Anyone else tired of Africa!?

[LongWind]

Am I really the only one who's sick of all the whining about giving charity to Africa?

I mean each year all over the world, billions and billions are raised and given to Africa, and still we have yet to see improvement of ANY kind. It just seems to me that all the money and medicine is taken by the warlords and used to buy crappy guns to war with rivalling tribes (there's a lot of that, seriously). Of course that doesn't go for all of Africa, but you know what I'm talking about.

Personally, i think the fault lies with the UN, for demanding British and French retreat from the African colonies after WW2, because they left in the middle of the process of civilizing them, leaving them paralyzed. I'm not a racist, and i too want to help them out, but i think we're doing it the wrong way!

So my question to you all is this:

Why do you think it's come to this, and what's to be done?

[Eofor]

If by "civilizing them" you mean "developing only the infrastructure needed to make a profit" then I completely agree with you.

[LongWind]

If by "civilizing them" you mean "developing only the infrastructure needed to make a profit" then I completely agree with you.

That's what i meant

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

Yes, I am tired, although for different reasons. In particular with Saharan regions. Don't whine to me about not having enough food when you've overpopulated a desert.

I think that the only way to fix a large amount of Africa's instability is military intervention, which isn't possible now. Perhaps stable nations can assist them with military training?

[conon394]

In particular with Saharan regions. Don't whine to me about not having enough food when you've overpopulated a desert.

Clearly you should be whining about your own lack of education... Famine is almost never ever caused by 'overpopulation' but by politics, governments etc. As soon as you care to deliver quality governance to poor people I betting they be happy to accept. But anyways who needs empathy all those people pissing an moaning about starving... I bet you have worse problems like a slow internet connection or something.

[conon394]

Personally, i think the fault lies with the UN, for demanding British and French retreat from the African colonies after WW2, because they left in the middle of the process of civilizing them

What fantasy world do you live in? Let see arbitrary boarders drawn across ethnic, linguistic and pre-colonial political lines. Economies developed to serve the intrests of the Colonial powers, intentionaly manipulating ethic differences (divide and conquer), etc. And than more or bailing as soon as the locals kicked them out with out any follow up or investment...

Don't get me wrong in the same situation the Romans, Athenians, Sargon the Great, the Chinese the Aztecs, the Hurons or the Mongols, the Assyrians etc would all have turned to imperialism is one form or another just as the most militarily advanced states in Africa preyed on the weaker before European colonialism.

But England and France were certainly not in Africa to civilize anyone they were they for there own power profit and glory and self interest. Some European colonial powers were certainly better (UK) than others (Belgium say at the the bottom) - but none of them were in 1946 grooming thier prizes for independentace and European democracy but for the UN (which since it it did not include colonies and the UK and France had veto power I'm not sure how it drove France and the UK out of Africa)

[Londinium]

What fantasy world do you live in? Let see arbitrary boarders drawn across ethnic, linguistic and pre-colonial political lines. Economies developed to serve the intrests of the Colonial powers, intentionaly manipulating ethic differences (divide and conquer), etc. And than more or bailing as soon as the locals kicked them out with out any follow up or investment...

Don't get me wrong in the same situation the Romans, Athenians, Sargon the Great, the Chinese the Aztecs, the Hurons or the Mongols, the Assyrians etc would all have turned to imperialism is one form or another just as the most militarily advanced states in Africa preyed on the weaker before European colonialism.

But England and France were certainly not in Africa to civilize anyone they were they for there own power profit and glory and self interest.

True to an extent but it ignores the genuinely altruistic and civilising impulses that formed part of the Anglo-French colonial experience. There's a danger of going too far in criticising European imperialism and totally ignoring the fact that there was significant elements of the aforementioned. Examples would be missionary work, the role of introducing medicine to African societies, the spread of technology and new ways of life, the concept of the 'civilising mission' very important to the French and somewhat so amongst the English etc etc. It's not a simple dichotomy of good/evil.

[LongWind]

What fantasy world do you live in? Let see arbitrary boarders drawn across ethnic, linguistic and pre-colonial political lines. Economies developed to serve the intrests of the Colonial powers, intentionaly manipulating ethic differences (divide and conquer), etc. And than more or bailing as soon as the locals kicked them out with out any follow up or investment...

Don't get me wrong in the same situation the Romans, Athenians, Sargon the Great, the Chinese the Aztecs, the Hurons or the Mongols, the Assyrians etc would all have turned to imperialism is one form or another just as the most militarily advanced states in Africa preyed on the weaker before European colonialism.

But England and France were certainly not in Africa to civilize anyone they were they for there own power profit and glory and self interest. Some European colonial powers were certainly better (UK) than others (Belgium say at the the bottom) - but none of them were in 1946 grooming thier prizes for independentace and European democracy but for the UN (which since it it did not include colonies and the UK and France had veto power I'm not sure how it drove France and the UK out of Africa)

Completely true, they were definitely there for their own good, but they were still modernizing it. Not in a good way, but still

[Mr. Scott]

What fantasy world do you live in? Let see arbitrary boarders drawn across ethnic, linguistic and pre-colonial political lines. Economies developed to serve the intrests of the Colonial powers, intentionaly manipulating ethic differences (divide and conquer), etc. And than more or bailing as soon as the locals kicked them out with out any follow up or investment...

Don't get me wrong in the same situation the Romans, Athenians, Sargon the Great, the Chinese the Aztecs, the Hurons or the Mongols, the Assyrians etc would all have turned to imperialism is one form or another just as the most militarily advanced states in Africa preyed on the weaker before European colonialism.

But England and France were certainly not in Africa to civilize anyone they were they for there own power profit and glory and self interest. Some European colonial powers were certainly better (UK) than others (Belgium say at the the bottom) - but none of them were in 1946 grooming thier prizes for independentace and European democracy but for the UN (which since it it did not include colonies and the UK and France had veto power I'm not sure how it drove France and the UK out of Africa)

This is the claim that most people use to push the blame of the messed up Africa on the West.

These wars were less frequent during colonial power because of one thing.
ORDER

Before any economic or social development can actually take place there first must be order. Ethnic and cultural lines are factors in this order, but, as European rule of Africa showed, the overwhelming force of law can overcome this.

It doesn't matter how many billions we give to them. Until Africa becomes politically and socially stable, don't expect any improvement anytime soon.

[Eofor]

Ding ding ding! Conon hits the nail on the head.
Seriously, LW, you seem like you believe in the burden of the white man.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

If we stop giving them aid, population will drop back down to natural levels gradually. The aid has actually caused population to increase, the last thing they want.

Maybe quicken the process by giving them weapons.

[Eofor]

They don't need any help in killing each other, Cockroach. They do a good job of that on their own.

[conon394]

True to an extent but it ignores the genuinely altruistic and civilising impulses that formed part of the Anglo-French colonial experience. There's a danger of going too far in criticising European imperialism and totally ignoring the fact that there was significant elements of the aforementioned. Examples would be missionary work, the role of introducing medicine to African societies, the spread of technology and new ways of life, the concept of the 'civilising mission' very important to the French and somewhat so amongst the English etc etc. It's not a simple dichotomy of good/evil.

I never said as much and I not saying Imperialism is evil. As a American I appreciate that my rather secure and happy life is a function of 'Imperialism'.

I'm not saying European colonialism was Nazi like or all European efforts were as bad as say the most brutal efforts. But you have to admit the its not like the UK or France were as goal A in Africa just to civilize - you can do missionary work and introduce meds and tech quite without carving out colonies and fighting long anti independence or conquest wars... Nor do I mean to hammer Europe alone, the US and USSR only added insult to injury during the cold war. Nor am I really hammering either Europe or the USSR or the US since more or less they all acted the way the world world works some better some worse, some more consistently one or the other but as I said somebody is usually on the losing end of things.

In this case Africa certainly fits that bill and thus I tend to be sympathetic and say there but for the grace of god (or luck or chance or whatever) go I.

[=Bright=]

Ukraine suffered a devastating famine in 1932-1933 which was not caused by overpopulation. But that's just a side note.

The problem with Africa is that a real order, basing on human rights and the idea of democracy, is not existing. In (most of) Africa you can rule a country if your military power allows you to. And when the rulers want the population, or parts of it, to not have food, well, then they don't get food.

[ivan_the_terrible]

The problem with Africa is that a real order, basing on human rights and the idea of democracy, is not existing. In (most of) Africa you can rule a country if your military power allows you to. And when the rulers want the population, or parts of it, to not have food, well, then they don't get food.

Human rights and democracy are not the answer to the third world's problems.

This idea that in every 3rd world person there is a freedom-loving Westerner trying to get out is no different in principle to the 19th century 'civilising mission'.

The 1st world should leave the Africans alone for once and stop trying to set them on a hyper-path to civilisation. Let them become civilised on their own.

[KnightsTemplar]

Human rights and democracy are not the answer to the third world's problems.

This idea that in every 3rd world person there is a freedom-loving Westerner trying to get out is no different in principle to the 19th century 'civilising mission'.

The 1st world should leave the Africans alone for once and stop trying to set them on a hyper-path to civilisation. Let them become civilised on their own.

Ehhh....
Maybe the Aztecs would like to have a word with you?

[samurai89]

I see two ways of resolving Africa:

1- Take out international intervention and aid, let them war amongst each other (whilst of course selling them weapons and giving them mercenaries to make a profit) and let the death toll rise to ungodly levels. Eventually they will get so sick of fighting that they stop, say it's a stupid thing their killing each other so much, and hopefully pewter out the violence. What will most likely come later will be rule by the strongest individual/group that had come out top during the wars and they maintain stability either through repression or (very unlikely) implementing democracy.

2-Increase international intervention through giving them aid not only in food and medicine but also advisors and arms to boost a certain individuals/governments capability of fighting and destroying rebels like the Somali pirates or al-Shabab. Also have diplomatic advisors that instruct said selected governments on how to not be so weak and corrupt.

Of course none of this will happen as we simply have no means of accomplishing both. We're too human to leave them to die and too poor/unwilling to help them. Just my two cents.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Perhaps they will eventually stop killing each other.
The problem is their crap governments.
Instead of throwing our money at them we should teach them to do it themselves, teach a man to fish, eh!

[Farnan]

Perhaps they will eventually stop killing each other.
The problem is their crap governments.
Instead of throwing our money at them we should teach them to do it themselves, teach a man to fish, eh!

Teach them to throw money at themselves? I don't see how that would work...

By the way: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...ghlight=Africa

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Teach them to throw money at themselves? I don't see how that would work...

By the way: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...ghlight=Africa

You got me there!
I meant to do government thingsd and industry by themselves.