"They robed , colonized and enslaved each other just as much as we enslaved them. "
Nonsense. Slavery existed in Africa, as it did everywhere else at one point. But it never reached the scale of tens of millions of people being shipped across the ocean at an extraordinary mortality rate; that was something only the nascent European bourgeoisie could accomplish. Spain and Portugal (and later Britain, France & America) made *huge* profits off slavery. Africa did not.
Lots of the comments I've seen are along the lines of "let them pay like everyone else, there's no free lunch" or "African countries are led by corrupt elites, it's their fault". Sadly, this is pretty reflective of the general attitude I find in America.
Perhaps the more open-minded/. readers might reflect on the fact that the industrialization of England and America would not have been possible without "Black ivory" (slaves) from Africa who for centuries provided the basic source of wealth of the plantation econonmy which in turn subsidized the industrial revolution? Or that the huge profits from the mineral wealth & exploited labor of the Congo under the Belgians (and after the CIA killed Lumumba, under the "independent" rule of the puppet Mengistu) served to massively increase the wealth of the developed world, and still play a key role in providing the raw materials for the high-tech "revolution" (see: for a NY Times piece on this).
When the colonialists were finally forced out, them made sure that the new elites would keep the profits flowing (with a nice commission for themselves, of course), and if the people demand niceties like democracy or an end to corruption, there will always be the military to straighten things out.
Am I oversimplifying? Sure, but so are many of the posts I see here, like the racist one I saw here comparing African nations to homeless people panhandling for crack money.
Ever wonder why so many people in Nigeria, say, regard Osama bin Laden as a hero? You can't rob, colonize and oppress people for centuries and insist it's a level playing field, folks. Read some history, get a sense of why Africa is so messed up, and how *your* lifestyle is related to all this.
I seem to recall reading an interview years ago with Thomas Gold, who I believe thought up the idea of a neutron star, and predicted that there were huge quantities of hydrogen gas deep in the earth's crust. He was ridiculed by mainstream geologists. Does anyone remember this? Anyway, I hope he's enjoying a well-deserved "I told you so".
Dan
The other day I submitted a link to an article about the long-term problems of Internet-based "distance learning". Needless to say, that was ignored, but the latest dreck from Hollywood is newsworthy? Anyone know any better forums about new technology and society?
This remark seems to beautifully illustrate what Marx meant in Capital about how the industrial revolution turns the worker into a mere appendage of the machine. The "New Economy" looks a lot like the old one.
On the U.S. media ignoring civilian casuaties
http://www.fair.org/activism/fox-civilian-casualti es.html
A report on civilian casualties in the Canadian press
http://www.GlobeAndMail.CA/servlet/GIS.Servlets.HT MLTemplate?tf=tgam/common/FullStory.html&cf=tgam/c ommon/FullStory.cfg&configFileLoc=tgam/config&vg=B igAdVariableGenerator&date=20020119&dateOffset=&hu b=international&title=International&cache_key=inte rnationalAsiaHeadline¤t_row=3&start_row=3&nu m_rows=1
An academic study of civilian casulties
http://www.cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm
Why is it so hard for you to believe, given the massive scale of bombing and the fact that the definition of who are "Taliban troops" can change from moment to moment, that a few thousand civilians got killed? Aerial bombardment of civilians has been a standard feature of U.S. military practice since the 1940s.
It's true the movie was started before 9/11, but the release date was pushed forward a couple months to make it more marketable given the war in Afghanistan and the possibility of another intervention in Somalia. That's what makes the timing "no coincidence".
I've read many of Chomsky's books, and what stands out are his highly rational arguments, as well as his meticulous documentation from such "left wing" sources as the New York Times, Christian Science Monitor, etc. So to dismiss his arguments as "rhetoric" and compare him to Creationists and Islamic fundamentalists make me suspect it is *you* who are highly irrational.
A fairly good critical review of Black Hawk Down is at:
http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=11401 3
Anyone with the most basic knowledge of the history of U.S. military intervention in the Third World knows that "humanitarian aid" is just the latest buzzword to justify the strategic maneuvers of the economic and political interests that run this country.
I mean, does John Katz really think that movies like this are *not* meant to stir up patriotism and propagate the myth that U.S. foreign policy is somehow meant to "help" humanity? Or is this movie meant to "balance" all those movies about, say, how the U.S. military trains and props up deathsquads and brutal military leaders throughout Latin America? Oh, wait, there aren't any movies like that, only grim reality...
Slashdot Mirror
Nonsense. Slavery existed in Africa, as it did everywhere else at one point. But it never reached the scale of tens of millions of people being shipped across the ocean at an extraordinary mortality rate; that was something only the nascent European bourgeoisie could accomplish. Spain and Portugal (and later Britain, France & America) made *huge* profits off slavery. Africa did not.
Perhaps the more open-minded /. readers might reflect on the fact that the industrialization of England and America would not have been possible without "Black ivory" (slaves) from Africa who for centuries provided the basic source of wealth of the plantation econonmy which in turn subsidized the industrial revolution? Or that the huge profits from the mineral wealth & exploited labor of the Congo under the Belgians (and after the CIA killed Lumumba, under the "independent" rule of the puppet Mengistu) served to massively increase the wealth of the developed world, and still play a key role in providing the raw materials for the high-tech "revolution" (see: for a NY Times piece on this).
When the colonialists were finally forced out, them made sure that the new elites would keep the profits flowing (with a nice commission for themselves, of course), and if the people demand niceties like democracy or an end to corruption, there will always be the military to straighten things out.
Am I oversimplifying? Sure, but so are many of the posts I see here, like the racist one I saw here comparing African nations to homeless people panhandling for crack money.
Ever wonder why so many people in Nigeria, say, regard Osama bin Laden as a hero? You can't rob, colonize and oppress people for centuries and insist it's a level playing field, folks. Read some history, get a sense of why Africa is so messed up, and how *your* lifestyle is related to all this.
I seem to recall reading an interview years ago with Thomas Gold, who I believe thought up the idea of a neutron star, and predicted that there were huge quantities of hydrogen gas deep in the earth's crust. He was ridiculed by mainstream geologists. Does anyone remember this? Anyway, I hope he's enjoying a well-deserved "I told you so". Dan
The other day I submitted a link to an article about the long-term problems of Internet-based "distance learning". Needless to say, that was ignored, but the latest dreck from Hollywood is newsworthy? Anyone know any better forums about new technology and society?
This remark seems to beautifully illustrate what Marx meant in Capital about how the industrial revolution turns the worker into a mere appendage of the machine. The "New Economy" looks a lot like the old one.
On the U.S. media ignoring civilian casuatiesi es.html
http://www.fair.org/activism/fox-civilian-casualt
A report on civilian casualties in the Canadian pressT MLTemplate?tf=tgam/common/FullStory.html&cf=tgam/c ommon/FullStory.cfg&configFileLoc=tgam/config&vg=B igAdVariableGenerator&date=20020119&dateOffset=&hu b=international&title=International&cache_key=inte rnationalAsiaHeadline¤t_row=3&start_row=3&nu m_rows=1
http://www.GlobeAndMail.CA/servlet/GIS.Servlets.H
An academic study of civilian casulties
http://www.cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm
Why is it so hard for you to believe, given the massive scale of bombing and the fact that the definition of who are "Taliban troops" can change from moment to moment, that a few thousand civilians got killed? Aerial bombardment of civilians has been a standard feature of U.S. military practice since the 1940s.
It's true the movie was started before 9/11, but the release date was pushed forward a couple months to make it more marketable given the war in Afghanistan and the possibility of another intervention in Somalia. That's what makes the timing "no coincidence".
I've read many of Chomsky's books, and what stands out are his highly rational arguments, as well as his meticulous documentation from such "left wing" sources as the New York Times, Christian Science Monitor, etc. So to dismiss his arguments as "rhetoric" and compare him to Creationists and Islamic fundamentalists make me suspect it is *you* who are highly irrational.
http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=1140
Anyone with the most basic knowledge of the history of U.S. military intervention in the Third World knows that "humanitarian aid" is just the latest buzzword to justify the strategic maneuvers of the economic and political interests that run this country.
I mean, does John Katz really think that movies like this are *not* meant to stir up patriotism and propagate the myth that U.S. foreign policy is somehow meant to "help" humanity? Or is this movie meant to "balance" all those movies about, say, how the U.S. military trains and props up deathsquads and brutal military leaders throughout Latin America? Oh, wait, there aren't any movies like that, only grim reality...