So, your saying that all of Africa was at the hunter-gatherer stage when it was colonized? No, I'm saying you're a troll without a point, simply nitpicking for something to flame me about. FO&DIAF.
If you read that link it points out that colonialism has been over for 50+years. In June of 2002, leaders from the eight most powerful countries in the world (the G8) met to form a New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD) as an "anti-poverty" campaign. One glaring omission, however, is the consultation and representation of the African nations. Not one of the eight leaders was from Africa. The danger of the NEPAD proposal is that it fails to protect Africa from exploitation of its resources. NEPAD is akin to Plan Columbia in its attempt to employ Western development techniques to provide economic opportunities for international investment. Welcomed by the G8 nations, this development plan reads like a mad dash to grab up as much of Africa's remaining resources as possible.
According to Robert Murphy of the US State Department's Office of African Analysis, Africa is important to "the diversification of our sources of imported oil" away from the Middle East. The U.S. currently gets 15% of its total oil imports from the African continent. By 2015, that figure will be 25%. Rather than a plan to reduce African poverty, NEPAD is a mechanism for ensuring that U.S. and other Western investments are protected.
The fault of those that forced that situation: The colonial powers. And how long does this fault last for? At least as long as they keep it up.
Today, Africa is the most war-torn continent in the world. Over the past fifteen years, thirty-two of the fifty-three African countries experienced violent conflict. During the cold war years (1950-1989), the U.S. sent $1.5 billion in arms and training to Africa thus setting the stage for the current round of conflicts. From 1991-1995 the U.S. increased the amount of weapons and other military assistance to fifty of the total fifty-three African countries. Over the years these U.S. funded wars have been responsible for the deaths of millions of Africans, and the subsequent displacement, disease, and starvation of many millions more.
In June of 2002, leaders from the eight most powerful countries in the world (the G8) met to form a New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD) as an "anti-poverty" campaign. One glaring omission, however, is the consultation and representation of the African nations. Not one of the eight leaders was from Africa. The danger of the NEPAD proposal is that it fails to protect Africa from exploitation of its resources. NEPAD is akin to Plan Columbia in its attempt to employ Western development techniques to provide economic opportunities for international investment. Welcomed by the G8 nations, this development plan reads like a mad dash to grab up as much of Africa's remaining resources as possible.
Families and whole tribes had been split up into separate countries. Rival kingdoms, who had for centuries shared borders and warred with each other, suddenly found themselves redefined as one people. So whose fault is it? The fault of those that forced that situation: The colonial powers.
Or are you saying that [...] If your point is that .
India was an advanced civilization long before Europeans acquired firearms. It's not like they were at the hunter-gatherer stage when they got colonized, they had a culture adapted to taking over an empire's legacy.
The Antiguans have formally requested to be allowed to suspend their obligations to the US. If this is granted, they could threaten to sell cheap DVDs & Microsoft software to recover the money. How many Blackwater battalions can Bill Gates afford these days?
Basically, our goddamned government insists on sticking its nose in a place where it doesn't belong. Yeah, about that, if you could, like, stop? We'd really appreciate it.
This is just confirmation that the WTO is a meaningless cabal of mindless USA bashers with an axe to grind.
Oh brother. Like the UN, the WTO is not some bureaucracy from outer space invading our sovereignty. We, more than any other single nation, created it. 95% of the time we use these organizations to hit other nations over the head and goad them into enforcing the intellectual property laws we want, accepting our exports, etc. Then once in a blue moon the tables are turned and certain people such as yourself go berzerk. Oddly enough, the English wikipedia article on the WTO does not include a table such as this http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisation_mondiale_du_commerce#Principaux_conflits showing who benefits the most from the WTO.
It might have, at one time, been an impetus for revolt, but I don't hear of many countries outside of Africa trying to conquer the continent these days and enslave it's population. No, sir, the reality is Africans commiting genocide.
Third to last paragraph in the link you posted...
Clearly, Africa does need the world's help. But Africa's destiny can be changed for the better only by Africans themselves. I think that's the point the GP was trying to make and I tend to agree. Imagine I shoot you in the legs and leave you stranded in the forest... Now it's YOUR problem.
What? You're not going to blame me for the fact that it's hard to walk when you've been shot in the legs, are you?
I'm sorry, the answer was colonialism . But thanks for playing. You did read your own link, didn't you?
All the same, nearly 50 years since the end of the colonial era, is it time perhaps for us to stop blaming the trauma of that encounter for all our problems? Who truly is to blame for this?
To my mind, many of Africa's most profound problems stem from the way Africans look at themselves: all too often, Africa suffers from low self-esteem.
I'm sorry, it looks like you didn't. But thanks for playing. I did read my own link, but unlike you I didn't quote out of context to give it a spin that goes counter to the article as a whole:
Families and whole tribes had been split up into separate countries. Rival kingdoms, who had for centuries shared borders and warred with each other, suddenly found themselves redefined as one people.
All the same, nearly 50 years since the end of the colonial era, is it time perhaps for us to stop blaming the trauma of that encounter for all our problems? Who truly is to blame for this? To my mind, many of Africa's most profound problems stem from the way Africans look at themselves: all too often, Africa suffers from low self-esteem.
All too often, Africans see themselves mirrored in the eyes of the west - of those rich former colonial powers who like to regard Africans only as victims. And, all too often, Africans become the distorted images reflected in these mirrors.
Funny, you seem to have chosen to mention a claim of a continent-wide low self-esteem, but you skipped over the part where it's blamed on, huhlookadathowweird, colonialism.
But before they were colonized, Africa was still fraught with violence. Violence, war, and general disorder are hardly a uniquely European invention. African tribes have been fighting amongst each other for thousands of years. Their problems are the ancient problems of society and mankind.
Not that colonization helped or anything.
Yeah, Africa was not immune to something that is endemic to every human population, ever. Wow, you got me there?
From mah link:
Families and whole tribes had been split up into separate countries. Rival kingdoms, who had for centuries shared borders and warred with each other, suddenly found themselves redefined as one people.
Colonialism took rivalries and played them against each other. You know the Hutu and Tutsi of Rwanda? The Belgians took one tribe and declared them the aristocracy of the new country they had made. One tribe got the cushy government jobs, the other tribe were just niggers. And in 1994, there was a backlash.
I'm sorry, the answer was colonialism. But thanks for playing.
I know, right? Like those "New World" American colonies. In your stupid little world, the American natives are thriving and have not been replaced by the descendants of colonists?
If the cause of Africa's problems is colonialism, why is India wealthier today than it was when it was a colony, but Africa is poorer? First of all, Africa > India; One is a whole continent, the other is a country.
Secondly, India was an advanced civilization long before Europeans acquired firearms. It's not like they were at the hunter-gatherer stage when they got colonized, they had a culture adapted to taking over an empire's legacy.
I always treated the character 007 more as a title than an actual person. The line of work is hazardous, and surely there was more than one, because the last guy took a bullet or forgot that the pen was poison and not antidote. Hurrah, I'm not the only one! : ) It also explains why he never went up in rank no matter how many times he saved the queen/world. The inherited (on merit) identity of James Bond includes the number 007.
Which is dumb: The biggest reason African countries have problems (HIV AIDS, hunger, poverty, suffering ) is because of the Africans themselves. I'm sorry, the answer was colonialism. But thanks for playing.
being run by somebody with an agenda People without agendas don't get much done.
The word "agenda" has been reduced in popular lingo to a limited use in the negative connotations of the hidden agendas, but you keep using that word, and I do not think it means what you think it means. Having an agenda is not a bad thing. Mother theresa had an agenda, it involved taking care of people who needed help and had nowhere to turn to, it wasn't a bad agenda.
Hidden agendas are a different matter, they imply secrets, hypocrisy, things of which we should careful. But this guy? Pretty overt.
You've made his point. Thanks. I wikied needlepoint, expecting a stub, and it turns out that wikipedia knows a lot more about it than I do. So wikipedia has usefull info on needle point, and keywords I can google for what it doesn't know. I can fill in the blanks when my googling takes me to a couple of home pages detailing new (to me and the wiki) info (hypothetically, I won't 'cause I don't really care for needlepoint). But current wikipedians have run out of things to say on the subject, hence all the empty sub-topics... until a particularly rare breed of geek, the passionate needlepoint artist && savy wikipedian, comes serendipitously across that page and fills out a bit more.
Or we could speed this along: Anyone care to forward the wiki link to their grandma? : )
Slashdot Mirror
According to Robert Murphy of the US State Department's Office of African Analysis, Africa is important to "the diversification of our sources of imported oil" away from the Middle East. The U.S. currently gets 15% of its total oil imports from the African continent. By 2015, that figure will be 25%. Rather than a plan to reduce African poverty, NEPAD is a mechanism for ensuring that U.S. and other Western investments are protected.
Today, Africa is the most war-torn continent in the world. Over the past fifteen years, thirty-two of the fifty-three African countries experienced violent conflict. During the cold war years (1950-1989), the U.S. sent $1.5 billion in arms and training to Africa thus setting the stage for the current round of conflicts. From 1991-1995 the U.S. increased the amount of weapons and other military assistance to fifty of the total fifty-three African countries. Over the years these U.S. funded wars have been responsible for the deaths of millions of Africans, and the subsequent displacement, disease, and starvation of many millions more.
In June of 2002, leaders from the eight most powerful countries in the world (the G8) met to form a New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD) as an "anti-poverty" campaign. One glaring omission, however, is the consultation and representation of the African nations. Not one of the eight leaders was from Africa. The danger of the NEPAD proposal is that it fails to protect Africa from exploitation of its resources. NEPAD is akin to Plan Columbia in its attempt to employ Western development techniques to provide economic opportunities for international investment. Welcomed by the G8 nations, this development plan reads like a mad dash to grab up as much of Africa's remaining resources as possible.
They're just fun
signed
-The World
Oh brother. Like the UN, the WTO is not some bureaucracy from outer space invading our sovereignty. We, more than any other single nation, created it. 95% of the time we use these organizations to hit other nations over the head and goad them into enforcing the intellectual property laws we want, accepting our exports, etc. Then once in a blue moon the tables are turned and certain people such as yourself go berzerk. Oddly enough, the English wikipedia article on the WTO does not include a table such as this http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisation_mondiale_du_commerce#Principaux_conflits showing who benefits the most from the WTO.
Third to last paragraph in the link you posted... Clearly, Africa does need the world's help. But Africa's destiny can be changed for the better only by Africans themselves. I think that's the point the GP was trying to make and I tend to agree. Imagine I shoot you in the legs and leave you stranded in the forest... Now it's YOUR problem.
What? You're not going to blame me for the fact that it's hard to walk when you've been shot in the legs, are you?
All the same, nearly 50 years since the end of the colonial era, is it time perhaps for us to stop blaming the trauma of that encounter for all our problems? Who truly is to blame for this?
To my mind, many of Africa's most profound problems stem from the way Africans look at themselves: all too often, Africa suffers from low self-esteem.
I'm sorry, it looks like you didn't. But thanks for playing. I did read my own link, but unlike you I didn't quote out of context to give it a spin that goes counter to the article as a whole:
Families and whole tribes had been split up into separate countries. Rival kingdoms, who had for centuries shared borders and warred with each other, suddenly found themselves redefined as one people.
All the same, nearly 50 years since the end of the colonial era, is it time perhaps for us to stop blaming the trauma of that encounter for all our problems? Who truly is to blame for this?
To my mind, many of Africa's most profound problems stem from the way Africans look at themselves: all too often, Africa suffers from low self-esteem.
All too often, Africans see themselves mirrored in the eyes of the west - of those rich former colonial powers who like to regard Africans only as victims.
And, all too often, Africans become the distorted images reflected in these mirrors.
Funny, you seem to have chosen to mention a claim of a continent-wide low self-esteem, but you skipped over the part where it's blamed on, huhlookadathowweird, colonialism.
Not that colonization helped or anything.
Yeah, Africa was not immune to something that is endemic to every human population, ever. Wow, you got me there?From mah link:
Families and whole tribes had been split up into separate countries. Rival kingdoms, who had for centuries shared borders and warred with each other, suddenly found themselves redefined as one people.
Colonialism took rivalries and played them against each other. You know the Hutu and Tutsi of Rwanda? The Belgians took one tribe and declared them the aristocracy of the new country they had made. One tribe got the cushy government jobs, the other tribe were just niggers.
And in 1994, there was a backlash.
I know, right? Like those "New World" American colonies. In your stupid little world, the American natives are thriving and have not been replaced by the descendants of colonists?
Secondly, India was an advanced civilization long before Europeans acquired firearms. It's not like they were at the hunter-gatherer stage when they got colonized, they had a culture adapted to taking over an empire's legacy.
It also explains why he never went up in rank no matter how many times he saved the queen/world. The inherited (on merit) identity of James Bond includes the number 007.
Sure, just point me to his freezer.Tell that to Disney.
One does not have to have a "beef" with someone in order to
reduce them to unsupported claims of shortcomings?What color is the sky on your planet?
Well, that's really Paramount's decision - they own Star Trek, not us. Fuck no, 83 years after the fact, we should own it.
The word "agenda" has been reduced in popular lingo to a limited use in the negative connotations of the hidden agendas, but you keep using that word, and I do not think it means what you think it means. Having an agenda is not a bad thing. Mother theresa had an agenda, it involved taking care of people who needed help and had nowhere to turn to, it wasn't a bad agenda.
Hidden agendas are a different matter, they imply secrets, hypocrisy, things of which we should careful.
But this guy? Pretty overt.
So wikipedia has usefull info on needle point, and keywords I can google for what it doesn't know. I can fill in the blanks when my googling takes me to a couple of home pages detailing new (to me and the wiki) info (hypothetically, I won't 'cause I don't really care for needlepoint).
But current wikipedians have run out of things to say on the subject, hence all the empty sub-topics... until a particularly rare breed of geek, the passionate needlepoint artist && savy wikipedian, comes serendipitously across that page and fills out a bit more.
Or we could speed this along: Anyone care to forward the wiki link to their grandma? : )
Forget documenting what politicians do and have done.
Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.When is someone going to make a forum for discussing what should be?