I work in the charity sector, and I applaud 'Sir' Bob's attempts to higher the profile of whatever he chooses to higher the profile of.

I feel that, really, this time he has gone a little OTT.

It's not Dunkirk and I dread to think what a rowing boat would be like in the busiest channel in the world. I certainly wouldn't do it and I feel it's a little irresponsible for 'Sir' Bob to advocate it.

I also feel its slightly crazy to ask schoolkids to demonstrate. Of course they will, but will they know what for.

The thing I really can not get my head round tho is that there are no Africaan groups appearing. I find this rather strange as, anyone that has listened to Andy Kershaw will agree, there are many indiginous and pop groups that have a large following in Africa.

It is me?

Originally posted by BoppinBruce
I work in the charity sector, and I applaud 'Sir' Bob's attempts to higher the profile of whatever he chooses to higher the profile of.

I feel that, really, this time he has gone a little OTT.

It's not Dunkirk and I dread to think what a rowing boat would be like in the busiest channel in the world. I certainly wouldn't do it and I feel it's a little irresponsible for 'Sir' Bob to advocate it.

I also feel its slightly crazy to ask schoolkids to demonstrate. Of course they will, but will they know what for.

The thing I really can not get my head round tho is that there are no Africaan groups appearing. I find this rather strange as, anyone that has listened to Andy Kershaw will agree, there are many indiginous and pop groups that have a large following in Africa.

It is me?

in a word NO!

in more words.... i agree with you on this one and so do many of my friends, they all think he has lost the plot and is going to cause more trouble than good this time round

Live 8

'not for charity' but 'raising awareness'


yet revenue from texts, worldwide broadcasting, merchandise??
where does it go??


sponsored by aol....02.....funding the prince's trust because they had to cancel their hyde park date in order to let live 8 london go on,


i'm very suspicious mr geldof :gag:

why do you keep including Sir in '', he was knighted it's a real Sir infront of his name.

I'm not sure about the flotilla thing - yes, it'll be dangerous, but I'm inclined to agree with Sir Bob, often we take too few risks nowadays, I for one would love to row across the channel with a couple of million others, except that I'll be canoeing in Ross-on-Wye that weekend and it's a bit of a long way to paddle.

I can see his point about not including African musicians in Live8 as well - he's included the acts he has for purely populist reasons, to get the maximum exposure.

What really confuses me though is why the hell anybody would want to spend hours crammed into Hyde Park watching the likes of Paul McCartney, Elton John, and Sting. On the one hand Geldof is urging us to do something dangerous for a change, on the other he's trying to get us to attend an event so safe that the only danger you'd face is the danger of gnawing your own leg off in boredom.

i suspect that most of those protesting against, or lobbying, the G8 have at best a superficial knowledge of what the G8 is and does- and probably even less of the nature and causes of global poverty.

Geldof's campaign of the 1980s, however well-intentioned, was fundamentally misguided and possibly even counter-productive, because it was based on a wrong diagnosis leading to superficial 'solutions'. I think he is wiser now, but unfortunately, in my view, not much more so.

As for the current campaign, it is - like the first - based on the highly questionable assumption that the solution to African poverty is in the hands of the rich western nations - i.e. that all that is basically needed is adjustment in the terms of trade, opening up Western markets and a few big debt write-offs and he presto. If only the probelms were that simple.

Most of the current campaign seems to be based on posturing, grandstanding and wristbanding of one kind or another. In the case of the celebrity consciences however, in at least some cases it seems to be based upon jostling for street credibility. Its undeniable that millions and millions of CDs were sold off the back of Band Aid, and that several groups had their careers re-launched - or in the case of U2 for example - launched by it.

Sorry i always thought he was a honourably sir. Has he been knighted, I didn't think so

Lord Chaverly - well put.

Let's roll out the old fogies again, Sting, Bono, Annie Lennox, Macca and probably, Peter Gabriel.

If it IS indeed about resurrecting flagging careers, then I have cause to be worried:

Does this mean Our Tony (that's the Prime Minister) will be plugging in his Telecaster and giving us a choon?

It'd be interesting to see Cherie Blair sat in a bag at his knees a la Yoko and John.

Might even watch it....,

PS. Didn't Gazza want to be known by the acronym G8? Careful, this could all turn out to be something completely different from what you thought!

but this is all about saving innocent peoples lives from disease, hunger etc surely anything we can do is worthwhile. If this whole thing saves even one persons life is that not worth it ?

Originally posted by Lee1979
but this is all about saving innocent peoples lives from disease, hunger etc surely anything we can do is worthwhile. If this whole thing saves even one persons life is that not worth it ?

Agreed- ANYTHING that can help the millions starving is worth it!!

no matter how big his 'ego' is, he is doing more than me and you!!

Originally posted by LordChaverly
i suspect that most of those protesting against, or lobbying, the G8 have at best a superficial knowledge of what the G8 is and does- and probably even less of the nature and causes of global poverty.

Geldof's campaign of the 1980s, however well-intentioned, was fundamentally misguided and possibly even counter-productive, because it was based on a wrong diagnosis leading to superficial 'solutions'. I think he is wiser now, but unfortunately, in my view, not much more so.

As for the current campaign, it is - like the first - based on the highly questionable assumption that the solution to African poverty is in the hands of the rich western nations - i.e. that all that is basically needed is adjustment in the terms of trade, opening up Western markets and a few big debt write-offs and he presto. If only the probelms were that simple.

Most of the current campaign seems to be based on posturing, grandstanding and wristbanding of one kind or another. In the case of the celebrity consciences however, in at least some cases it seems to be based upon jostling for street credibility. Its undeniable that millions and millions of CDs were sold off the back of Band Aid, and that several groups had their careers re-launched - or in the case of U2 for example - launched by it.

Stopping restrictive trade practices, removing the crippling debt burdens and paying them a fair price for the goods they produce aren't a bad start in trying to alleviate poverty. It won't be a solution, and a lot of the problem is down to corrupt and bad governance of the countries in question, which is one reason why debt relieve is better than debt removal, but there has been little political will from the west to do anything, populist movements like this help to spur our governments to do something about the situation.
At the end of the day the people protesting don't need to understand the problem or how to solve it, they just need to give some impetus to our government who have the ability to understand it and to do something about it.

Originally posted by Cyclone
Stopping restrictive trade practices, removing the crippling debt burdens and paying them a fair price for the goods they produce aren't a bad start in trying to alleviate poverty. It won't be a solution, and a lot of the problem is down to corrupt and bad governance of the countries in question, which is one reason why debt relieve is better than debt removal, but there has been little political will from the west to do anything, populist movements like this help to spur our governments to do something about the situation.
At the end of the day the people protesting don't need to understand the problem or how to solve it, they just need to give some impetus to our government who have the ability to understand it and to do something about it.

In the postwar era, the 'West' (through the World Bank, the UN agencies, the EU and through national development aid) has poured more money into Africa than into any other continent - amounting to many more times than Marshall Aid. The results are now generally regarded as abysmal (as admitted for example in a recent WB report). There is political will in the West - admittedly of varying intensity - but it requires even more so political will in Africa itself. None of the measures you mention will make much more than a small dent in the structural problems in the African domestic economies, and indeed in their societies as a whole. Its all very well for example for Geldoff to call on Western companies not to pay bribes - but if you are operating in societies where corruption is the norm, and where the governments are basically self-serving kleptocracies, its far easier said than done.

Don't know whether this has previously been mentioned (I had a quick scan through the previous postings) but in Saturday's Telegraph there was an article about the squalid conditions in which the "Make Poverty History" wristbands are made. The article tells of how the wristbands are produced in a sweat factory in China where the labourers are paid a pittance for their hard work.

Do you think such grave inconsistencies and contradictions 'cheapen' charity? To me, such revelations actually damage the cause more to such an extent I would now go out of my way to avoid buying a wristband.

The whole idea of a pop concert to raise money doesn't strike me as the best way to perpetuate charitable giving. The British people don't need a celebrity-studded event to persuade them to part with their money. For example, look at the overwhelming financial donations given by citizens following the tsunami in Southeast Asia.

I'm with Lord Chavers on this one.

Sometimes I get the impression that these 'Pop Stars' (and one might argue, certain countries' Governments) want to be seen simply to be to be "doing something".

It's probably a bit like the little charity envelope we get through our letterboxes into which we put a handful of coppers to give ourselves that piece of mind that at least we're contributing 'something'. (Whilst doing do, we put something into the envelope to save being embarrassed about handing back an empty envelope!)

One might argue also, that 20 years after Live Aid, Sir Bob (whom I have huge respect for) is making another Rallying Call to the West in order to bring people's attention to the G8 summit and everything else connected with it (or unconnected even). Doesn't this almost become an admission that despite all our earlier efforts, not an awful lot has changed?

I agree that pouring more and more money into countries with corrupt governments cannot and never will change the lives of the millions of people affected by such governments.

Thus, for all Sir Bob's endeavours, the words TREE, UP, BARKING and WRONG spring to mind. (This alas, is not to say we should simply stop trying to find a solution, but me no politician so...,)

Originally posted by JonJParr
The whole idea of a pop concert to raise money doesn't strike me as the best way to perpetuate charitable giving.
But that isn't the whole idea, or even part of the idea. The idea is to raise awareness. But obviously you weren't aware of that. Damn, it failed.

Originally posted by DanSumption
But that isn't the whole idea, or even part of the idea. The idea is to raise awareness. But obviously you weren't aware of that. Damn, it failed.

Do you think the British people need to be made more aware of the plight of poverty? I actually don't think we do. It's in the media all the time and I don't think people ever really forget. What we really need is a strategy for solving this poverty (ie. delivering money to the people AND NOT just the corrupt leaders). I still fail to see how popstars singing on a stage raises awareness of poverty. Are they planning to insert voxpops into the concert?

Originally posted by JonJParr
Do you think the British people need to be made more aware of the plight of poverty? I actually don't think we do. It's in the media all the time and I don't think people ever really forget. What we really need is a strategy for solving this poverty
Erm, I think it was meant to be about making people aware of a strategy for solving poverty, rather than just being aware of poverty per se. Another failure.

Actually, this is what it's meant to be about (http://www.live8live.com/whatsitabout.shtml): doubling aid, fully cancelling debt, and delivering trade justice for Africa. I think the third one is probably the most important, though also the most uncomfortable for those in the West as it's likely to impact on our own standards of living.

Just to jump in, where are the African performers. Surely to raise the profile African performers should be invited.

how would african performers help?

The reason given for not cancelling debt entirely is that interest payments can be collected, then returned as aid. When they are returned as aid our governments can attach conditions to them, such as, this must go to help your poor and not into your pocket. Whereas if we just cancelled the debt we would have no influence on how the money was spent.

How long was it before western style democracies evolved into their current state? Or why was it that western monarchs (the previous common form of government) were generally at least slightly interested in keeping there country healthy, with benefits for the peasant of the time, rather than just fleecing the maximum they could into their coffers.
The answer to that is probably two fold, firstly they were in it for life, so destroy the country early by taking too much and there'd be no income for them later on, and secondly they needed a healthy country in order to stop it being invaded and swallowed by another one.
The problem with corrupt regimes in africa is that the leaders take so much that the economy is wrecked. Unless they plan to flee with their ill gotten gains then this is just stupid (see president mubutu).
Maybe we should swallow our morals a little bit and just intervene rather than standing back and wringing our hands, whilst profiting from virtual slave labour.

Originally posted by Cyclone
how would african performers help?

Maybe we should swallow our morals a little bit and just intervene rather than standing back and wringing our hands, whilst profiting from virtual slave labour.

Africans (and by no means just the leaders) are likely to interpret this as just another form of imperialism by another name - albeit moral imperialism. One only has to look at the very different responses in Africa and the West to Mugabe's tyranny. Intervention is in any case forbidden by the UN Charter, which includes clauses about non-interference and respect for sovereignty - very handy verbal weapons in the mouths of demagogues, tyrants and kleptocrats of one kind or another. Admittedly, the non-intervention clause has been widely ignored (most recently by Bush and Blair) but the prospects of it being ignored by Western governments in the case of Africa (if we are talking about military intervention) are virtually zero.

Anyone here remember Chumbawamba's response to the original Live Aid, their first LP Pictures of Starving Children Sell Records (http://www.chumbawambas.republika.pl/pictures.htm). A great album (probably their best) and definitely time for a reprise. Cliff Richard, we're going to nail you up to a cross tonight!!

Originally posted by LordChaverly
Africans (and by no means just the leaders) are likely to interpret this as just another form of imperialism by another name - albeit moral imperialism. One only has to look at the very different responses in Africa and the West to Mugabe's tyranny. Intervention is in any case forbidden by the UN Charter, which includes clauses about non-interference and respect for sovereignty - very handy verbal weapons in the mouths of demagogues, tyrants and kleptocrats of one kind or another. Admittedly, the non-intervention clause has been widely ignored (most recently by Bush and Blair) but the prospects of it being ignored by Western governments in the case of Africa (if we are talking about military intervention) are virtually zero.

I was thinking more along the lines of keeping the CIA and MI6 busy for a little while. You can see the headlines

"Another crackpot dictator has died in suspicious circumstances just days after declaring that elections were evil capitalist tools"

Originally posted by JonJParr
Do you think the British people need to be made more aware of the plight of poverty? I actually don't think we do. It's in the media all the time and I don't think people ever really forget.

I think the exact opposite is true. It's because death, misery, poverty and war are in the news so often that we become immune to it, and switch over the television to Celebrity Love Island, or read Heat magazine instead. The sledgehammer approach is the only one that can possibly work, and wall-to-wall coverage of a giant concert can only help make people think about the issues rather than just to let them gently wash over them.

To lay the blame at Africa's door, as it seems increasingly popular to do, may alleviate Western guilt a little but it does nothing to address the fact that Western governments (and, by extension, big business), through the mechanism of the IMF and World Bank, are constantly and methodically raping Africa of its resources and creating conditions by which it will never be able to climb out of the poverty cycle. Provatisation of the water industry, while millions starve and die of AIDS - is this the kind of moral lead we expect of African governments to follow?

Of course it's not as simple as A, B, C, but changes have to be made. And that change starts right here in the West.

Greenback, your posts are very thoughtful.

I don't see why it has to be an either/or approach! I think trade protectionism and apathy from the west contribute to africa's problems. I ALSO think that structural problems and corrupt dictatorships in Africa are to blame. As such protests like those in edinburgh and sheffield are important, and so are protests, campaigns and governmental pressure on african embassies and governments.

I think Africans should be listened to, as well, their musicians would be a start but the governments of G8 countries should have think tanks with african members to help understand whats really going on in those countries and how we can help.

Greenback
I'll try and address your points in turn.

Originally posted by Greenback
I think the exact opposite is true. It's because death, misery, poverty and war are in the news so often that we become immune to it, and switch over the television to Celebrity Love Island, or read Heat magazine instead. The sledgehammer approach is the only one that can possibly work, and wall-to-wall coverage of a giant concert can only help make people think about the issues rather than just to let them gently wash over them.

This is very much a generalisation and very much depends on the kind of person that you are. If you value equality and genuinely care for the millions of Africans in poverty then you won't switch over to ITV for Celebrity Love Island.

Originally posted by Greenback
To lay the blame at Africa's door, as it seems increasingly popular to do, may alleviate Western guilt a little but it does nothing to address the fact that Western governments (and, by extension, big business), through the mechanism of the IMF and World Bank, are constantly and methodically raping Africa of its resources and creating conditions by which it will never be able to climb out of the poverty cycle. Provatisation of the water industry, while millions starve and die of AIDS - is this the kind of moral lead we expect of African governments to follow?

To examine your analysis of Africa and it's ingrained problems one can use China as an example. Ten to fifteen years ago the country was wracked with poverty. People were starving, western business was exploiting. Following a period of economic revival and Government reform business is booming in China and poverty is starting to decrease. Now I mentioned Government reform, by this I mean the removal of corruption (in some way similar to the problems with African regimes).
Though you believe that laying the blame at Africa's door is merely 'populist' you must conceed that this is because people have seen so many examples of corruption (King Mswati III Swaziland for one).
As for millions dying of AIDS - is this the fault of the western world and business? I think not. It's the 'fault' of promiscuous culture and prositution within African society. Whilst we could provide more condoms and provide awareness raising education Africans must choose to stop what we term in the western world to be 'sleeping around'.

nothing to do with christianity preaching that using condoms means you will go to hell?

Originally posted by JonJParr
As for millions dying of AIDS - is this the fault of the western world and business? I think not. It's the 'fault' of promiscuous culture and prositution within African society.

Err...and the pope.

Although as I said, is it beyond comprehension to lay blame on both sides of the equator?

Originally posted by Greenback
I think the exact opposite is true. It's because death, misery, poverty and war are in the news so often that we become immune to it, and switch over the television to Celebrity Love Island, or read Heat magazine instead. The sledgehammer approach is the only one that can possibly work, and wall-to-wall coverage of a giant concert can only help make people think about the issues rather than just to let them gently wash over them.

To lay the blame at Africa's door, as it seems increasingly popular to do, may alleviate Western guilt a little but it does nothing to address the fact that Western governments (and, by extension, big business), through the mechanism of the IMF and World Bank, are constantly and methodically raping Africa of its resources and creating conditions by which it will never be able to climb out of the poverty cycle. Provatisation of the water industry, while millions starve and die of AIDS - is this the kind of moral lead we expect of African governments to follow?

Of course it's not as simple as A, B, C, but changes have to be made. And that change starts right here in the West.

These are exactly the kind of attitudes which are perpetuating Afric'a plight. I couldn't agree with you less. Far from 'raping Africa of its resources', the World Bank and the IMF have pumped hundreds of billions of dollars into Africa, more than anywhere else. If you look at the specific programmes and policies of these institutions in relation to specific African countries (as an alternative to an ill-informed and generalised rant) I think you will find that these policies - as misguided as many of them have been - hardly qualify as pillage and plunder . That description however would certainly apply to the activities of most of Africa's leaders since independence.

The marketisation policies to which you indirectly refer are in fact quite a good idea, if implemented as part of a comprehensive development programme. The quicker Africa is fully integrated into the global (market) economy the better. But they also require structural changes in the political and social infrastructure as well as to the economic infrastructure - which are hard to achieve, at least in the short to medium terms But they are hardly helped by simplistic ranting and claptrap about Western guilt.

Have you noticed who's paying for this world-wide "event"...

...from the "Live 8" website,
The first £1.6 million raised from the text competition will go to The Prince's Trust which is sharing a proportion of the income with Help a London Child. The rest, after paying the costs of the global LIVE 8 concerts (free events), will go to the Band Aid Trust.
Link:
http://www.live8live.com/tickets.shtml

So don't expect a lot of your money to go to Africa, it'll be paying roadies in the US, France, etc.

:suspect:



PS.
Originally posted by kathythebean
...Although as I said, is it beyond comprehension to lay blame on both sides of the equator?
Erm, Africa lays on both sides of the equator.

;)

Thanks for that foo fighter.

I think you know what I meant.

Originally posted by JonJParr
This is very much a generalisation and very much depends on the kind of person that you are. If you value equality and genuinely care for the millions of Africans in poverty then you won't switch over to ITV for Celebrity Love Island.

I guess my point is that most of the time, Africa and its problems seem a long way removed from our everyday lives. Raising awareness of the plight of Africa – and the important point that this is our problem too – in such a way as Sir Bob is doing can only be a good thing.

Originally posted by JonJParr
To examine your analysis of Africa and it's ingrained problems one can use China as an example. Ten to fifteen years ago the country was wracked with poverty. People were starving, western business was exploiting. Following a period of economic revival and Government reform business is booming in China and poverty is starting to decrease. Now I mentioned Government reform, by this I mean the removal of corruption (in some way similar to the problems with African regimes).
Though you believe that laying the blame at Africa's door is merely 'populist' you must conceed that this is because people have seen so many examples of corruption (King Mswati III Swaziland for one).

Is poverty decreasing in rural China? :)

I'm not sure things over there are quite as rosey as they are sometimes painted to be, but that's a different debate. As for Africa, I'm not trying to deny that there are many regimes that are corrupt and wicked - or, for that matter, that it often suits the west for regimes to be corrupt and wicked.

Originally posted by JonJParr
As for millions dying of AIDS - is this the fault of the western world and business? I think not. It's the 'fault' of promiscuous culture and prositution within African society. Whilst we could provide more condoms and provide awareness raising education Africans must choose to stop what we term in the western world to be 'sleeping around'.

I still think part of the problem is tied in with economics – an educated people is less likely to fall for the fundamentalist Christian line that condoms are unnatural and evil. Education plays a major part, as you say.

Cheap antivirals need to be made available to the masses, and the West needs to make sure that the systems and structures are in place for effective distribution.

I really think we're all making a mistake just talking about 'africa' as well! Its a very diverse continent, politically and socially. The out of context pictures of 'african' children peddled by geldof and crew don't do much to promote the fact that different countries in Africa have different status on the world stage and different trading partners etc

Originally posted by kathythebean
I really think we're all making a mistake just talking about 'africa' as well! Its a very diverse continent, politically and socially. The out of context pictures of 'african' children peddled by geldof and crew don't do much to promote the fact that different countries in Africa have different status on the world stage and different trading partners etc

kathy,

that is very true - Africa is very diverse (as are many African countries). But in terms of their post-colonial development, most share some fundamental (and depressing) similarities. Botswana is currently being singled out as a potential development model for other African countries - but what appears to be working there (to some extent) may not travel all that well for the reasons you mention.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
These are exactly the kind of attitudes which are perpetuating Afric'a plight. I couldn't agree with you less. Far from 'raping Africa of its resources', the World Bank and the IMF have pumped hundreds of billions of dollars into Africa, more than anywhere else. If you look at the specific programmes and policies of these institutions in relation to specific African countries (as an alternative to an ill-informed and generalised rant) I think you will find that these policies - as misguided as many of them have been - hardly qualify as pillage and plunder . That description however would certainly apply to the activities of most of Africa's leaders since independence.

'Pillage and plunder' was overstating the case, fair point, but there are many examples where Western governments/corporations have been very keen to get their hands on African resources at the expense of the people (the US involvement in the Congo/Rwanda/Uganda, for example). The imposition of nonsensical trade restrictions and unpayable debt schedules don't help either.

Originally posted by Greenback
'Pillage and plunder' was overstating the case, fair point, but there are many examples where Western governments/corporations have been very keen to get their hands on African resources at the expense of the people (the US involvement in the Congo/Rwanda/Uganda, for example). The imposition of nonsensical trade restrictions and unpayable debt schedules don't help either.

I would agree that trade restrictions and indebtedness don't help - but neither does laying the blame for Africa's plight largely or even mainly on these policies. In fact, if all trade restrictions for all African commodities were to be removed, and if all African debt were to be written off today, Africa's plight would still be very dire and would probably be improved marginally at best. For example, the EU now has an 'Everything But Arms' trade policy for the poorest developing countries, but it has made very little difference to the trade balances of these countries, because of their very weak export potential. The EU has realised this and is now focusing on improving the export potential of these countries (a policy which would be helped to some degree if the EU removed its own export subsidies for sugar and for aome other products). If all debt were to be written off, private banks would hardly be queuing up to lend Africa any money in the future because of what is termed 'moral hazard' - i.e. the possibility of future default. And even if this did happen, I would guarantee that a vast pile of new debt would be built up within a very short time.

An interesting read! Some points to ponder.
Wouldn't Sir Bob be better employed in seeking help for the country that gave him his knighthood? After all, the "Food Aid" effort really only served to enrich the various Nepotists, Tribalists, and downright robbers who prevailled in Africa at the time (Twenty years or more ago).
Is he jumping onto the coat-tails of Tony Blair? Who really should be more concerned with raising money for the health service, or the elderly, than pouring it down the drain of Africa.
There are many deserving causes here in Britain, and a few dodgy people who will cream off the benefits, but at least it stays here. Or is it that "The pictures of starving children sells records" as someone said?
Maybe he should concentrate on solving the problems in Ireland. Africa causes it's own problems, and a return to colonialism would go a long way towards sorting them out.

Originally posted by sheffco
Africa causes it's own problems, and a return to colonialism would go a long way towards sorting them out.
Actually, I think you'll find that, directly or indirectly, colonialism is responsible for most of the problems under discussion. See for example here (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?postid=326593#post326593) and here (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?postid=330246#post330246) because I can't be arsed to repeat myself.

Originally posted by BoppinBruce
I work in the charity sector, and I applaud 'Sir' Bob's attempts to higher the profile of whatever he chooses to higher the profile of.

I feel that, really, this time he has gone a little OTT.

It's not Dunkirk and I dread to think what a rowing boat would be like in the busiest channel in the world. I certainly wouldn't do it and I feel it's a little irresponsible for 'Sir' Bob to advocate it.

I also feel its slightly crazy to ask schoolkids to demonstrate. Of course they will, but will they know what for.

The thing I really can not get my head round tho is that there are no Africaan groups appearing. I find this rather strange as, anyone that has listened to Andy Kershaw will agree, there are many indiginous and pop groups that have a large following in Africa.

It is me?

stick to writing down car number plates and trainspotting mate,musically minded you aint:hihi:

Originally posted by DanSumption
Actually, I think you'll find that, directly or indirectly, colonialism is responsible for most of the problems under discussion. See for example here (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?postid=326593#post326593) and here (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?postid=330246#post330246) because I can't be arsed to repeat myself.

Dan, I usually find myself in agreement with you on various threads, but in this case I certainly don't. 'Colonialism' may indeed be a contributory factor to Africa's current plight, but it is by no means the only, or indeed even the most important, one. The 'colonialism' explanation is an easy, self-serving rationale, loved by the corupt elites to absolve themselves of responsibility for the last half century or so of non-development in Africa and also loved by certain Western elites and purveyors of Western guilt, who find such facile explanations attractive.

Of course, this explanation has found a post-imperial rationale in the form of 'neo-colonialism', as espoused by the so-called 'dependency theorists', purveying various centre-periphery models of the global economy (all of them ridiculously simplistic and false in my view). What Africa could do with is in fact more dependency, not less (meaning the interdependency which will be both a manifestation, and an outcome, of full integration into the global economy - a path follwed successfully for example by the Asian 'Tiger' economies and currently by both China and India, and indeed elsewhere.

There are some excellent contributions to debate here from Jon J Parr, Greenback and Lord C in particular. However, nobody has, as yet, acknowledged the proverbial 'Elephant in the sitting room' that is general low African intelligence levels.

African countries are at the opposite pole from China and Japan in national IQ. Dare one suggest that this may explain why they are such a major anomaly for modernisation theory? The low rate of growth of African countries following their independence from colonial rule in the 1960s is one of the major problems in developmental economics. During the years 1976-98, the average rate of economic growth per capita GNP of the 41 countries of sub-Saharan Africa for which data are available is much lower than in the rest of the world. Many of the African countries actually suffered negative per capita growth rate. Economists have quantified all possible factors, such as climate, ethnic diversity, geography, mismanagement, unemployment and the like, and compared the situation to elsewhere in the world, especially Asia. They generally concluded that these factors do not provide a complete explanation and that there is some 'missing' element. Some have suggested the low level of 'social capital', i.e, the widespread corruption and lack of trust in commercial relationships, poor roads and railways, unreliable telephones, corrupt governments, and the prevalence of tropical diseases.

In my view, IQ is the 'missing element'.Some of these 'social capital' are actually manifestations of a low level of general intelligence in the populations. They reflect low average IQ. With a mean of 70, according to Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen in their [2002] IQ and the Wealth of Nations, published by Praeger, the populations of Africa cannot be expected to match the rates of growth achieved by elsewhere in the world.

What can be done? There are some factors, some environmental and some genetic, that might raise IQ scores and somewhat alleviate the disparities in national average IQ. These include: better nutrition, education and health; and ending the dysgenic fertility trends where the lowest IQ people produce the most children. Obviously, immigration policy has a role to play too.

Some may think my ideas and solutions eccentric, even sinister and cruel. They are nothing of the sort. What I am saying on this thread is whispered in politics and academe. Most intelligent people realise the truth, that national differences in IQ are here to stay, and so is the gap between the rich and poor countries. Political promises, and especially those from self-righteous musical entertainers, that the gap is temporary, and will be remedied by aid from rich countries to poor countries, will not be fulfilled. Do not waste your money on Geldoff's [perhaps well intentioned] schemes. Buy a good bottle of Chablis instead. Until the dominant left/liberal consensus on 'race' and IQ is overthrown, there is very little that you and I can do to help.

to coin a phrase - "well, i think i've heard it all now"

You spout some rubbish sometimes timo but this takes the biscuit ...

I disagree with you timo.

Not that africans have lower IQs - I'm not going to start on the ethnocentricity arguements surrounding IQ tests that no doubt you're already familiar with. You mention the range of factors taken into account by economists, such as climate, ethnic diversity, geography, mismanagement, unemployment. But if these don't match up with results from similar countries in asia I would say that has something to do with the comparitive methodology.

If "national differences in IQ are here to stay" is your answer then I think you're in danger of merely rubber stamping the status quo.

Ah, she's here again, bless her. Did you take your tablets dear? I said DID YOU TAKE YOUR TABLETS DEAR? Poor thing, she's woken up all agitated again. Have you had your Shackleton's Original Highchair mended yet, dear? Never mind. I'll be round later with your potted meat, and a copy of your People's Friend. Try and go back to sleep Ruby, dream of when Woodseats was all fields, and Zeppelins flew overhead. Poor love, she's getting on a bit now.

Originally posted by Greenback
.....but there are many examples where Western governments/corporations have been very keen to get their hands on African resources at the expense of the people (the US involvement in the Congo/Rwanda/Uganda, for example).

What US involvement in Congo, Rwanda and Uganda? None that I know of. Please enlighten me.

Originally posted by timo
Some may think my ideas and solutions eccentric, even sinister and cruel. They are nothing of the sort. What I am saying on this thread is whispered in politics and academe.
Oh deary me. I don't know quite what to say, or indeed whether I ought to say anything at all.

It wasn't all that long since most of academe was proclaiming the genetic superiority of white over black, all quite scientific and easily proved old chap, why all you have to do is take a few skull measurements. Just because something is "whispered in academe" certainly does not make it correct.

I suppose that, by some fairly torturous logic, I can manage a grain of agreement with you timo, although I certainly wouldn't couch it in such deliberately provocative terms. My own take on the matter is that the African nations have been dragged, in many cases kicking and screaming, towards a Western ideal of "civilisation" within a relatively short time-span. Colonialism is entirely to blame, and later developments have exacerbated the problem. African society and the African psyche are adapted to an entirely different way of life to that they're increasingly forced into, their social constructs are by-and-large not suited to Western-style politics and nationhood. The resulting trauma is likely to take several centuries to play out: as with the French Revolution, it's too early to tell what the eventual impact will be.

And, of course, the maladaptation of African states and individuals to Western social models is likely to have an effect on the results of IQ tests, it doesn't take a genius to work that out.

There is a modern, up to date, burgeoning literature on the geographical variation in IQ levels. It is there for anybody's perusal. The work is conducted by psychologists of unassailable reputations. It is neither related to the 19th century typological models Dan refers to, nor is it the 'rubbish' referred to by that front-rank intellectual, Rubydazzler. The results are unpalatable to the liberal consensus, but that does not make them wrong.

Originally posted by timo
There is a modern, up to date, burgeoning literature on the geographical variation in IQ levels. It is there for anybody's perusal. The work is conducted by psychologists of unassailable reputations.
If they're involved in work on IQ, then their reputation is assailable. Admittedly I only have a BSc in psychology, but even that brief introduction was enough to make it blindingly obvious that the whole concept of IQ is flawed.

Dan,
I respect your views, and I don't want to take the thread too far away from the original theme, but it is by no means 'blindingly obvious' that the concept is flawed. Re the tests, perhaps we might allow for some cultural bias pertaining to tests of language-based IQ, there can be no bias re tests of mathematical ability/visio-spatial ability. Even in simple tests of 'digit forward, digit back', Africans score significantly lower than other peoples. I can provide references to the contemporary sources, should you wish.

Of course, I acknowledge 'overlap' here. One may find Africans with very high IQs too, but the average level is significantly lower, as has been determined by those such as Richard Lynn. I have a regard for you, Dan, so please do not take this the wrong way, but Lynn is not some fool who adheres to a 19th century, typological view of the human species based on skull shapes, he is a world expert on human intelligence. I am honoured that he has generously supplied me with copies of many of his papers.

I admit that Lynn's work lacks the intellectual rigour of Professor Rubydazzler's sublime arguments, but then only Ruby is right all the time.

Phew! Took me a while to read through that lot.
Intelligence? Perhaps Sir Bob should take note. Historically, the Irish are not noted for being the sharpest knife in the drawer (Commedian wise). The Afro Americans would provide arguements on both sides of the genetic theories wouldn't you think?
From experience, most Africans will happily lie underneath the mango tree until the fruit falls off. Sub Sahara that is. The Cotten-Soil will grow anything. Management and organisation is all that is needed.

Originally posted by timo
I respect your views, and I don't want to take the thread too far away from the original theme, but it is by no means 'blindingly obvious' that the concept is flawed. Re the tests, perhaps we might allow for some cultural bias pertaining to tests of language-based IQ, there can be no bias re tests of mathematical ability/visio-spatial ability. Even in simple tests of 'digit forward, digit back', Africans score significantly lower than other peoples. I can provide references to the contemporary sources, should you wish.
Sorry, I should have said "blindingly obvious to me". What is also blindingly obvious is that most psychologists have less common sense than I do :rolleyes:

This is purely anecdotal, and not related to the type of IQ tests we are talking about here, but in one lecture we had to study an IQ test used to evaluate potential employees. We completed the first 15 questions (which were all reading comprehension followed by "true", "false" or "cannot tell from the information given" answers) and then went through marking. I was shocked to find that two of the "correct" answers from the score-sheet were actually wrong: the people devising the test had put "true" or "false" whereas in fact this couldn't be deduced from the information given, only using prior knowledge. So had I applied for a job at a place that used this test, they would have believed my IQ was 13% lower than it actually "is".

That's by-the-by, and I realise that there exist "culturally neutral" IQ tests, but I still it is possible to compare and contrast intelligence across cultures. It's not only language that is cultural, everything that we do and know is affected by culture (there exist societies who have no words for numbers above three: I'm sure they would fare badly on IQ tests with a mathematical component, yet they may also process and retain knowledge in ways I can't even conceive of). The sub-Saharan psyche is radically different from the European (for example, it appears that something as apparently fundamental as the concept of time differs greatly between Africans and Europeans), so I'm very wary of drawing any kind of conclusions from IQ tests.

And of course it is impossible to prove that IQ test measure intelligence. All we can say for sure is that they are a very good indicator of ability to perform IQ tests :)

I was going to add my support to your argument there Dan, but you used my supporting line, IQ tests measure the ability to do IQ tests, nothing more and nothing less.

Originally posted by redrobbo
What US involvement in Congo, Rwanda and Uganda? None that I know of. Please enlighten me.

The Congo is incredibly rich in minerals and the US has been very keen to get its hands on these riches since the Belgians left – even when it meant sponsoring (to the tune of bliions of dollars) a man like Colonel Mobutu, as brutal a dictator as you could imagine. They also turned a blind eye when the Ugandans/Rwandans decieded to rob these resources to sell to the west - a process which is still continuing, I believe.

Albarn criticises Live 8 concerts Albarn also said there should be "some kind of tariff" on record companies.
"All the artists that play there will enjoy increased record sales - if they play a good gig, they will benefit from it," the singer said.

Artists should put pressure on their record labels to "genuinely show this is an altruistic act and that there is no self-gain in it".

I said this last week and was called all sorts of names ;) ain't that right V. Read the full story here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/4079644.stm)

Originally posted by LordChaverly
i suspect that most of those protesting against, or lobbying, the G8 have at best a superficial knowledge of what the G8 is and does- and probably even less of the nature and causes of global poverty.


I wonder how many of those that are going to protest actually do things in their own lives that can make a difference? i.e. how many of them buy Fair Trade chocolate, bananas and coffee?