🚀 go-pugleaf

"Mark Richards" <markrichards8@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ajclvj$fig$1@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> "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".

That's quite a cop-out, but I'll give it to you. Sub-Saharan Africa is
having some real problems.

>
>  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.

The problem in South Africa isn't so much that whites were the first to
extract gold and diamonds. The problem is that they exploited the black
population, and maintained a police state in order to perpuate their
exploitation. Now, even with the end of apartheid, the gold and diamond
trade is securely in the hands of whites, who have no intention of
reinvesting that wealth into the land that produced it. It is for this very
reason that we fought a war with the British. Unfortunately for them, their
colonial oppressors never relinquished control.

> .
> >
> > 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?

As I've said before, it's most evil for them to leave, but maintain economic
control from afar. That, and the pathetic attempts of European liberals to
uplift the locals. They managed to tame some of the disease in Africa, which
led to higher populations, which led to starvation. But I'm sure those
involved are still patting themselves on the back for being such good
people.
>
> > 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?

The best example is the Republic of Congo. Here are some cites:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1120825.stm
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,132849,00.html

>
> > 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 was referring to your racist attitudes, as expressed in your own writings.

>
> > > 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.

You're lucky to live in a nation where the common man plays a large part in
shaping public policy. Go ahead and do your part. However, you'll find that
if public policy were to tilt further in your favor, that crime would rise,
unemployment would rise, the economy will stagnate, and you'll suffer. Did
you take any economics classes in college? If so, you'll recall that
programs like unemployment insurance and welfare are designed to protect the
economy from sharp downturns. Our current income redistribution programs,
while burdensome, are vastly preferable to the societal rubble that
America's earlier, freer, industrial age created. Robber-barons made paupers
of the rest of us, regardless of color.

Furthermore, I contend that individuals, left to their own devices, are
generally too greedy to be very good at charity. While you and all your
friends may be decent and giving people, the vast unwashed would rather buy
more crap on the Home Shopping Network than help their fellow man.
>
> Mark
>
>
>