Haiti . . .

The problem is the wrong African organizations replaced the colonial rulers. Good socialists that were idolised by useful idiot western liberals. Exactly how mad BoB came to power.

Power did not corrupt Africans, corrupt Africans came to power cheered on by the useful idiots.
 
Last edited:
This is why third-world countries should not receive any assistance, and should just be left to drown in their own filth and stupidity. Why should it be the first world's responsibility to wipe the third world's ar*e for eternity?
I agree, but they must also stop tampering with these countries, supporting bad leaders because it gives access to cheap resources or suits their political agenda, and don't allow thieving leaders from these countries to use your country as a retirement home or hideout. And no matter how evil and brutal their conflicts leave them to sort it out. In the US people had to slaughter each other to build the country. The French killed each other too. The UK has been invaded and overrun repeatedly. Europeans killed each other in the millions. Maybe as much as wish it were otherwise we need to let these things play out.
 
Noxi we have let it play out dude, look at africa.

Look at the countries you mention, if nobody does anything nothing will change bud. It will just get worse.

Nobody thinks about tomorrow, only what we can take today.
 
I agree, but they must also stop tampering with these countries, supporting bad leaders because it gives access to cheap resources or suits their political agenda, and don't allow thieving leaders from these countries to use your country as a retirement home or hideout. And no matter how evil and brutal their conflicts leave them to sort it out. In the US people had to slaughter each other to build the country. The French killed each other too. The UK has been invaded and overrun repeatedly. Europeans killed each other in the millions. Maybe as much as wish it were otherwise we need to let these things play out.

The last the UK was invaded was 1066, btw. And that was the 2nd time after the Romans. Yes there whete many attempts, they failed

As for calling for countries to stop tampering in African countries, this exactly what all the European wars was about.

Civil wars are in fact quite rare. In Europe, I think only UK and France had a civil war. Once each. The rest where all about someone wanting a piece of someone else's patch, or the whole patch:)
 
See another person blaming the colonial folks for sick savages.

It must be so nice being able to destroy countries, make people live in poverty and then say o but it was the white man's fault not mine. If they had not done this or that then i would not be doing this.

Accountability dude, right now they are the ones destroying africa, africans are killing africans and blaming the white man :eek: or colonialists. It is like apartheid in this country, we will never hear the end of it, everything that goes wrong will be blamed on apartheid .
 
On the contrary Africa remained relatively peaceful until colonialism took place. Colonialism was parasitism and in all it directly lead to atrocities in Africa by the "civilised whites". It also directly lead to post colonial atrocities such as the genocide in Rwanda. I doubt anyone could debate that. Yet I see quite a few people here trying to defend colonialism. Amazing.

Yeah Zulu history is all calm and peaceful before whitie came along :rolleyes:
 
Overseas aid is funding human rights abuses

The curious modern creed that foreign aid is automatically virtuous has its origins in two powerful social phenomena: the collapse of trust in politics, and the cult of celebrity. Ambitious politicians crave the stardust that attaches to pop stars such as Bono. Meanwhile, their strategists have noted that while the membership of mainstream political parties is in freefall, organisations such as Oxfam and Save the Children boast millions of supporters.

New Labour was the first to take advantage. Tony Blair’s decision to create a separate Department for International Development (DFID) ensured the endorsement of Bono and others, while making a very plausible grab for the Oxfam vote.

This posed a problem for the Conservative Party, which had a long-standing and well-founded scepticism about foreign aid. The economist Peter Bauer, one of Margaret Thatcher’s gurus, had notoriously claimed that there was no measurable link of any kind between foreign donations and economic development. If anything, thought Bauer, aid probably hinders growth, as it leads directly to corruption, the misallocation of resources and the erosion of civil society.

With the arrival of David Cameron, the Tories gave up. One of his early moves was to invite Bono to the party conference. The new leader’s international development spokesman, Andrew Mitchell, embraced the New Labour paradigm. Teams of Tory ministers and MPs accompanied Mitchell to build schools in Rwanda. There was a naked calculation behind this idealism: to rebrand the Conservative Party.

All this may have been admirable. But the cross-party consensus on overseas aid was dangerous. There was no one to investigate reports of embezzlement and express scepticism. Meanwhile, spending soared from £2.6 billion in 1999 to £6.5 billion in 2005, and a prodigious £8.7 billion in the current financial year – approximately £300 for each and every British family. The process reached its apotheosis in last week’s spending review. With cuts in almost every other department, DFID emerged the clear winner, with spending projected to rise by an extraordinary 37 per cent over the next four years.

Such a massive splurge would perhaps be welcome if we could be confident that the money was well-spent. But throughout the New Labour years, there was no attempt to establish this (and the Tories and Lib Dems did not want to express a dissenting view). This cosy consensus was finally broken last week with the publication of an authoritative report from a most unexpected source – the respected humanitarian organisation Human Rights Watch.

The study, which concentrates on Ethiopia, shows how the system works in practice. The findings are horrifying. The country is one of our biggest recipients of aid, with a DFID budget of nearly £300 million and a staff of 250 officials. Yet Human Rights Watch has shown that DFID is incompetent to monitor, let alone account for, the prodigious sums it disburses. Much more troubling, it has proved beyond doubt that hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ money is being spent to keep in power an unpleasant and authoritarian Maoist government.

It is important to address the report in detail because, although published more than a week ago, it has been ignored. Labour’s international aid spokesman, Harriet Harman, has made no reference, most likely because it exposes negligence under New Labour. The same applies to Mr Mitchell, now International Development Secretary. The conspiracy of silence extends to the British media, where only this newspaper has given the study any coverage. It is easy to explain this omerta: at a stroke, Human Rights Watch has smashed every conventional piety about foreign aid, and therefore raised very awkward questions.

The facts are grim. Ethiopia is in effect a one-party state whose president, Meles Zenawi, has a shocking record of human rights abuse. Last May’s general election, in which the ruling party secured some 99.6 per cent of the parliamentary seats after a long, vicious campaign of intimidation, provides ample evidence.

For years DFID has collaborated – there is no other word – with Zenawi’s dictatorship. We have donated massive amounts towards food aid, fertiliser, health and education. Rather than administer this aid, we have – unforgivably – allowed Zenawi and his thugs to use it for political manipulation and control. Starving people get told they can only have food if they support the ruling party. Teachers have received donor funds – but only in return for spewing out official propaganda. One British-backed programme, designed to train civil servants, has been adapted to indoctrinate trainees in the loathsome ideology of the ruling party.

The implications of the Human Rights Watch report (based on months working undercover, often in remote and dangerous areas, by a researcher) stretch far beyond Ethiopia. It seems likely that the same abuse of aid goes on in other countries. Rwanda – beloved of the modern Conservative Party – is an obvious case. Here again we are dealing with a culture of repression, what amounts to a one-party state and a president who has just been returned with an improbable share of the vote (93.08 per cent). Licensed assassination and the jailing of opponents and journalists characterised the election period. Yet DFID has been happy to fund the National Electoral Commission, which tolerates blatantly undemocratic elections on a jaw-dropping scale, and the so-called Media High Council, a state-affiliated body which has recently suspended the country’s two most popular independent newspapers.

The brutal truth has to be declared. DFID has enjoyed at best mixed fortunes since it was founded in 1997. Its seven-year presence in Iraq after the 2003 invasion has been an unmitigated and extremely expensive disaster, and Afghanistan looks like turning into a similar story. Yet so fixed is the cross-party belief in the virtue of foreign aid, that it alone was last week exempted from the hostile and rigorous scrutiny of costs that other parts of government were forced to endure.

To be fair to DFID, it is very hard to contribute aid to countries such as Ethiopia and Rwanda without getting too close for comfort to the regime, however unpleasant. It is harder still – perhaps impossible – in war zones. That is why some argue that the real goal of foreign aid should not be democracy and human rights, but simply to remedy urgent human suffering.

But denial is no way of dealing with these issues – especially not when George Osborne appears determined to prove the truth of the old remark that foreign aid is a mechanism for transferring money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries. It is time for a public debate which entertains the possibility that Bauer might have been right, and Bono wrong. Above all, we need to end the dirty culture of silence that suppresses any talk of the deep complicity between the aid lobby and human rights abuse.
 
Rather give money to rich 3rd world despots and deny your own countrymen. *facepalm*
 
It's what they had to do to get elected. The U.K has gone bonkers I'm afraid.

Churchill is turning in his grave.
 
Never taught you about this at school ?

Mfecane.

And the ease with which the Zulu, pushed from their lands by the Portuguese caused havoc goes to show how peaceful the region was previously.

Rubbish

. The agricultural surpluses and increased population allowed Shaka to raise a standing army of Zulus. By the end of the 18th century, the Zulus occupied much of their arable land. Declining rainfall and a ten-year drought in the early 19th century set off a battle for land and water resources among the peoples of the area.

They just had an increased capacity for killing. They were to primitive to cause carnage on a large scale previously. Doesn't mean they were less inclined to be violent.

It must be so nice to enrich yourselves raping countries of their resources, enforce slave like rule over the people, then abandon them to puppet despots and blame them all for their shortcomings. I just described Colonialism. Are you aware that Western got their riches on the backs of free slave labour and the natural resources they stole from their colonies ?

Yes them colonialists brought nothing to Africa. Infrastructure, science, medicine nothing at all.....

Whether somebody comes from 5000km across the ocean or a tribe from 50km down the "road" it makes no difference.

As for the slave trade the British abandoned the slave trade in 1807. They even had war ships preventing the salve trade on the African coast. Preventing Africans from selling their brethren into slavery. Hell Africans themselves had their own African slaves......

Clearly Colonialism is not to blame for all Africa's ills, but it's obviously a huge part in the big picture. To claim there was nothing wrong with Colonialism, the enslaving and theft from people, makes you an utter fascist and brute. And why bring "white men" into it ? I suppose you also see nothing wrong with the Japanese colonialism ? The rape of Nanking ? The comfort women ? It's all a bit 'black and white" to you isn't it ? Colonialism has happened in all parts of the world and was carried out by all races and don't to all races. The same people who deny colonialism was a bad thing are very quick to take huge issue with even the slightest lack of self rule. Take the boers for example. Don't be a simpleton.

fascism lol. Time to put down that little red book comrade :D

Glad you brought up colonialism in Asia. They're not in the same mess as Africa yet they suffered under colonialism too. Why is that?
 
Last edited:
Glad you brought up colonialism in Asia. They're not in the same mess as Africa yet they suffered under colonialism too. Why is that?

Riiiiight. When last were you in India? Did you see the Commonwealth Games fiasco? Even us poor Africans kicked their asses there.

Oh, and then there's South America. Who is the Fat One's biggest friend? Why, Comrade President Hugo Boss of Venezuela, of course!

Dumbassity knows no bounds, dude. People aren't violent idiots because they're African.
 
You know what the problem is i reckon, africans are only out for themselves well the old school chaps who have a chip on their shoulders and they will rather run a country into the ground than be voted out.

Keep the population uneducated and you can live a really good life while the country suffers but you will stay in power. I really hope as the older die out the youngsters stop adopting this BS approach and think maybe if i ran the country well i would not get voted out.

A tragedy is developing with youngsters as well. There are only a few black graduates coming through the system who are capable of going head-to-head internationally. This is NOT because of the ANC’s dumbing-down of the education curriculum (initiated because of the need for ‘qualified, black struggle comrades’ to fill administrative positions) but IN SPITE of it. They have a number of strikes against them through no fault of their own.

[1] They are increasingly alienated from their family and friends. They possess a conceptual apparatus and a facility in a language which is alien to their former peers (they can no longer talk meaningfully to them). They are unwilling to herd cattle or engage in the ‘barbaric’ rituals that used to be so important. The jokes of his cousin which used to be so funny are just feeble now. The same respect for the ‘ancestors’ is hard to show. Etc. There is still a spiritual affinity but, no longer, an intellectual one. Strike 1.

[2] Largely because of [1] they are regarded as race traitors because they have more, intellectually, in common with the hated white. However, they are rejected by their own colour (conceptual alienation) and by potential employers (non-black) because they have been tarred with the AA brush of the older generation which rewards incompetence and corruption (this is demeaning and humiliating for them). It’s a lonely life. Strike 2.

[3] They are ideal ‘poster children’ for the corrupt and moribund older generation and will be exploited mercilessly. They are young, intellectually lonely and inexperienced. They will succumb to the blandishments of career fast-tracking, bribery, promotion etc. Consumer goods and life style are important at that age. They will eventually be promoted beyond their competence and begin to fail disastrously. This will have a negative effect on them and may destroy intellectual evolutionary abilities. Strike 3.

Another issue is that they will perpetuate their ideology on their children.

Rinse and repeat.
 
We'll just take your word for it. It's so noble for the western people to constantly war that they developed sophisticated ways to kill ?

They developed plenty "sophisticated ways" to do many things. Not westerners fault "sophisticated ways to kill" has been so enthusiastically embraced here at the expense of other "sophisticated ways"


So if colonialism hasn't played a part in the modern day violence and corruption in Africa ? What do you propose does ? Nobody is saying it's the only part of the picture, but it's a big part. When you leave a leadership vacuum in a society that's been passivized through brute force after a civil war who do you expect to rise to power ? A warmonger of course ! I suppose that's what makes us different as we had a relatively peaceful and democratic transition, and hence the reason why 15 years on we're thriving.

I never said it played no part. All I said is colonialism is not the unique evil you make it out to be. Colonisation is what humans from every part of the world have done throughout history. Invade and conquer You can't blame the plight of Africans on something that's happened to everybody at some time in history.

Who supported these post colonial warmongers like mad BoB? Good western liberal leftists who in their colonial guilt ravaged fervour jumped in the arms of these tyrants.

As for " relatively peaceful and democratic transition". 300 000 murdered since '94. Peaceful indeed. :sick:

By all means provide your own theories. I get the feeling people don't want us to search for causality in explaining African peoples behavior and would rather we resort to simplistic stereotypical "black and white" thinking. As if their theory is that skin color is the cause. (I'm only joking, because nobody would be that stupid.)

Africans are responsible for their own behaviour. Things will only improve when they realise this and stop blaming others for their plight.


Riiiiight. When last were you in India? Did you see the Commonwealth Games fiasco? Even us poor Africans kicked their asses there.

Oh, and then there's South America. Who is the Fat One's biggest friend? Why, Comrade President Hugo Boss of Venezuela, of course!

Dumbassity knows no bounds, dude. People aren't violent idiots because they're African.

Yes judge a continent based on sports tournaments.

Eish I never said people are violent idiots because they're African. I said Colonialism is not the primary reason for Africa's current plight.

Comprehension fail yet again :o

Please tell me English is your 3rd language or something
 
Last edited:
The last the UK was invaded was 1066, btw.
Irrelevant.

As for calling for countries to stop tampering in African countries, this exactly what all the European wars was about.
No it wasn't.

Civil wars are in fact quite rare. In Europe, I think only UK and France had a civil war. Once each.
At least two each. Same for Spain. Then there are the civil wars in Eastern Europe. And they have some similarity to what happened in the colonies. Not surprising considering they were effectively colonies, only within Europe.

The rest where all about someone wanting a piece of someone else's patch, or the whole patch:)
Not that different to anywhere else then.

See another person blaming the colonial folks for sick savages.
Oh come on, the English and French aren't that bad.

It must be so nice being able to destroy countries, make people live in poverty and then say o but it was the white man's fault not mine. If they had not done this or that then i would not be doing this.
Or to blame it all on the locals when all the while you've been feeding money and/or weapons to fighting groups, either so you can fight a war with an enemy without fouling up your own backyard or so you can run off with some nice shiny resources. But hang on you say, we stopped this, so why didn't that civil war come to an instant halt?

Accountability dude
I agree. It would be nice if wealthy countries would take responsibility for the role they played. To pretend their negative influence suddenly ends when they stop their interference is pretty naive. And it did not stop when they removed direct control.

It is like apartheid in this country, we will never hear the end of it, everything that goes wrong will be blamed on apartheid .
Of course you'll hear the end of it. Thinking it would happen in a mere couple of decades is simply naive. As naive as people thinking they'd suddenly be better off in all possible ways because Apartheid had come to an end.

Would Africa be all peaceful if there had been no colonisation or proxy wars? Maybe not, but let's stop trying to pretend the colonists, resource looters and prosecutors of proxy wars had no long lasting influence.
 
Power did not corrupt Africans, corrupt Africans came to power cheered on by the useful idiots.

QFT... those useful idiots aren't in power anymore, but unfortunately the people who have succeeded them have allowed the same stupidity to perpetuate by supporting these corrupt leaders.
 
The problem is the wrong African organizations replaced the colonial rulers. Good socialists that were idolised by useful idiot western liberals. Exactly how mad BoB came to power.

Power did not corrupt Africans, corrupt Africans came to power cheered on by the useful idiots.

exactly.
 
As I mentioned what about Burma, Cambodia, Laos etc ? If you think South Africa is in a sad state you just haven't been around much.

What about them? You made the assertion that colonisation was the main factor behind Africa's plight. I debunked that theory by pointing out that 1) "colonization" has taken place throughout history to everybody and 2) other countries, continents and peoples have gone on to prosper after suffering that fate like for example South Korea.

So obviously colonization is not too blame.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X