsale destruction of the Zimbabwe shanties, hence creating a horde of homeless, starving refugees hungry for Western aid. The EU was told to mind its own business.

[Nono]

Quote by: tiny A recent article I read said that donors who have poured more than $300 billion into African nations since 1980 have since watched much of it vanish into a sinkhole of corruption, fraud, malfeasance and waste.

Whether your figures are correct or not, it's a fact that Africa is rife with corruption and lousy government. And above all rife with never-ending war. One of the factors -- I say again -- is the lack of sane borders, i.e. the lumping together of ethnic chalk and cheese. This is directly the doing of Europe.

For reasons of general humanity (the huge majority of Africans are victims, not perpetrators) we rich guys should try to help. And not by throwing money at the problem.
There are other reasons: growth of Islam in Africa, a mass exodus of the most talented Africans to our rich countries, etc.

Mugabe? So Africans are hypocrites like everybody else. Mbeke is a dingbat, no kidding. So... don't help Mbeke, or Mugabe. There are lots of ways to improve people's lives without lining the pockets of the leaders.

And encourage African success stories like Botswana.

[Matt W]

I'd say charity ought to visit someone else.

Really? A child dies every 3 seconds because of extreme poverty in Africa. Like Nono says, there are success stories - if you don't want to give to Zimbabwe or South Africa, then don't. How 'bout Rwanda? DRC? Ethiopia? Erirtrea? Africa is much more than just one nation, tb. But if you want to go ahead and stereotype, you do that.

we owe them nothing for what happened a century ago, OK?

What about 30 years ago? 20 years? 10? Today?

[tinybear]

A look at Corruption rankings for 2002 reveals the following: On a scale of 10, only 22 countries had a passing grade of 7 or better and none of them were from Africa. However, let's focus on the 5 African nations that are least corrupt.

They are:
Botswana 6.4
Namibia 5.7
South Africa 4.8
Tunisia 4.8
Mauritius 4.5

No other African country scored over 4 on a scale of 10. Countries that should receive zero development aid include:
Kenya 1.9
Angola 1.7

Let's face it. Even if we pour aid into the corrupt countries, it'll all end up in the pockets of corrupt officials and dictators.

[Matt W]

Let's face it. Even if we pour aid into the corrupt countries, it'll all end up in the pockets of corrupt officials and dictators.

So let's do absolutely nothing? Great solution, tb. It's that kind of fatalism and cynicism that ensures that nothing will change.