If you believe that past genocides in Europe excuse the same in Africa then that's fine. So we can chalk up a 1m person genocide as an improvement on a 5m person one, yes?Originally Posted by Dayuhan
Feel so sad for the millions who are dying while others somewhere believe things are not that bad in Africa.
Did I say things weren't bad, or that European genocides excuse African genocides? The point is simply that given human precedent elsewhere, we've no reason to expect anything other than what is, nor have we any reason to think we're superior. Neither have we any reason to think we should or could "fix" Africa. They need to work things out their own way, and it's likely to be ugly, just as it was for us.
Thanks for the clarification.
I would say that it is the very unwillingness to criticise or demand/expect better out of Africa for fear of being charged with superior behaviour or racism that contributes to the current state of affairs. And if the gang of thugs (the leadership) sitting in that AU (club) can prevent interference in the internal of sovereign states in respect to human rights abuses and the like then they can continue with impunity. They have reached that point where they have outsiders making excuses for their actions. Well done to them.
"fix" Africa? Africa cannot fix itself so what you want to do? Ring-fence it and them get on with it? Same for medieval Afghanistan?
Last edited by JMA; 08-28-2010 at 06:53 AM.
I'm not sure how my expectations or demands contribute to Africa's current state of affairs: I rather doubt that anyone in Africa gives a damn what I expect or demand. And while I would certainly hope that Africans will sort out their affairs faster and with less misery than Europeans, I'm not sure it would be reasonable to expect or demand it.
I suppose Africans might have had a hypothetical right to demand or expect better than they got from the gang of European thugs that ran the place during the age of colonies, but their expectations and demands meant as little in that time as ours do in this time.
The question of whether or not we should fix Africa seems somewhat moot until we consider the question of whether or not we can fix Africa. I don't think we can, though I suspect that we could mess it up even more. If you look at the number of dollars and troops we've applied to fixing Afghanistan, and then extrapolate based on relative size and population, it's fairly clear that we haven't a fraction of the dollars or troops that would be required to fix Africa. Then of course we have to consider that the dollars and troops so far applied to Afghanistan have yet to fix anything... I suppose we'll have to leave it to the Chinese, who have a lot more dollars and a lot more troops than we have. They'll choke on it of course, but so would we; better them than us.
Certainly the Africans can't fix Africa right away. Neither can we, or anyone else. I suspect that over the course of a century or two they can probably pull it off. For much of the 19th and 20th centuries East Asia and Latin America seemed beyond salvation; I'm not sure I'd call either "fixed", but they've managed considerable forward progress since we got it through our thick skulls that they needed to sort out their own affairs without our "help".
Just wondering where you get the idea that Africa is somehow incapable of "fixing" itself. Yes, few African countries look much like Western Europe or the U.S. - guess what, 40 years ago, neither Western Europe or the U.S. looked much like they do now either. Minority rights were hardly secure, unless it was the right to occupy second-class status enforced by both law and enthusiastic violence by the majority."fix" Africa? Africa cannot fix itself so what you want to do? Ring-fence it and them get on with it? Same for medieval Afghanistan?
A common failing of the present is to assume that the current state of affairs somehow represents the natural static order of things. Afghanistan is in chaotic violence now (well, parts of the south and east, but that's all that gets reported in the West so it must be so, right?), so it must have always been in chaotic violence! East Asia is peaceful and prosperous, so it must have always been so, no? Africa is poor and afflicted with poor governance - surely it must have always been that way. Of course 40 years ago East Asia was consumed in mass violence, starvation, war, and terror while Africa experienced a generally peaceful transition to self-rule. Who knows what the next 40 years will bring? I do know this - it's probably not going to look much like the present.
The word "fix" is in inverted commas for the reason that what constitutes "fix" in terms of Africa is not defined and therefore totally subjective.
What do you think constitutes "fix"?
Again you look backwards to justify slow forward progress. (Why do people do this?)
Your 40 year standard (don't know where you pick this figure from - maybe you can explain that?) does not on the face of it seem meaningful or relevant to the potential for democracy to thrive in Africa.
Way before minority rights come basic human rights. I don't see violence necessarily by the majority as the main problem but rather violence inflicted by a military and police supported ruling elite upon the majority (to keep in power and their snouts in the trough).
Not sure of that being a common failure as I can't think who thinks that anything is static. Forwards, backwards slow or fast there is always movement.A common failing of the present is to assume that the current state of affairs somehow represents the natural static order of things. Afghanistan is in chaotic violence now (well, parts of the south and east, but that's all that gets reported in the West so it must be so, right?), so it must have always been in chaotic violence! East Asia is peaceful and prosperous, so it must have always been so, no? Africa is poor and afflicted with poor governance - surely it must have always been that way. Of course 40 years ago East Asia was consumed in mass violence, starvation, war, and terror while Africa experienced a generally peaceful transition to self-rule. Who knows what the next 40 years will bring? I do know this - it's probably not going to look much like the present.
Can you support your contention that the area Afghanistan now covers was once peaceful and orderly? Interested to see if you are able.
Again the 40 year frame of reference... what exactly is the relevance?
OK, so now back to the present. What about this thread and whether democracy can thrive in Africa. Certainly not happening now so... will that be possible in your lifetime? Ok then your children's lifetime? Your grandchildren's lifetime? ....
South Asia? Do you maybe mean Southeast Asia?
There are universally accepted human rights. If necessary they need to be enforced. Sadly for the world we have only a tired and wounded US prepared sometimes to make an attempt to protect those suffering under some dictator's jackboot. The world needs to be thankful to the US for their interventions over the years.
The difference between then and now is that we have a benchmark to measure just about everything against now so those behind on the curve have little or no excuse not to strive to comply with haste.
So yes the world has the right to make demands on the behaviour of countries... after all was that not what the ineffectual UN was supposed to do (and has failed in each of its four aims)?
Yes they probably did... but do you have any idea how Africans dealt with Africans before the European thugs arrived?I suppose Africans might have had a hypothetical right to demand or expect better than they got from the gang of European thugs that ran the place during the age of colonies, but their expectations and demands meant as little in that time as ours do in this time.
Why not start with the rise of Shaka Zulu in South Africa or the Mfecane in the area now known as Zimbabwe. So before anyone sheds any tears for Lobengula who felt he was like the fly with the terrible English imperialists being the chameleon think about his (Matebele) victims.
Not a moot point at all. The sad truth is that the powers just can't leave Africa and its resources alone. If there was an African leader of the stature of Peter the Great who would take his country by the scruff of its neck and drag it kicking and screaming into the 21 century and thereby set a standard for the rest of Africa to emulate then things can be "fixed".The question of whether or not we should fix Africa seems somewhat moot until we consider the question of whether or not we can fix Africa. I don't think we can, though I suspect that we could mess it up even more. If you look at the number of dollars and troops we've applied to fixing Afghanistan, and then extrapolate based on relative size and population, it's fairly clear that we haven't a fraction of the dollars or troops that would be required to fix Africa. Then of course we have to consider that the dollars and troops so far applied to Afghanistan have yet to fix anything... I suppose we'll have to leave it to the Chinese, who have a lot more dollars and a lot more troops than we have. They'll choke on it of course, but so would we; better them than us.
Why is it that all you seem to consider is military intervention and throwing money at the problem? Ever thought that having so few options in itself may be part of the problem? Africa is not begging for aid it is the governments which plunder their countries which beg for aid which they in turn loot for their own ends while the donors look on blindly.
Can't leave Africa to the Chinese, the West needs the resources too.
I guess the hope is that one day there will be a US administration which will comprise people who have the smarts to figure this all out... not happened so far.
There are certainly some things which can be "fixed" right away and others will be a work in progress for many years to come. Can the people of Africa wait all those years for a chance to live in an enlightened country with a strong rule of law and the protection of a rock solid constitution? Just by dealing with corruption Africa will be able to take a giant stride forward. It won't take much to do if there is the will...Certainly the Africans can't fix Africa right away. Neither can we, or anyone else. I suspect that over the course of a century or two they can probably pull it off. For much of the 19th and 20th centuries East Asia and Latin America seemed beyond salvation; I'm not sure I'd call either "fixed", but they've managed considerable forward progress since we got it through our thick skulls that they needed to sort out their own affairs without our "help".
Hallucinating
somehow, I feel like some are discussing of a continent which is located on Mars or elsewhere in a galaxy far away a long time ago.
The idea that all plagues in Africa are due to colonisation is a non sense. Just like all development was stopped by europeans through slave trade. In such business you need 2 guys to robe the third one. And among the 2 bad guys, one native.
Such approach of this continent does participate to the counter efforts of several leaders and their clique to justify that what applies all around the world should not apply to the African continent because they are different and have suffered a lot.
It will take time but things will change, with or without the US, UN or EU or even the Chinese. It will most probably requires that a generation of leaders pass away and all the state servants they put in place too.
Africa is a sweet but harsh mistress, even for the african people.
This isn't about what needs to be done or what should be done, it's about what can be done. The US can't enforce human rights, in Africa or anywhere else. We haven't the money or the manpower. Neither, realistically, has anybody else.
Who is this "we" of which you speak? The inmates here at SWJ? The White People? The process of political evolution is messy and violent. It always is, it has been everywhere. The former colonies are "behind the curve" in this process because the process was interrupted for several centuries. Now the process has restarted, and surprise surprise, it's just as messy and violent as it always has been. "We" - whoever "we" are - may or may not have the "right" to demand or expect that Africa will comply with our standards, but since "we" haven't the capacity to enforce compliance, the "right" is irrelevant.
Who, in your view, are "we", and what exactly do you propose that "we" do?
Of course. They dealt with each other the same way that Europeans dealt with each other in their centuries of thuggery. They dealt with each other in the same way that European settlers dealt with native populations in North America and Australia. The strong crushed the weak. This is not an African trait, it is a human trait. The Africans are no better, no worse, no different than anyone else... why should we expect or demand that they should be?
What would you have "the powers" do... assuming without evidence that "the powers" are capable of doing anything on a collective basis?
There isn't one, nor can we create one. Maybe someday there will be one. Russia existed as a distinct political entity for several centuries before it generated Peter; maybe with luck Africa can generate an equivalent within a century or two... or it might turn out that a personal saviour isn't what generates change in Africa at all.
What option do you propose?
The Africans, like everybody else, will sell the resources to the highest bidder, regardless of who intervenes or who invests. If investors get pissy about the terms of the deal, the deal will be changed, unilaterally. How long do you think it will be before some multi-billion dollar Chinese resource extraction enterprise gets nationalized? What do you think the Chinese will do about it?
Perhaps you should enlighten us. What would you have us do?
And from M-A...
Of course it is. The idea that colonizers have no responsibility for the current state of affairs is equal nonsense. If nothing else, the egregiously perverse "national" boundaries inherited from the colonial age constitute a massive obstacle to progress.The idea that all plagues in Africa are due to colonisation is a non sense.
All people, everywhere, have to gradually sort out the political identities that suit them, and to find ways for the entities they define to coexist without destroying each other. In Europe this process required centuries of almost continuous bloodshed. In the colonies the process was delayed by foreign occupation. That doesn't mean the process was made harder or easier, more or less complex, it was just delayed. When the colonists left the process picked up where it had stopped. It's going to be messy, as it has been everywhere else.
Does it make any more sense to expect that Africans should be able to bypass stages in their political development that every other region has had to pass through just because we find those stages distasteful?Such approach of this continent does participate to the counter efforts of several leaders and their clique to justify that what applies all around the world should not apply to the African continent because they are different and have suffered a lot.
With this I agree... if they do it in a single generation that would actually be a quite remarkable achievement. I would expect several.It will take time but things will change, with or without the US, UN or EU or even the Chinese. It will most probably requires that a generation of leaders pass away and all the state servants they put in place too.
Dayuhan,
Sengor was saying, Africa will have finally deal with slavery the day African will recognise their responsability in it. It is the same with colonisation. Through, I am not saying that Europeans did not do it and had only positive influx. This is a very racist position which I reject in block without taking time to discuss it. Europ had a responsability in it and Europ had bad influence. Now, please, we are 50 years later in most of the sub saharian countries. (And what about US influence in Liberia...)
My point is that even in Europe, Boundaries were imposed on the people: look at Yugoslavia, Poland that disapeared for centuries, the German minorities in Poland... The question is not there. Also, my experience is that people have true nationalist feelings in the Great Lake region for exemple. A congolese is a Congolese and he denise the right to be Congolese to Rwandese. The same with people from Burundi, South Sudan... Their personal history within those "artificial" boundaries in the last 50 years has shaped their national perception. The true problematic is TOO MANY SEE AFRICA HAS ONE SINGLE ENTITY. It is NOT. And then, the political use of ethnicity by all political actors, internal and external. Do you really think that coming from Bourgogne I have anything in comun with someone coming from Alsace or Provence part from a language and a school teaching?
It is the same with ethnicity. Yes it is stronger in Africa than in other places but as much as anywhere else. What makes it so artificially importante is the use politicians did and still do of it. But I know more and more individuals who just do not care from which ethnic group you are, what is important is that you come from the same country. (With some bemol, I accept that).
No but if it can be minimised, then it should. Political evolutionism is no reason for social darwinism.Does it make any more sense to expect that Africans should be able to bypass stages in their political development that every other region has had to pass through just because we find those stages distasteful?
Let say I am optimistic. But still, please, when it comes to Africa, do not forget that it is a continent with countries as different as Tunisia and Zimbabwe. Do you really think the political and maturation process in Ethiopia is the same as in Swaziland?With this I agree... if they do it in a single generation that would actually be a quite remarkable achievement. I would expect several.
Last edited by M-A Lagrange; 08-29-2010 at 08:48 AM.
Over time I have come to understand there are two stock answers that are developed to justify intervention or justify taking no action.
When a murderous dictator is the enemy of your enemy (or is prepared to be so temporarily) then you see them pull out the stock answer to justify taking no action.
Its all too much like a high school debating society. That would be OK if they did not insult our intelligence by seeming to think we are not on to them and their game.
"We" would in this instance would include those of an IQ of more than 100 but less than 160 who are smart enough to see through this charade yet have the common sense not try to think they would get away with such a ridiculous game if they were to try it. (The smartest guy in the room theory falls down as found in the following research - Does Super-High IQ= Super-Low Common Sense?
The world has moved a little along from the days of unbridled thuggery. It has become less of an option for the developed world and those in the undeveloped world who still thing that genocide is still an option should be put on notice that it will not be tolerated any more. I believe the ICC is starting to make headway in this regard with that den of thieves and murderers the AU putting in a last ditch stand.
Of course doesn't help when you have a western leader who is willing to cast aside his morals, ethics and the rest to make a commercial deal with the devil yet still have the gall to go to church on Sundays. ( Blair secretly courted Robert Mugabe to boost trade - this comes as no surprise to those who have come to realise that Foreign and Commonwealth Office is an absolutely amoral organisation)
So you put the thugs of the world on notice not to chance their arm because if they do the rest of the world will come after them in no uncertain terms.
Yes there will always be those like Blair and before him Margret Thatcher who will be able to turn a blind eye and that makes for a difficult process to get international consensus on anything. But that should never stop people, their leaders and their country from taking a stand on such issues - its called moral courage.
You are correct there is no African "Peter the Great" at the moment so the world will just have to apply pressure on the AU mafia to start to behave in a more democratic and less corrupt manner. The AU is the main problem followed by the states which are prepared to sell their souls in order to do business with certain African countries.
As to the options. It would be a start if the western world accepted that their so-called diplomacy towards Africa has been an abysmal failure and that if they took the time to learn about Africa they would realise that each circumstance is as different as chalk and cheese.
Yes the situation is exacerbated by the new scramble for African resources led by the Chinese who it remains to be seen how they will handle their relations with Africa (having the opportunity to learn from the failures of others).
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks