🚀 go-pugleaf

"CKIM" <nobody@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> Every single case? That is a broad claim, one you cannot back up. Many of
> the countries in North Africa, such as Morocco, Senegal, and Egypt,
> maintain a fair quality of life.

For the purpose of this discussion, "African" means "Sub-Saharan".

 Sub-Saharan Africa, on the other hand is a
> difficult place, and even the European powers were unable to make much use
> of these territories. The European powers, by the way, were only in those
> countries to extract natural resources. Any mark of civilization was
> imported, not manufactured locally. An obvious example is South Africa,
> whose main commercial products are diamonds and gold, which are cheaply
> extracted by white-owned mining companies, and promptly shipped to Europe
to
> be sold at gigantic profit.

Well, they obviously had to have a motivation. It wasn't evil of them to
harvest what was essentially meaningless to the natives. Gold and diamonds
were discovered after farmers had lived in South Africa for a couple of
hundred years.
.
>
> Also, don't forget that the borders of most of the African colonies were
> drawn to suit the colonists, not the natives. Having been liberated, the
> people within these borders lacked a common cultural identity or national
> purpose, and it's understandable that they would descend into civil war.
> Imagine if France and Germany were bound together by a foreign power until
> 1900, then let loose.

So what was more evil - for the Europeans to leave, or for them to stay?

> My answer is: because the whites are still operating extraction economies
in
> Africa, but using puppet dictators and warlords to maintain the tyranny
that
> they cannot openly operate themselves.

I've had similar discussions before where I've heard lots of excuses, but
this is a new one. It's a fascinating idea. Do you have any examples of it?

> How comforting to know that "management" is racist at your company. Does
> that not demonstrate ANYTHING to you?

I suppose if we don't treat all races equally it fits the narrow definition
of racist, but in the real world we don't usually consider advantageous
treatment of blacks to be racist.

> > I am no socialist. "We Americans" should not have the legal obligation
to
> > support "those Americans" who can't or won't support themselves,
> regardless
> > of what color they are.
>
> Have you no concept of social responsibility? Since the dawn of
> civilization, society has been divided according to wealth and power. An
> enlightened sovereignty generally understands that they have a
> responsibility to those from whom their wealth and power are derived. This
> is the social contract, as recognized by Rousseau. The ones who forget
this
> contract, or are unaware of it, are fools or tyrants. And, where the
social
> contract is ignored, history has shown us that the lower class overthrows
> the upper class in order to restore justice. Think about France in 1789,
or
> Russia in 1917.

The key phrase is "legal obligation". We should help each other as our
consciences dictate. The simplistic truth is that the people in power decide
who needs the help, and in what way and what amount it will be delivered.
Then the force those who earn money to pay for what they have decided.

Mark