Haiti . . .

[BBSA]

Did the Zulus and Xhosas not migrate from the North and colonised South Africa and killed most of the indigenous people?

 

[Palimino]

Your logic 101

1. it is not the african presidents fault, the west brides them
2. it is not the african presidents fault, the colonialists came to africa
3. it is not the african presidents fault, whites are racist

The best one

4. it is not the african presidents fault, other countries are just as messed up.

I have noticed this unwillingness to take responsibility even in taxi accidents. A taxi jumps a robot and has an accident. “It wasn’t my fault, the robot changed when I was in the middle of the intersection.”

Not the truth – “I got my driver’s license out of a Lucky Packet and it didn’t say I cannot jump robots.”

 

[killadoob]

Well they are african dude so i would imagine it is assumed when i say african president i am referring to their race or i would have said president. You are blaming everything you can and ignoring the obvious facts that it is the african presidents in charge who are the problem and yes they happen to be african in case you missed it. You did however miss my question as too why it seems no african president can run a country well in africa. No wait you gave me some BS about racists, the past and bribery. Have you actually said the AFRICAN presidents are the problem? I did say once the younger generation comes through things will improve unless they also have the same way of thinking which is highly possible if you look at our esteemed youth league leader and their followers.

Sadly when i say no african president can run a country well it is actually backed up by an award you think would be easy to win .

 

[zulgin]

Did the Zulus and Xhosas not migrate from the North and colonised South Africa and killed most of the indigenous people?

apparently the word colonialism isn't in the Zulu and Xhosa dictionary - so nee.

 

[Alan]

Of what ? That I'm not a racist and when I criticise I do so constructively ?

Last time I checked constructive criticism of the ANC or ZanuPf got a person labelled a racist. Like this thread where constructive criticism has resulted in the race card being played.

 

[grayston]

Dude how can you like africa, do even realize what goes on in africa? You just go defensive and start harping on racism and what someone said about africans.

We know what's going on in Africa. I think the difference is that you believe that what goes on in Africa would never happen anywhere else in the world.

It has happened and it does still happen. African leaders are just behaving like tinpot leaders all over the world. You wouldn't cause suffering for millions just to enrich yourself? Hey, neither would I! But Slobodan Milosovich did, Pol Pot did, Chairman Mao did, pretty much every French king in history did. Why are you so desperate to place awful "African" leaders as different from any other sort of awful leader?

So your next question will be: Why then are *all* African countries led by such despotic leaders? For that, I'm afraid there's no simple answer. But it worth investigating. However, that investigation will go nowhere as long as you clench hard onto your view that poor leadership is something unique to African leaders.

Nobody is saying the situation in the continent of Africa is good, or excusable, or completely someone else's fault. I think the situation was exacerbated by the cruelty of the original colonisers, but that's not the only cause and it's no excuse. However, if you continue to try to completely discount the after-effects of colonisation, your only recourse is to say that Africans are somehow different to the rest of the world's population. And a quick check through those history books you're so scared of will show you how wrong that opinion is.

As for the racism thing - well, you can't make blatantly offensive statements and think that you can handwave over them with an "I'm not being racist" and think that will be okay. Your questions about the poor state of Africa are valid, and demand answers. The idea is to make sure that when you ask those questions, you avoid any implication that you believe Africans are somehow different, or inferior, from anybody else.

 

[killadoob]

I have never placed them, you are the one who is defending them by saying other people have done the same thing, have you convinced yourself that is why it is happening?

Maybe if more people asked more questions and worried less about being labelled racist things could change.

"So your next question will be: Why then are *all* African countries led by such despotic leaders? For that, I'm afraid there's no simple answer. But it worth investigating. However, that investigation will go nowhere as long as you clench hard onto your view that poor leadership is something unique to African leaders."

When did i say unique? i have never mentioned another country or continent bud, you keep referring to other continents and countries as a defensive measure. I could not give a crap i am talking about africa and i cannot rationalize the way africa is run by saying others do it. I have also never stated that it is unique to africa. I am just wondering how it is that there is not one country worthy of a prize run by an african leader or one leader worthy of a prize.

If the presidents were all white i would be saying the exact same thing, sadly the common denominator is their race. Now i ask myself why isn't there an african leader that stands out and runs a country well? why do they all run it poorly and make their own kind suffer.

The reason i think has to be this:

If you run a country well and educate your people there is a good chance one day you will be voted out, now if you keep the people poor and uneducated you can stay in power for decades, this is a fairly good plan to stay in power and it works really well. The upside is people will defend them and not put the blame on african leaders in case they are deemed to be racist.

One thing we know and it is pretty much gospel is the african leaders have nothing to do with africa being in such a mess and they honestly cannot do a thing to move africa forward because of colonists and those bloody racists plus they get tips on how to run the country as poorly as possible from all those other poorly run countries all over the world.

I think there may also be an underground comp: Who can run their country the worst, now that i have heard is a hotly contested competition and one that is very very hard to win.

 

[grayston]

I have never placed them, you are the one who is defending them by saying other people have done the same thing, have you convinced yourself that is why it is happening?

Why else?

You're full of questions, dude. Got any answers?

Maybe if more people asked more questions and worried less about being labelled racist things could change.

Yup. But, as I hope I have shown, people generally suck. So when you debate sensitive topics like this, the danger is that people will wilfully misunderstand you for their own means.

The trick is not to give them such an opportunity!

When did i say unique? i have never mentioned another country or continent bud

Yup, and that's the trouble. By concentrating solely on Africa, it looks like you believe the problems are restricted to Africa and Africans. Not cool.

I could not give a crap i am talking about africa and i cannot rationalize the way africa is run by saying others do it. I have also never stated that it is unique to africa. I am just wondering how it is that there is not one country worthy of a prize run by an african leader or one leader worthy of a prize.

Well, there was FW and Mandela, who got the Nobel Peace Prize in 1993. But I guess FW doesn't count through being too white ... or am I jumping the gun here?

If the president were all white i would be saying the exact same thing, sadly the common denominator is their race.

Uh, no. Their common denominator is that they are people.

Now i ask myself why isn't there an african leader that stands out and runs a country well, why do they all run it poorly and make their own kind suffer.

Why should a black person treat someone nicely JUST because he's black? That would be preferential, racist behaviour, wouldn't it? Plenty of white and asian people have treated white and asian people badly, yet you don't criticise them for not looking out for their "kind".

The reason i think has to be this:

If you run a country well and educate your people there is a good chance one day you will be voted out, now if you keep the people poor and uneducated you can stay in power for decades, this is a fairly good plan to stay in power actually and it works really well. The upside is people will defend you and put the blame on african leaders in case they are deemed to be racist.

One thing we know and it is pretty much gospel is the african leaders have nothing to do with africa being in such a mess and they honestly cannot do a thing to move africa forward because of colonists and those bloody racists plus they get tips on how to run the country as poorly as possible from all those other poorly run countries.

*Applause*

Well done, sir! I do believe we're getting somewhere.

 

[Alan]

Africa's current woes stem more from the insidious effect of liberals like Grayston rather than from past colonialism....

It was you educated western liberals who championed despots, sorry great liberation organizations ,like the ANC and ZanuPF to the masses. You turned people like Mandela and Mugabe into untouchable deities. Now you have a condescending attitude to Africans who continue to support the same regimes you brainwashed them into following. What do you think goes through the mind of the average uneducated African when he sees Mandela endorsing Zuma at ANC rallies? Unlike the "enlightened" liberals who know he was *gasp* kidnapped :erm:. You cannot blame the rise to power of despots on the damage caused to society by colonialism when you yourselves, with the benefit of a western education, supported these same people....

Further more the left stoked the flames of hatred that these tyrant use to thrive on. Continually you drove it into the heads of Africans how badly they've been wronged by "colonialists". Raped, pillaged, riches stolen from them by nasty whities as if Africans have had it so much worse than the rest of the world. Now liberals whinge when mad BoB and ANCYL say they're going to take back what the liberals themselves say was so viciously stolen from Africans. What do you expect???


Lastly the victim mentality that underlines the whole thing. Again liberals drill into the heads of Africans that they were hapless victims. The plight they suffer is the result of another's actions. They are told they have a right to this , a right to that and the former colonialist nations "owe" reparations for the sins of colonialism. This instils a gimme , gimme , gimme attitude. Why should one dig themselves out of a mess they are not responsible for? You the colonials did it you fix it, is the attitude. Personal responsibility goes out the window. Liberals of course are always more than happy to oblige and feed the vicious cycle to appease their own conscience with hand outs.

That is why Africa is in the mess it is. This is why tyrants rule and the populace stuck in a malaise they can't break out of.

Stop treating Africans like victims. They are not. They don't need your help or pity. If you just gave them a chance to stand on their own two feet they could achieve great things. But no the guilt complex cannot be overcome. You're like overbearing parents who turn their kids into pansies, for lack of a better word, who can't help themselves. Seems as if that's the way you like it.

 

[grayston]

Africa's current woes stem more from the insidious effect of liberals like Grayston rather than from past colonialism....

It's Friday afternoon. So I'm just going to take the greet.

Nice weekend, Alan!

 

[Alan]

Alan if there were no liberals we would still be raping and pillaging Africa and using slaves. How is this ethically superior ? But I do agree on the aspect of generating a victim and entitlement mentality. The problem itself is not a victim or entitlement mentality. All humans beings should feel entitled to certain freedoms and should feel like victims if they are deprived them. What's lacking in the African context is that first you need personal responsibility and the pragmatic ability to allow everyone to have certain liberties.

A liberal today is a very different specimen to a liberal a hundred years ago.

I've never said one race is ethically superior to another. Westerners raped and pillaged Africans, Westerners raped and pillaged westerners, Africans rape and pillaged Africans. Why then is so much made out of the colonisation?

In the African context the victim and entitlement mentality has gone to the extreme. The West does not owe anything more to Africans and are likewise no more responsible for the current plight of Africans because they committed these crimes on themselves while Africans too did it too themselves.

Africans should have been told to expect nothing more than anybody else. African states wouldn't be begging for cash from Western states right now had that been the case. They would have had to do it largely on their own from the start. Tough love if you will......

But other than that one point we agree on I find the alternative to liberating people to self rule far more barbaric that what we're faced with today. And far more deeply cynical so that it proposes some people are just not capable of ruling themselves, or they are but you prefer to abuse them for your own purpose. The romans emperors believed this, so did Ghengis Kahn and Alexander the great. Africa is young as a free continent in the grand scheme of things. There's evidence everywhere of things changing. Sub Saharan Africa is the fastest economic growth region in the world at the moment. Africa is emerging a middle class and an intellectual class under their own rule. Something colonialism failed to bring about.

Well I don't share you positive outlook but the problem is not liberating people it's the process of liberation that is the problem. What is the point of liberating people if you brainwash them into believing in only one party? We may be a democracy on paper but like Zim we are a one party state.

Liberators and their parties were lifted beyond the body politic. For all the talk of democracy liberals were happy to set the conditions that would result in ANC or in Zim ZanuPF dominance for decades. After all these were the parties of great men like Mandela and Mugabe what could go wrong. It guaranteed that the policies they supported would get passed to mould a country the way they wanted. Without other pesky parties getting in the way.

 

[killadoob]

Didn't mugabe call kicking the whites out a revolution? Yikes i hope i am wrong.

Doesn't malema talk of revolution like zimbabwe?

I somehow don't think revolution is the same in africa bud as it might be elsewhere. Teaching people to build, dude you promised housing not work. You will be gone soon you bloody agent .

 

[killadoob]

Viva la revolution

 

[Palimino]

If I was in power I would never have built the rdp houses. I would have build 10 story apartment buildings. Farm lands in-between. 10 apartments per floor. 400 people per one. 10-20 apartment buildings between school. 10-20 per clinic and police station. 50 per hospital. Access control. Parks and sports facilities inbetween. A tax free, land free, subsidized industrial area to encourage people to build factories in close vicinity with free transport provided for workers. A commercial zone. Total new Independent self sufficient mini cities. This would have been my model for impoverished Africa. It might be a bit soviet but beggars can't be choosers and it would be the best way to school, police, offer medical treatment and much easier to monitor service delivery with a dedicate council for each 50 buildings etc. And it would cost much less. Maybe I'll stand for election on this platform.

It wouldn’t work and would cause massive problems in your administration aside from the ‘ghettoing’ and slums. It’s been tried countless times before – not only in Eastern bloc countries and has **always** failed. Education is the key. You cannot move a rural population into modern apartment blocks and expect them to cope.

Note: for some reason a bunch of rural Arabs flew in a plane somewhere. They built a cooking fire in the corridor of the plane (while it was flying) to cook food because they were hungry.

It takes an implicit (and unconscious) knowledge to operate in the modern world. Flush toilets, electricity, TV, appliances, lights, etc. Rural citizens don’t have this. They’ll kill themselves.

 

[Palimino]

Of course it will cost money. But not as much as the current housing. Sewage and electricity would be easier to implement. The land saved could be farmed by the unemployed (mandatory as commie as that sounds) to make the building safe sufficient for their staple diet. I realise this type of thing has been tried before but it could be carried out in a pragmatic model if you leave out all the commie rhetoric. I would love to see government do some sort of smaller scale trial of this model. Most people living in the crummy shack townships are from rural areas anyway and surely will see an apartment as a better option.

Think about it. Disregarding the Town Planning stuff – your scheme to have farmland in between blocks will increase distances enormously (no public transport) and time. A visit will be an all-day safari affair. This is a culture that values land and counts wealth by head of cattle. Unions, service delivery, crime, hygiene, etc. It wouldn’t even pass the initial stages (before you have built anything).

I would bet anything the crime in that test model would be far below average, the school attendance far better, the accountability of all micro departmens far better etc.

You would lose your bet on all counts. I have a bridge to sell you – cheap, cheap.

 

[Palimino]

Anyway but surprising to see you give the current A.N.C model the thumbs up.

If I have done that it was inadvertent and a huge mistake. I wouldn’t give any A.N.C model the thumbs up even in the most extreme version of a diseased imagination.

 

[The Philosopher]

Wow the world needs more people like you, Captain hindsight.

LOL u watched the SP!!


Anywho, I did not read all the pages but I got the gist of the argument.

I think all this falls down to a clash of Philosophies. The more successful ones are which remain behind. The capitalist, democratic, non-superstitious philosophies are the ones that have been the most successful, as carried out by the west. It is also mostly considered western philosophy. The main problem with post colonialism, is which philosophies were take up. One can look at two case studies, that of Ghana and South Korea. They were both in almost the same position, financially, technologically and structurally. Ghana and South Korea gained independence the same year i think(close ghana 1957 and Korea civil ware ended 1953/4). Now they followed two different routes. As you can see South Korea is fully developed country with the fastest internet in the world and very high GDP per capita. They have first rate medical care. On the other hand, Ghana is still an underdeveloped country with low income, severe poverty and many other statistics that do not compare to 1st world countries let a lone South Korea. Now why is there such a vast gap between these countries when they started off on an equal footing.

It is simple. South Korea followed a western approach which means they engaged in a democratic system, free market and inalienable rights to individuals. Ghana, on the other hand, reverted back to the philosophical history books and sought out some amalgamation of Kingdoms and tribes peppered with a bit of democracy. Kwame Nkrumah was their first president and he was good and well educated. However soon afterwards, it degenerated into all out megalomania, by successive leaders. Hence they are behind South Korea in almost all aspects.


Sure each country had external pressures and help, but at the end of the day, it is how you carry out your philosophical ideas and which ones they are. Ghana, it seems was not the only African country to exclude tenets of western philosophy. That is why no other African country can compare to 1st world status requirements.

Ideas are powerful and the aggregation of each persons productive power and day to day contribution to free market dynamics and democratic behaviour, constitutes a powerful force, ergo if you entrench draconian and archaic philosophies on a grand scale, thing will go pear shaped. The greatest contemporary example is that of Mugabes decision to revoke property rights. This small change which is fundamental to running of a free market and democratic society, created bedlam, violence, financial ruin and a failed state. The is ecos, philosophy, and common sense 101.

Another great example of a country which changed from an empire based society to a democratic one is Japan. They have done well to become one of the top 5 economies in the world, after barely existing after the second world war. So why do African countries continually avoid embracing western philosophy.

The greatest obstacle to change is entrenched cultural bias. If you can shed off the umbilical cord of the cultural philosophy one can move forward. One can retain those that make your culture colourful, but dispose of the cultural baggage and most importantly the cultural superstions and ideas that retard progress in areas of human rights, medicine,finance and science.

 

[The Philosopher]

Be that as it may, I still dont think it detracts from my argument on a macro scale. It is the aggregation of day to day human transaction which counts. I still think South Korea is a valid example. Another way you can look at it is where is North Korea? The difference is a stark reminder of ideological differences and how they are carried out and finally their execution.

Many products are rebranded and i dont think that makes them anti western. As mentioned elsewhere, cultures can keep many things which identify them, but if they get the key concepts it is a start. Also South Korea is a work in progress, so they still require growth and polishing of other human rights problems. i am well aware that the east suffers great human rights abuses and very recently in fact, but appears that they are moving in a progressive direction. It is not something that can be sorted out in a day. You said that they despise westerners and I would think it is the same in Japan, but whether or not they like westerners is doesnt subtract from their adopted policies.

Perhaps, i may be oversimplifying Zim, but the quote you mentioned was not my quote and is not what I was saying. Whether or not the farmers left is irrelevant, it was the concept that you could not own property which scared away investors. In Zims case, I think that Mugabes role far outweighed that of afro pessimism. Those tobacco farms were very profitable as well as the mining industry. I am sure people would not have taken money out unless their capital security was non-existent.

SO in the end my point is on macro scale, how you enact human freedom is what enables you one to make a success of oneself. Sure every country has a different tuning of democracy and free market practices, but the key is they at least have majority form of it.

 

[ponder]

On the contrary Africa remained relatively peaceful until colonialism took place.

Lol, can you substantiate that seeing there is no documented history of africa as they had no literacy to document it.

 

[nightjar]

Can you prove it wasn't ? Or do you just let your imagination lead you where your prejudices go ?

There are loads of reports by explorers, missionaries, hunters and traders that mention tribal warfare. The area occupied by the trekkers in the mid 1800s was awash with blood as a result of the actions of Tshaka.

One of Tshaka's trusted chiefs Mzilikazi was sent to raid neighbouring tribes and steal their cattle and women. In true ANC fashion he decided to keep the loot for himself and when Tshaka demanded the spoils he made a run for it, ending up in what became Matabeleland.

In the course of his life Mzilikazi devastated half a million square miles and exterminated 28 tribes. He took woman and young men for himself and his army and left babies in the smoking ruins of destroyed villages.

For a thousand years the east coast of Africa was plagued by Arab slave traders and it is estimated that seventeen million slaves were exported to the middle east during that time. The slaves were the spoils of inter tribal warfare that stretched into central Africa. Nyasaland, even in the late 1800s, suffered from slavers and the missionaries lived in fear of their lives until the trade was finally suppressed.

When I lived in Ndola on the Zambian copperbelt there used to be a large fig tree which was regarded as a monument because it had been the centre of the slave market.

The Atlantic slave trade provided another ten million slaves to the Americas and West Indies.