|
On June 03 2011 03:51 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2011 02:55 shadymmj wrote:
What I'm saying is that Africa has demonstrated very little ability to make progress on its own, with or without foreign influence, good or bad. It is therefore not right to say that Africa is the sole result of westerners. You seem to think there's only 2 possibilities in the equation: A) Africa with no foreign contact at all, which would likely be still in bronze or feudal age today B) Africa being exploited to death by europeans, which did bring them more than they had although got them worse than every other place on earth today Then you conclude B > A. No one is arguing against that. (though we'll never be 100% sure) But instead we're trying to show you that foreign contact was inevitable, and it didn't need to be destructible. Instead these could happen. C) Non destructive contact with beneficial trades for both sides. Ex.: europe trading with some asian countries D) Settling colonies just like europe did to US, Australia and others. (C and D) > B > A It's very subjective to try to say who is "to blame" of why africa is less developed than the rest of the world. But you can't say africa wouldn't be in a much better shape today if the inevitable foreign contact wasn't as destructive and exploitive as it was. Africa was the most exploited region of the world and as a result it's the least developed place of the world. It's very simple. Bro, dont bring this most exploited thing here. The natives of my country served as slaves/serfs to the germans and russians for the past 700 years. After that came the soviet regime which completely dismantled the capital structure necessary for profitable operation. It was tough work, yet despite these misfortunes, , after the collapse of USSR,in 20 years of free market capitalism, we have managed to come from a shit hole to a borderline-first world country with 20k gdp per capita.
You see, the point of this is the conditions of development. it is up to the people to choose whether they want the conditions of wealth accumulation or they dont. The africans have shown that they dont, hence they have DEMONSTRATED their aptitude toward SLAVERY and POVERTY.
|
On June 03 2011 04:01 killa_robot wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2011 03:51 VIB wrote:On June 03 2011 02:55 shadymmj wrote:
What I'm saying is that Africa has demonstrated very little ability to make progress on its own, with or without foreign influence, good or bad. It is therefore not right to say that Africa is the sole result of westerners. You seem to think there's only 2 possibilities in the equation: A) Africa with no foreign contact at all, which would likely be still in bronze or feudal age today B) Africa being exploited to death by europeans, which did bring them more than they had although got them worse than every other place on earth today Then you conclude B > A. No one is arguing against that. (though we'll never be 100% sure) But instead we're trying to show you that foreign contact was inevitable, and it didn't need to be destructible. Instead these could happen. C) Non destructive contact with beneficial trades for both sides. Ex.: europe trading with some asian countries D) Settling colonies just like europe did to US, Australia and others. (C and D) > B > A It's very subjective to try to say who is "to blame" of why africa is less developed than the rest of the world. But you can't say africa wouldn't be in a much better shape today if the inevitable foreign contact wasn't as destructive and exploitive as it was. Africa was the most exploited region of the world and as a result it's the least developed place of the world. It's very simple. C) Europe only traded with those countries because it was easier than taking their resources by force. In Africa's case it was easier to take things by force, hence they did so. D) Settling only works when they gain control over the area, kinda hard when the current inhabitants have large numbers and are not all too friendly. Not to mention settling has a purpose, people don't just up and move to a new place for the hell of it, why send a bunch of people to a place that already has a bunch of people? Why not simply take advantage of those current people and exploit them for their resources? Also Australia was originally a prison, not a colony. ....so? What is the point of you have posted that? I'm not arguing at any point why europeans chose to do what they did or not. I'm talking about the effects of what they actually did.
On June 03 2011 04:02 xarthaz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2011 03:51 VIB wrote:On June 03 2011 02:55 shadymmj wrote:
What I'm saying is that Africa has demonstrated very little ability to make progress on its own, with or without foreign influence, good or bad. It is therefore not right to say that Africa is the sole result of westerners. You seem to think there's only 2 possibilities in the equation: A) Africa with no foreign contact at all, which would likely be still in bronze or feudal age today B) Africa being exploited to death by europeans, which did bring them more than they had although got them worse than every other place on earth today Then you conclude B > A. No one is arguing against that. (though we'll never be 100% sure) But instead we're trying to show you that foreign contact was inevitable, and it didn't need to be destructible. Instead these could happen. C) Non destructive contact with beneficial trades for both sides. Ex.: europe trading with some asian countries D) Settling colonies just like europe did to US, Australia and others. (C and D) > B > A It's very subjective to try to say who is "to blame" of why africa is less developed than the rest of the world. But you can't say africa wouldn't be in a much better shape today if the inevitable foreign contact wasn't as destructive and exploitive as it was. Africa was the most exploited region of the world and as a result it's the least developed place of the world. It's very simple. You see, the point of this is the conditions of development. it is up to the people to choose whether they want the conditions of wealth accumulation or they dont. The africans have shown that they dont, hence they have DEMONSTRATED their aptitude toward SLAVERY and POVERTY. O.O Ohhhkeeey...?
|
On June 02 2011 17:07 Telcontar wrote:
Urgh. This is so disgusting....... My soul just died a little.
I nearly threw up..
|
This discussion shows one of the problems why these things happens over and over. All people are concerned about the ones that sell the babys and the women. Nearly noone is concerned about the people who buy them. Thats the real problem. For every perversion you could make money with their needs to be someone who actually buys it.
Its not really about the baby sellers , ofc im not defending them, but theyre just making money. What should concerne everyone way more is why the hell people are buying babys/women/slaves whatever and do all kinds of shit to them.
Its like when people are talking about capitalism. Its easy to blame the government and the big fat company bosses who treat their employees bad, but theyre just there because everyone buys their products.
|
United Kingdom1153 Posts
The Human Race never fails to disappoint.
|
Where's Liam Neeson when you need him?
|
Buying or selling of babies is illegal in Nigeria and can carry a 14-year jail term.
WTF? i'd have him hanged, and he could still thank me for going easy on him, that crap i ve just read is disgusting
|
This makes me both sick and so angry, how can people have such a callous disregard for life.
Also this economic discussion is pretty distasteful. To imply that the ordinary people in Africa are poor because they want to be poor, or don't work hard enough is stupid. Countries need resources to make money. In Africa these resources are controlled by corrupt businessmen, some African and some Western. You also can't compare it to any other countries experience, because even in Russia post Tsar at least they'd had a revolution.
We should continue to send aid, and up the amount of aid that we send, but I fear that the only way things can improve will be after long revolutions where the people take the natural resources back for themselves. I don't even know if that will be enough because I'm not sure the poorer African countries have enough resources for their huge populations.
|
the ignorance in some of these posts is upsetting. even more so then the reality of this post  (
|
Africa's a real tough moral issue. I'm not even sure what I would do if I were in charge of fixing it somehow. It seems like the main dilemma is the aid going mostly to food aid instead of infrastructure aid.
So you send a ton of food aid to Africa, and that saves people's lives, which is great. But then they have a ton of kids, and nothing actually got fixed in the country because the infrastructure is as shitty as ever, so now there are even more hungry people. So you send even more food aid and then those people survive and grow up and have even more kids, and now there are even MORE hungry people...and you can see this can't go on forever, eventually there will be a breaking point where the rest of the world can't even produce enough food to send there.
I heard that over 90% of the aid we send is food aid, and less than 10% is infrastructure aid. Africa will never be self-sufficient if their population keeps exploding so rapidly (enabled by food aid), but at the same time, is it ever okay to just let people starve to death for the sake of future generations? Would you be able to personally withhold food from a starving African kid if one was right in front of you? I wouldn't be able to. It's a really, really tough moral dilemma. The other option is of course sterilization, but that also has extremely unsavory moral implications.
Frankly this is one of those things where I'm happy that I don't have to be the one to make decisions about it.
|
On June 03 2011 03:00 Ace wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2011 02:50 zalz wrote:On June 03 2011 02:45 Judicator wrote:On June 03 2011 02:34 shadymmj wrote:
Because people keep pushing the blame to westerners, thinking that all colonisation did was turn Africa into chaos - allow me to say that if no foreign man and none of his inventions had ever stepped into central/southern africa, maybe they would be finding out how to build a power grid just about now.
If Malaysia and Singapore were not colonised for the purpose of, well, let's not call it exploitation, but basically in British interests, then what the heck were they doing there in the first place? I'm not denying that the British did a great job with those countries - colonisation was good! But the fact is that Malaysia was a great source of rubber and Singapore had a great strategic location to pitch a trading port there.
You mean to tell me that the British gave these two countries preferential treatment in the colonisation game? Sigh, get over your paper-thin arguments and comparisons; they're hardly relevant. The reason why Europeans are being blamed is simply because of the fact that they drew the damn borders. If you think that is somehow insignificant compared to the technological/infrastructural contributions...well...you really don't know what you are talking about. Borders have been drawn right through population centers since the dawn of man. You think the Chinese emperor gave a fuck if some mongolian horde had suddenly become a part of his nation? You think the Muslim caliphate gave a damn? Maybe the Roman empire gave a fuck? Leaders make borders and never in history has there been much attention to who gets to live on what side, but there has always been plenty of attention as to wich side of the border would have a mountain filled with iron. But for some strange reason the people in Africa couldn't cope with this and reacted in a fit of uncontrollable self-destructive rage that is still going on today. Honestly there is only so long you can go on with carying a grudge and still be taken seriously. This border nonesense has been repeated often enough and has no grounding in reality. Another one of those false truths wich is accepted on no other basis then "sounds reasonable". The borders were drawn by other countries, not native leaders. Come on, think about this for more than 5 seconds.
Oke so rather then people who don't care anything about the local population make-up, the borders were drawn by...people that don't care anything about the local population make-up. I never said they were not drawn by European leaders, the point was that even native leaders have sold out parts of their population throughout history. How do you think borders came to be? Because people wanted to peacefully hold hands and make the best possible division? You honestly think that leaders of a country are gonna give a damn about the people living on the borders? Some border folk are a cheap sell for some fertile land. All borders are the result of give and take and many more people that you could count have gone from one nation to the other by the signing of a pen wether it be a native leader or a foreign leader.
Only the Africans are supposedly unable to deal with this fact and engaged in selfdestructive behaviour for many centuries to follow. Atleast such is your point.
You really should read the thing you quote, come on, think about this for more then 5 seconds.
|
The main problem within africa is the actualy attitude and mentality.
I'm not saying all africans are the same. I'm sure they are hundreds of thousands of good hearted people.
Let me make a comparison. In America there is many exploitations of the current system that allowed people to greedily benefit. This only stops when it is 100% prevented, which takes time. It takes a powerful justice system.
In africa it is the same kind of scenario, people exploit others. They exploit their naiive nature so they can gain. Basically curruption.
But within Africa the justice system is very weak.
So overall, the attitude of greedyness, exploitationists, provail and prosper. This type of activity is what leads to a vicious circle of more greed, less justice, and more curruption.
Within this mentality of free for all, you have all types of attrocious events...
If you cannot hold people accountable, more and more will follow the path of curruption as a survival method.
And I agree that Europeans have held an influence over the state of africa. Some people have good points.
There are many differences between group mentalities over the globe.
I feel that africa is plagued by greed, the curruption of money, and most of all ignorance.
If you are willing to kill another human being, you are ignorant. Directly or indirectly.
|
On June 03 2011 03:51 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2011 02:55 shadymmj wrote:
What I'm saying is that Africa has demonstrated very little ability to make progress on its own, with or without foreign influence, good or bad. It is therefore not right to say that Africa is the sole result of westerners. You seem to think there's only 2 possibilities in the equation: A) Africa with no foreign contact at all, which would likely be still in bronze or feudal age today B) Africa being exploited to death by europeans, which did bring them more than they had although got them worse than every other place on earth today Then you conclude B > A. No one is arguing against that. (though we'll never be 100% sure) But instead we're trying to show you that foreign contact was inevitable, and it didn't need to be destructible. Instead these could happen. C) Non destructive contact with beneficial trades for both sides. Ex.: europe trading with some asian countries D) Settling colonies just like europe did to US, Australia and others. (C and D) > B > A
I dont think driving the native population into the brink of extinction (aborigines, american indian, mayan) is better than the current situation in Africa (for the natives at least)
so not really agree with your D > B comment
|
On June 02 2011 16:54 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 16:51 baoluvboa wrote:On June 02 2011 16:49 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:On June 02 2011 16:23 Lexpar wrote:
I truly hope that somewhere in the future the backwards continent of Africa can receive real humanitarian aid and reparations for the hundreds of years of social and economic damage the rest of the world has caused it. It seems like many of the most terrible articles I read are fueled by the ever pressing poverty and hunger and disease that grips the African continent. I'm interested in TL's opinion as to whether or not the hundreds of western charities set up to benefit Africa can, have, or will make a real difference. Is a larger, international, government effort needed?
this brings to mind a quote about giving a man a fish but i don't think that's the real reason these people are hungry Yea give a man a fish after you stole his resources and people and ignored genocides (slaves) A fish is toooo much to ask for we stole their resources and people? slavery in the US was a long time ago.. unless you are talking about something else?
Errr. Not to mention the fact that many of the original Slavers were native Africans, themselves.
|
On June 03 2011 11:48 sandyph wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2011 03:51 VIB wrote:On June 03 2011 02:55 shadymmj wrote:
What I'm saying is that Africa has demonstrated very little ability to make progress on its own, with or without foreign influence, good or bad. It is therefore not right to say that Africa is the sole result of westerners. You seem to think there's only 2 possibilities in the equation: A) Africa with no foreign contact at all, which would likely be still in bronze or feudal age today B) Africa being exploited to death by europeans, which did bring them more than they had although got them worse than every other place on earth today Then you conclude B > A. No one is arguing against that. (though we'll never be 100% sure) But instead we're trying to show you that foreign contact was inevitable, and it didn't need to be destructible. Instead these could happen. C) Non destructive contact with beneficial trades for both sides. Ex.: europe trading with some asian countries D) Settling colonies just like europe did to US, Australia and others. (C and D) > B > A I dont think driving the native population into the brink of extinction (aborigines, american indian, mayan) is better than the current situation in Africa (for the natives at least) so not really agree with your D > B comment I mostly agree with you, but I was talking on the utilitarianist point of view of the guy I was quoting. Not necessarily my own.
|
I may get shit for saying this, but there are quite a few parallels with their twisted idea, and how many advanced countries manufacture our proteins. To them women are just as inferior as animals, it does not justify it but it is going to take years to change their way of thinking.
|
Human trafficking... too fucked up. After reading through the Deep Web thread, man, my mind is just racing.
The thing that scares me the most about all this isn't the grunt work, or the work of the middle men - it's whoever is at the top and sending money down through the ranks. Bah. Gonna sit on this info tonight.
Thanks for the OP.
On June 03 2011 04:29 Eufouria wrote:
This makes me both sick and so angry, how can people have such a callous disregard for life.
Also this economic discussion is pretty distasteful. To imply that the ordinary people in Africa are poor because they want to be poor, or don't work hard enough is stupid. Countries need resources to make money. In Africa these resources are controlled by corrupt businessmen, some African and some Western. You also can't compare it to any other countries experience, because even in Russia post Tsar at least they'd had a revolution.
We should continue to send aid, and up the amount of aid that we send, but I fear that the only way things can improve will be after long revolutions where the people take the natural resources back for themselves. I don't even know if that will be enough because I'm not sure the poorer African countries have enough resources for their huge populations.
I agree with the 2nd paragraph entirely. Under careful guidance and surveillance, a lot of the money does get put to good use, but what about the rest of it? It probably finds its way back to some of the sick fucks who are orchestrating this kind of crap. Different circumstances, but here's an example: people stealing the aid resources from the Red Cross. Disgusting.
|
I think I just vomited in my mouth a little. This is disgusting
|
I know I'm supposed to be shocked, but what action could possibly come from bringing to light such events? I've read the article. Now it'll take me about 10 minutes to decide to stop reading through this thread and move onto another, or I'll go to sleep. I'll forget about this in 15 minutes.
Does this type of journalism help Africa? No. I doubt any of them read this and suddenly decided to go around stopping these "baby factories." It doesn't affect their life either.
It's all for entertainment. Isn't it sad how a forum is basically like "Create Your Own News Show" with endless stories to report?
|
On June 03 2011 14:12 ghrur wrote:
I know I'm supposed to be shocked, but what action could possibly come from bringing to light such events? I've read the article. Now it'll take me about 10 minutes to decide to stop reading through this thread and move onto another, or I'll go to sleep. I'll forget about this in 15 minutes.
Does this type of journalism help Africa? No. I doubt any of them read this and suddenly decided to go around stopping these "baby factories." It doesn't affect their life either.
It's all for entertainment. Isn't it sad how a forum is basically like "Create Your Own News Show" with endless stories to report?
Are you incapable of filtering out the good information from the bad information? If TL to you is like leaving the radio on in the background, and you can't separate what merits awareness and what merits ignorance, then you should probably find another hobby.
There is no need to be so cynical. Many people will have read this article having learned something, and just because they may not be able to act on it immediately, doesn't mean it should be discarded as useless.
No individual, after learning of this, will be able to put an end to it. No change can take place immediately. However, something can happen over time, after it becomes part of a group consciousness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
