i mean it as the same weather and climat in the same part of the world but they don't seem to ever have any problems,i'll keep my own opinion to myself, but its quite obvious why if you think about it.

i suppose someone will go on about the gold mines..very old chesnut

Don't have any problems??!! Doesn't S Africa have massively wide spread poverty, hugh inequalities in income, massively high crime rate that only the rich can afford to protect themselves against? Oh and the gold mines spread thier wealth among the entire population and don't rely upon effectively slave labour? And the huge inequalities in access to public health and education STILL, that probably don't have anything to do with decades of oppression and apartheid?

So the obvious answer that S Africa doesn't suffer from any of these must be because the country is run by whites, right?

Which is why despite the geographical similarities to the rest of the continent 'there are no problems'? And nothing at all to do with systemtatic underdevelopment at the hands of the world economy, in both S Africa and elsewhere in the continent?

And the geographical similarities between say S Africa, Tanzania, Congo, Namibia, well I never relasied that Africa was such a homogenous continent.



Is that so? Blimey.

</sarcasm>

I think it is that they have stuff that they sell to the rest of the world, and their government is stable.

I have my opinions on that, but don't want to start a racial war going on, so i'll keep them to myself.

Originally posted by theflyingfish
Don't have any problems??!! Doesn't S Africa have massively wide spread poverty, hugh inequalities in income, massively high crime rate that only the rich can afford to protect themselves against? Oh and the gold mines spread thier wealth among the entire population and don't rely upon effectively slave labour? And the huge inequalities in access to public health and education STILL, that probably don't have anything to do with decades of oppression and apartheid?

So the obvious answer that S Africa doesn't suffer from any of these must be because the country is run by whites, right?

Which is why despite the geographical similarities to the rest of the continent 'there are no problems'? And nothing at all to do with systemtatic underdevelopment at the hands of the world economy, in both S Africa and elsewhere in the continent?

And the geographical similarities between say S Africa, Tanzania, Congo, Namibia, well I never relasied that Africa was such a homogenous continent.



Is that so? Blimey.

</sarcasm>

first cast eh!


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v239/kirky1963/bitepicture.jpg

I think you might find that it is a society of extremely wealthy mostly white people, and extremely poor black people. And the reason why you don't hear of much trouble down there is because the extremely wealthy mostly white people, manage to keep a lid on it somehow.
I think that you are not allowed to take your wealth out of the country, which is why most people stay there. Most wealthy families have armed guards for their children as it is very common for them to be stolen for ransom.

Sheffield has never sounded better..

Originally posted by muddycoffee
I think you might find that it is a society of extremely wealthy mostly white people, and extremely poor black people. And the reason why you don't hear of much trouble down there is because the extremely wealthy mostly white people, manage to keep a lid on it somehow.
I think that you are not allowed to take your wealth out of the country, which is why most people stay there. Most wealthy families have armed guards for their children as it is very common for them to be stolen for ransom.

Sheffield has never sounded better..

who made it a wealthy country?

What about the AIDS Crisis?

Originally posted by kirky
who made it a wealthy country?
The white dutch settlers who profited greatly from slavery?

Originally posted by muddycoffee
The white dutch settlers who profited greatly from slavery?

nowt wrong with using yopur anitiative(and yes i know it spelt wrong)

the thing is they took a **** hole and turned it into a weathly country,its a bit like my neighbour comming onto my allotment(i aint got one really but you know what i mean)tydying it up and growing stuff..then i say i want it back now......

I know I'm rubbish at both geography an politics, but istn't it south africa where all the whites fled a couple of years ago when the land was 'reclaimed' from them by murderous hoardes who dealt out the same treatment to the black workers?

Of course, since the farmland has been 'claimed back' it has not actually been farmed. This has led to an obvious crisis in the 'food supply' department, and the whites are now being asked to return to 'manage' this land?

Like I said, I could be way off beam here.....

Read your history books. Like most places it wasn't too bad until the white folk turned up, brought new diseases, took all the resources and oppressed the natives. The white folk thought the natives were stupid for throwing huge diamonds at them but what else would people who lived on their wits to survive use diamonds for? Nice new earrings.

Originally posted by Strix
I know I'm rubbish at both geography an politics, but istn't it south africa where all the whites fled a couple of years ago when the land was 'reclaimed' from them by murderous hoardes who dealt out the same treatment to the black workers?

Of course, since the farmland has been 'claimed back' it has not actually been farmed. This has led to an obvious crisis in the 'food supply' department, and the whites are now being asked to return to 'manage' this land?

Like I said, I could be way off beam here.....

i think this ones already been done strix hit the search button before posting please:hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi:

Originally posted by kirky
i think this ones already been done strix hit the search button before posting please:hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :D times 25,000,000

Originally posted by tulip
Read your history books. Like most places it wasn't too bad until the white folk turned up, brought new diseases, took all the resources and oppressed the natives. The white folk thought the natives were stupid for throwing huge diamonds at them but what else would people who lived on their wits to survive use diamonds for? Nice new earrings.
So if the whites had not turned up how do you think this would have benefitted the country, where would they be now on the global platform. Better or worse?

Originally posted by tulip
:D times 25,000,000

i was being sarcastic....do keep up:rolleyes:

Originally posted by AJ sheffield
So if the whites had not turned up how do you think this would have benefitted the country, where would they be now on the global platform. Better or worse? Well, I should imagine no better or worse unless the white folk had said 'will you mine those diamonds for us and we will give you a fair price, help educate your children for you and treat you with respect" Instead of chaining them up, chopping of their hands for 'stealing' the diamonds, turning them into slaves and treating them like something they trod in :(

Originally posted by kirky
i was being sarcastic....do keep up:rolleyes: What? I was being deadly serious was I:rolleyes: you are the one not keeping up! I think you misunderstood me. I should have said "well said":rolleyes:

Originally posted by kirky
i think this ones already been done strix hit the search button before posting please:hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi:
I have never been banned for pointless posting though :D :D

Originally posted by Strix
I have never been banned for pointless posting though :D :D no but you might be on your way to it now, shouldn't you hit the report this thread button or send a pm?:thumbsup:

Originally posted by tulip
no but you might be on your way to it now, shouldn't you hit the report this thread button or send a pm?:thumbsup:
Report yours or mine?

Originally posted by Strix
Report yours or mine? Neither! I meant kirky's after all he SWORE!

Originally posted by tulip
Well, I should imagine no better or worse unless the white folk had said 'will you mine those diamonds for us and we will give you a fair price, help educate your children for you and treat you with respect" Instead of chaining them up, chopping of their hands for 'stealing' the diamonds, turning them into slaves and treating them like something they trod in :(
Surely collonialism has brought more peace and stability to Africa. It brought peace to 100s of warring tribes, brought development that has never been matched, even by the last 40 years of aid.
Take a look at the other African countries that are collapsing around them now that the whites are being kicked out, like Angola and Mozambique.

He's gone off the topic of 'why doesn't South Africa have any problems duh' too. Using the column to score points off other users is totally illegal. You could get 25 years down a diamond mine for that one saying the s word would carry a sentence of 25 years in the mine plus the loss of one hand!

Originally posted by AJ sheffield
Surely collonialism has brought more peace and stability to Africa. It brought peace to 100s of warring tribes, brought development that has never been matched, even by the last 40 years of aid.
Take a look at the other African countries that are collapsing around them now that the whites are being kicked out, like Angola and Mozambique. Who told you those tribes were warring? Even if they were it doesn't mean a society of white supremacists should take over the country does it?

So now the British are white supremacists ?
You must be the diplomatic affairs minister for Mugabe.

Originally posted by tulip
Neither! I meant kirky's after all he SWORE!

swear! moi! never:)

Originally posted by AJ sheffield
So now the British are white supremacists ?
You must be the diplomatic affairs minister for Mugabe. Whats Britain got to with it? It was the Dutch wasn't it? or am I missing something. When did I say I agreed with mugabe? He is just as bad!!!!

Originally posted by kirky
nowt wrong with using yopur anitiative(and yes i know it spelt wrong)

the thing is they took a **** hole and turned it into a weathly country,its a bit like my neighbour comming onto my allotment(i aint got one really but you know what i mean)tydying it up and growing stuff..then i say i want it back now...... Very bad memory too. As if having a closed mind ins't bad enough!:rolleyes:

In Zimbabwe during the very early 1900s, Rinderpest had killed off so much cattle it looked like more than half a million blacks were in danger of starvation. The white collonialists imported thousands of tons of food in an effort to avoid a human catastrophe.
Next you will be saying they had a hidden agenda ie keeping there "future slaves" alive.

Originally posted by tulip
Whats Britain got to with it? It was the Dutch wasn't it? or am I missing something. When did I say I agreed with mugabe? He is just as bad!!!!

Dutch, Tulip, all we need now is Amsterdam and we can have a sing song :P A bit like the lads down the gold mines :D

Originally posted by AJ sheffield
In Zimbabwe during the very early 1900s, Rinderpest had killed off so much cattle it looked like more than half a million blacks were in danger of starvation. The white collonialists imported thousands of tons of food in an effort to avoid a human catastrophe.
Next you will be saying they had a hidden agenda ie keeping there "future slaves" alive. You said it, I don't need to now do I?:)

Originally posted by owdlad
Dutch, Tulip, all we need now is Amsterdam and we can have a sing song :P A bit like the lads down the gold mines :D Hee, hee, hee. I was getting all wound up and you've just lightened the mood! I can go in peace now and not have to worry about someone getting the last word in. Thanks:thumbsup:

A friend of mine moved from South Africa to the UK recently because 2 close neighbours had been murdered by burglars in the last year. No problems? :loopy:

As for colonialism "bringing peace and stability" and "peace to warring tribes", no, it has brought Western-style government to a continent which already had well established systems, and the result has been the chaos which we now hear so much about. The tribal system certainly wasn't perfect, but it did provide social support and prevented most people from falling into absolute poverty. Now that tribal allegiances have weakened, there are millions starving.

And are there really no tribal wars any more? Ever heard of Rwanda? Darfur?

That's very true Dan, I also had a friend who left her husband to return to the UK because she said in a few years the whites in SA will be slaughtered.

Sad but a fact of life.

Originally posted by owdlad
That's very true Dan, I also had a friend who left her husband to return to the UK because she said in a few years the whites in SA will be slaughtered.

Sad but a fact of life.

and when the whites are slaughtered the place will go back to how it was before.........lets just hope there's a bob geldof about to feed them

Originally posted by tulip
Hee, hee, hee. I was getting all wound up and you've just lightened the mood! I can go in peace now and not have to worry about someone getting the last word in. Thanks:thumbsup:
Why get wound up, why have to have the last word, I guess thats a result of your impending americanisation.

Just look what happend to India when the English moved out ?

The sensible ones moved to England with them.

Originally posted by owdlad
That's very true Dan, I also had a friend who left her husband to return to the UK because she said in a few years the whites in SA will be slaughtered.
My friend is Asian.

Originally posted by DanSumption
My friend is Asian.
*PC brigade stunned into silence by lack of guidance notes in these cases :mad: *

Originally posted by kirky
and when the whites are slaughtered the place will go back to how it was before.........lets just hope there's a bob geldof about to feed them

No, I'm sure they'll just revert to Cannibalism

Originally posted by Abdul
No, I'm sure they'll just revert to Cannibalism
:clap:

Originally posted by DanSumption
My friend is Asian.

So it goes to show that no one, no matter what colour or creed feels safe there any more, how sad.

Originally posted by Abdul
No, I'm sure they'll just revert to Cannibalism

Nice one Abdul :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Originally posted by poppins
Just look what happend to India when the English moved out ?

The sensible ones moved to England with them.

yes, India is in a right old state!

The worlds largest democracy (thats real democracy not 2 party pseudo-democracy as in the US) and the last time I looked many in the UK and US were moaning because they were nicking all our jobs!

Originally posted by sham71
yes, India is in a right old state!

The worlds largest democracy (thats real democracy not 2 party pseudo-democracy as in the US) and the last time I looked many in the UK and US were moaning because they were nicking all our jobs!

they all work for the 3 NET WORK i know this coz they phone me up everyday around 3.30pm trying to sell me a phone contract......i already have a 3 contract:hihi: :hihi: :hihi: but i do have some nice conversations with them about the weather and curry's etc.

Originally posted by kirky
they all work for the 3 NET WORK i know this coz they phone me up everyday around 3.30pm trying to sell me a phone contract......i already have a 3 contract:hihi: :hihi: :hihi: but i do have some nice conversations with them about the weather and curry's etc.

bt have call centres in india not very impressed with them either oh for the days of a english speaking voice you can understand

Originally posted by panda79
bt have call centres in india not very impressed with them either oh for the days of a english speaking voice you can understand

or a scottish voice that you couldn't understand!

Originally posted by sham71
or a scottish voice that you couldn't understand!

i can understand the scottish ones its the indian ones i have trouble with

Originally posted by AJ sheffield
Why get wound up, why have to have the last word, I guess thats a result of your impending americanisation. Can you please take what I say with a little pinch of salt? I'm a passionate person true enough but there is nothing wrong with that. I only want the last word when I'm trying to explain exactly what I mean. Someone did acuse me of saying the British are all white supremacists didn't they? I don't like being misquoted! As for me becoming Americanised, that is insulting to Americans in general. Do you think all the American public think the same way and want the last word or do you think they have minds of their own and are individuals?:|

Originally posted by tulip
Can you please take what I say with a little pinch of salt? I'm a passionate person true enough but there is nothing wrong with that. I only want the last word when I'm trying to explain exactly what I mean. Someone did acuse me of saying the British are all white supremacists didn't they? I don't like being misquoted! As for me becoming Americanised, that is insulting to Americans in general. Do you think all the American public think the same way and want the last word or do you think they have minds of their own and are individuals?:|
I am sorry Tulip, please accept my apologies.
Edit: But I am still not sure about Americans having minds of thier own.

Originally posted by kirky
first cast eh!


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v239/kirky1963/bitepicture.jpg

yes, yes,

you cheeky sod!

S. Africa has 1 of the highest crime rates in the world.
20% of the population has aids
It has the highest rate of adult and child rape in the world, adding to the HIV transmission rate.

Not in need of help? Think again.

Originally posted by poppins
I have my opinions on that, but don't want to start a racial war going on, so i'll keep them to myself.

Throw coal on the fire then run away :rolleyes:

Do you ever follow an argument through? At least have the courage of your convictions!

Originally posted by Greenback
Throw coal on the fire then run away :rolleyes:

Do you ever follow an argument through? At least have the courage of your convictions!

Who the heck are you ?

Originally posted by poppins
Who the heck are you ?

Sorry for the tone poppins from Connecticut, I just wanted to know what you really think! This forum's at its best when people put forward opinions and argue the case...

Originally posted by tulip
Read your history books. Like most places it wasn't too bad until the white folk turned up, brought new diseases, took all the resources and oppressed the natives. The white folk thought the natives were stupid for throwing huge diamonds at them but what else would people who lived on their wits to survive use diamonds for? Nice new earrings. sorry im late,are we talking about america ?:banana:

Originally posted by AJ sheffield
Surely collonialism has brought more peace and stability to Africa.

The Belgian Congo?

10 Million or more, killed.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
The Belgian Congo?

10 Million or more, killed.
Hardly the location in question but admittedly that is one the most horrific chapters in African colonialism, carried out by Belgium's King Leopold.

Originally posted by depoix
sorry im late,are we talking about america ?:banana: No, IT WAS THE DUTCH in South Africa. Amerca & Britain have done their share of damage but you can't blame the general population unless they continue to show their ignorance by making statements like 'were would third world countries be without us' Governments don't help other countries out of the goodness of their hearts, they just pretend to. Of course they helped Iraq because they were so upset about the opression of women!. We vote for our governments but it doesn't mean we like what the do once they get in power.

Originally posted by DanSumption
A friend of mine moved from South Africa to the UK recently because 2 close neighbours had been murdered by burglars in the last year. No problems? :loopy:

As for colonialism "bringing peace and stability" and "peace to warring tribes", no, it has brought Western-style government to a continent which already had well established systems, and the result has been the chaos which we now hear so much about. The tribal system certainly wasn't perfect, but it did provide social support and prevented most people from falling into absolute poverty. Now that tribal allegiances have weakened, there are millions starving.

And are there really no tribal wars any more? Ever heard of Rwanda? Darfur?

Your vision of an African Arcadia prior to the intrusions of the colonial powers is a popular explanation of Africa's current plight. It is however a complete myth. It also has a long genealogy, its central idea going back at least as far as the Rousseau's 'noble savage' and 'happy black' nostrums of the late 18th and early 19th centuries.

Africa was riven by tribal conflicts and wars long before the colonial powers set foot in it. Just to take two examples: at the time the Dutch under Jan van Reebeck were establishing a foothold in Southern Africa. the Zulus were impi-ing their way south, leaving a trail of the blood of other tribes in their wake. Similarly, in what is now Nigeria, the Hausa-Fulani were pushing southwards, encroaching on the Yoruba tribes, who in turn were pushing eastwards towards Ibo territory etc. There are many other examples of this. Moreover, slavery was also well established in Africa prior to the Western colonial period (with a not insignificant role in it being played by Muslim arabs etc). Your idea of pre-colonial Africa being a haven of peace and stability is therefore completely false.

And as far as Africa's level of pre- colonial development is concerned, it should be remembered that it was extremely low in comparison with that of every other inhabited continent, with the exception of Australia (for example, the sub-Saharan African tribes were not using the wheel and had no form of writing).

Originally posted by LordChaverly
Your vision of an African Arcadia prior to the intrusions of the colonial powers is a popular explanation of Africa's current plight. It is however a complete myth. It also has a long genealogy, its central idea going back at least as far as the Rousseau's 'noble savage' and 'happy black' nostrums of the late 18th and early 19th centuries.

Africa was riven by tribal conflicts and wars long before the colonial powers set foot in it. Just to take two examples: at the time the Dutch under Jan van Reebeck were establishing a foothold in Southern Africa. the Zulus were impi-ing their way south, leaving a trail of the blood of other tribes in their wake. Similarly, in what is now Nigeria, the Hausa-Fulani were pushing southwards, encroaching on the Yoruba tribes, who in turn were pushing eastwards towards Ibo territory etc. There are many other examples of this. Moreover, slavery was also well established in Africa prior to the Western colonial period (with a not insignificant role in it being played by Muslim arabs etc). Your idea of pre-colonial Africa being a haven of peace and stability is therefore completely false.

And as far as Africa's level of pre- colonial development is concerned, it should be remembered that it was extremely low in comparison with that of every other inhabited continent, with the exception of Australia (for example, the sub-Saharan African tribes were not using the wheel and had no form of writing). They lived by their wits and stopped quite a few missionaries starving to death and dying from snake bites though. Just as the native American saved the lives of numerous Pilgrims who hadn't a clue how to survive. It's all relative, the need to read and write wouldn't have been that important when they had other ways of communicating with each other. I suppose when nomadic tribes were on their wanderings it was very distressing not to be able to send post cards to their friends. These people were survivors. Look through your history books again.

I don't think anyone said Africa was some kind of Utopia either. It seems to me, trying to make things better rather than worse is the answer.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
Your vision of an African Arcadia prior to the intrusions of the colonial powers is a popular explanation of Africa's current plight. It is however a complete myth. It also has a long genealogy, its central idea going back at least as far as the Rousseau's 'noble savage' and 'happy black' nostrums of the late 18th and early 19th centuries.
African Arcadia? Haven of Peace and Stability? Did I really say that? I must stop posting when I'm drunk.

I'm well aware of the type of problems experienced in pre-colonial Africa, and the existing slave trade which the colonial powers just tapped into. However, one thing which has changed and which I was alluding to in my earlier post is that prior to the colonial division of Africa there were strong tribal bonds and social structures in existence whereby tribal rulers would ensure that the poorest under their rule had enough to survive on. This system has broken down, and along with the conversion from subsistence to cash-crop farming, from what you call the "extremely low" level of development to a race to compete with pre-established Western economies, it has plunged Africa into a large-scale crisis to replace the numerous small-scale conflicts which went before.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
The Belgian Congo?

10 Million or more, killed.
The Horror! The Horror!

Originally posted by DanSumption
African Arcadia? Haven of Peace and Stability? Did I really say that? I must stop posting when I'm drunk.

I'm well aware of the type of problems experienced in pre-colonial Africa, and the existing slave trade which the colonial powers just tapped into. However, one thing which has changed and which I was alluding to in my earlier post is that prior to the colonial division of Africa there were strong tribal bonds and social structures in existence whereby tribal rulers would ensure that the poorest under their rule had enough to survive on. This system has broken down, and along with the conversion from subsistence to cash-crop farming, from what you call the "extremely low" level of development to a race to compete with pre-established Western economies, it has plunged Africa into a large-scale crisis to replace the numerous small-scale conflicts which went before. Isn't it terribly annoying when people accuse you of saying things that you never even thought let alone said! I'm having the same problem. I wonder if we are doing that 'automatic typing' where someone else is controlling our thoughts and we just haven't realised it yet. I'm starting to wonder if SF is worth bothering with anymore. I'm fed up of people twisting everything I post!

Originally posted by tulip
Isn't it terribly annoying when people accuse you of saying things that you never even thought let alone said! I'm having the same problem. I wonder if we are doing that 'automatic typing' where someone else is controlling our thoughts and we just haven't realised it yet. I'm starting to wonder if SF is worth bothering with anymore. I'm fed up of people twisting everything I post!
And whom are you reffering to.

I'm starting to wonder if SF is worth bothering with anymore. I'm fed up of people twisting everything I post!

Stomps off hugging teddy bear.

Oi! Tulip wants her teddy back! :hihi:

Oi! Tulip wants her teddy back!

Oi! stop twisting my post:hihi:

Originally posted by AJ sheffield
And whom are you reffering to.
Possibly Lestat (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?postid=452884#post452884)?

Originally posted by retep
Oi! stop twisting my post:hihi:
What do you mean colonialism is a prerequisite for harmonious and productive racial cohesion ;)

Originally posted by AJ sheffield
What do you mean colonialism is a prerequisite for harmonious and productive racial cohesion ;)
What, you mean you don't already know the answer??? :D

What do you mean colonialism is a prerequisite for harmonious and productive racial cohesion

Stares blankly at my screen :|

Originally posted by DanSumption
African Arcadia? Haven of Peace and Stability? Did I really say that? I must stop posting when I'm drunk.

I'm well aware of the type of problems experienced in pre-colonial Africa, and the existing slave trade which the colonial powers just tapped into. However, one thing which has changed and which I was alluding to in my earlier post is that prior to the colonial division of Africa there were strong tribal bonds and social structures in existence whereby tribal rulers would ensure that the poorest under their rule had enough to survive on. This system has broken down, and along with the conversion from subsistence to cash-crop farming, from what you call the "extremely low" level of development to a race to compete with pre-established Western economies, it has plunged Africa into a large-scale crisis to replace the numerous small-scale conflicts which went before.

Its interesting that you do not provide a single concrete and specific example to support your central arguments - instead what we get is generalised (and ahistorical) waffle - I hope you were drunk when.you wrote it, otherwise I would be a worried. In vino veritas? Not in this case.

Moreover, even if your account of Africa's maldevelopment was correct (an unlikely prospect) it would do absolutely nothing to ameliorate Africa's current plight.

Originally posted by AJ sheffield
And whom are you reffering to. Read a little further back. Someone with the initials LC seems to be good at misquoting people.

Originally posted by DanSumption
Possibly Lestat (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?postid=452884#post452884)? He's another one!

Originally posted by retep
Oi! stop twisting my post:hihi: I think it's time to change my avatar on principal and also to undermine your view of ME! I'm going to get a REAL teddybear to hug so ner:|

Originally posted by LordChaverly
Its interesting that you do not provide a single concrete and specific example to support your central arguments - instead what we get is generalised (and ahistorical) waffle - I hope you were drunk when.you wrote it, otherwise I would be a worried. In vino veritas? Not in this case.

Moreover, even if your account of Africa's maldevelopment was correct (an unlikely prospect) it would do absolutely nothing to ameliorate Africa's current plight. We could down load a bunch of historical facts from the internet and spend hours typing them out or we could not bother, I will have to think about it.

Originally posted by tulip
We could down load a bunch of historical facts from the internet and spend hours typing them out or we could not bother, I will have to think about it.
:) too right.

LordChav is correct in saying that my analysis does not do much to help the current situation, but that was not my point. I was just challenging some of the racists on here with their "Africa would fall into chaos without white support" or "Africans are incapable of running their own affairs" opinions. There is some truth to the former, but only because African nations (most of which did not exist prior to colonialism) have been forced to adapt rapidly to a Western societal model, traditional leaders have been replaced by bribe-grabbing bureaucracies, and much of the newly-urbanised populace are experiencing Future Shock. Simplistic ideas of "they're black, thick, and can't look after themselves" just don't cut it.

Dan Sumption's right,
Pre-colonial African society wasn't perfect, and it wasn't developed in the same way as was Western society, but that's because the Western model of technological development isn't the only viable model for development.

Africa's post-colonial nightmare is a result of the creation of nations along Western lines, with no thought for local cultures or traditional tribal boundaries. Moreover, even the creation of these states was flawed - there was never any opportunity for the development of a powerful African middle class, without which industrial development cannot take place. The Whites left behind a governmental system but no economic infrastructure. The only way to the top was not through investment in secondary industry (the Whites had never allowed their possessions to progress much past primary industry), but through the seizure of power, legally or illegally. South Africa was an exception because, thanks to Apartheid, the imperialist white middle class stayed behind to invest in industry and continue the ruthless oppression of blacks. A lot of white Afrikaners fled SA because they realised that with the end of white supremacy would come the end of their exclusive hold over the economy.

Rich non-African nations have been profiting from Africa's wars ever since independence - look at the British arms trade to various African states, and for a particularly shameful example, the fact that the majority of machetes used by the interahamwes in the Rwandan massacre were sold to the Hutu government by China in the months leading up to the genocide.

Iniquitous trade with the outside world has also immiserated Africa - Africa isn't allowed to set up trade barriers to protect her fledgling industries, meanwhile she is only allowed to export raw goods to Europe and America, thereby missing out on the opportunity for development.

And let's not forget debt (the G8 has attached conditions of market liberalisation and public spending cuts to its debt cancellation for the HIPCs) - the total amount owed the West by the HIPCs (most of whom are African) is nearly double the total reserves of all the world's central banks! Colonialism did no good to anyone but the Whites - and it's still going on.
Edward

Originally posted by LordChaverly
Its interesting that you do not provide a single concrete and specific example to support your central arguments - instead what we get is generalised (and ahistorical) waffle - I hope you were drunk when.you wrote it, otherwise I would be a worried. In vino veritas? Not in this case.

Moreover, even if your account of Africa's maldevelopment was correct (an unlikely prospect) it would do absolutely nothing to ameliorate Africa's current plight.

Yes it would help - without an understanding of economic, political and cultural processes that have led to the current situation however will we find a way out? And without such an understanding myths abound and perpetuate, mainly in support of the Western hegemony that STILL continues to underdevelop Africa.

Originally posted by Edward
Dan Sumption's right,
Pre-colonial African society wasn't perfect, and it wasn't developed in the same way as was Western society, but that's because the Western model of technological development isn't the only viable model for development.

Africa's post-colonial nightmare is a result of the creation of nations along Western lines, with no thought for local cultures or traditional tribal boundaries. Moreover, even the creation of these states was flawed - there was never any opportunity for the development of a powerful African middle class, without which industrial development cannot take place. The Whites left behind a governmental system but no economic infrastructure. The only way to the top was not through investment in secondary industry (the Whites had never allowed their possessions to progress much past primary industry), but through the seizure of power, legally or illegally. South Africa was an exception because, thanks to Apartheid, the imperialist white middle class stayed behind to invest in industry and continue the ruthless oppression of blacks. A lot of white Afrikaners fled SA because they realised that with the end of white supremacy would come the end of their exclusive hold over the economy.

Rich non-African nations have been profiting from Africa's wars ever since independence - look at the British arms trade to various African states, and for a particularly shameful example, the fact that the majority of machetes used by the interahamwes in the Rwandan massacre were sold to the Hutu government by China in the months leading up to the genocide.

Iniquitous trade with the outside world has also immiserated Africa - Africa isn't allowed to set up trade barriers to protect her fledgling industries, meanwhile she is only allowed to export raw goods to Europe and America, thereby missing out on the opportunity for development.

And let's not forget debt (the G8 has attached conditions of market liberalisation and public spending cuts to its debt cancellation for the HIPCs) - the total amount owed the West by the HIPCs (most of whom are African) is nearly double the total reserves of all the world's central banks! Colonialism did no good to anyone but the Whites - and it's still going on.
Edward

nice post

Rich non-African nations have been profiting from Africa's wars ever since independence - look at the British arms trade to various African states, and for a particularly shameful example, the fact that the majority of machetes used by the interahamwes in the Rwandan massacre were sold to the Hutu government by China in the months leading up to the genocide.

What next, don't sell them knives and forks,in case they go out and massacre a few more thousand.

You can't always blame other countries for the atrocities that are being committed.

Mmmm think i'll take my chain saw out and kill a few dozen I can always blame B&Q.

Originally posted by Edward
[B

- the total amount owed the West by the HIPCs (most of whom are African) is nearly double the total reserves of all the world's central banks! Edward [/B]

Could you provide any statistics in support of this ridiculous statement? This is typical of the false 'evidence' which is used to buttress the illogical and specious arguments of the 'colonialism is all to blame' school of thought (of which your post is a good example). In my view every point you make is highly dubious and, far from providing any viable solutions to Africa's current plight, merely perpetuates comforting myths (comforting that is to African dictators seeking to deflect blame for their failings and to certain well-meaning but gullible Westerners who seem to obtain some kind of spiritual high by grovelling in feelings of Western guilt). Just one example: you say 'the Whites' left governmental systems, but no economic infrastructure. This was in fact not true of decolonisation by the British in Africa. Although the move to independence in Africa came earlier than it probably should have done (due to the clamour for self government from Nkrumah, Kaunda, Awolowo and others) we left our African colonies with viable democratic and economic institutions, based on the rule of law. There was also a substantial infrastructure in most of these countries and most were doing well (in terms of exports and economic growth) at the time of independence (Ghana and Nigeria for example). Within a few years, the only thing left of the democratic institutions were the parliamentary buildings and the infrastructure became ever more delapidated (not helped by various indigenisation decrees, corruption and instability, which inhibited foreign investment).

M'lud,
There are various estimates for the total amount of debt owed the first world by the third, from the IMF, the Economist and the OECD. They average out at US$2.5 trillion. The combined reserves of the world's central banks, according to Monbiot, come to around $1.3 trillion.

It is true that thanks to mineral wealth, many African economies grew after independence. However, the division of the continent into fictitious nations with illogically drawn borders conspired against these economies.
Also, European investors (British in particular) solved the problem of their countries' trade deficits by reaping in massive invisible earnings from their former colonies. Result? Initial investment in Africa, but profits and dividends go back to London (this is happening even before the 1980s, when irresponsible Western lending and the iniquitous policies of the IMF and World Bank really saddled Africa with the debt we see today).

John Reader, in his internationally acclaimed history of Africa, points out that the relative postwar success of Botswana as an exception to the rule is enlightening. Botswana is the exclusive territory of the Tswana people - the tribal conflicts that still haunt Uganda, Rwanda and especially Nigeria are absent - and that means stability. Official corruption is generally a product of tribal conflicts - most of the misappropriated government funds 1960-1980 in Nigeria didn't go towards personal fortunes, but rather to providing preferential treatment for a minister's homeland.

Further poverty has been imposed by the iniquitous actions of the IMF and the World Bank, which are both controlled constitutionally by the West, which force ridiculous structural readjustment programmes upon poor nations - poor nations which became heavily indebted as a result of irresponsible Western lending programmes during the 1970s and 1980s (wdm.org.uk).

Poverty begets chancers and violence - in a country where the government is weakened by a lack of funds, anyone with a modicum of ambition and an (Western-made) AK can make a grab for power. Look at Uganda, Sierra Leone, Liberia or Angola.

I'm not trying to heap guilt upon the West for Africa's misery, I refuse to feel bad about the action of my forebears, ashes and sackcloth aren't answers to poverty. My point is that sub-saharan Africa's problems are not solely the fault of dumb, avaricious blacks who can't be trusted with their own continent. And moreover, if we are to learn from the past, we should see that solutions for Africa have to come out of dialogue with Africa - they mustn't be imposed upon her by Western politicians or the "guiding hand of the market".
Edward

Originally posted by Edward
M'lud,
There are various estimates for the total amount of debt owed the first world by the third, from the IMF, the Economist and the OECD. They average out at US$2.5 trillion. The combined reserves of the world's central banks, according to Monbiot, come to around $1.3 trillion.

It is true that thanks to mineral wealth, many African economies grew after independence. However, the division of the continent into fictitious nations with illogically drawn borders conspired against these economies.
Also, European investors (British in particular) solved the problem of their countries' trade deficits by reaping in massive invisible earnings from their former colonies. Result? Initial investment in Africa, but profits and dividends go back to London (this is happening even before the 1980s, when irresponsible Western lending and the iniquitous policies of the IMF and World Bank really saddled Africa with the debt we see today).

John Reader, in his internationally acclaimed history of Africa, points out that the relative postwar success of Botswana as an exception to the rule is enlightening. Botswana is the exclusive territory of the Tswana people - the tribal conflicts that still haunt Uganda, Rwanda and especially Nigeria are absent - and that means stability. Official corruption is generally a product of tribal conflicts - most of the misappropriated government funds 1960-1980 in Nigeria didn't go towards personal fortunes, but rather to providing preferential treatment for a minister's homeland.

Further poverty has been imposed by the iniquitous actions of the IMF and the World Bank, which are both controlled constitutionally by the West, which force ridiculous structural readjustment programmes upon poor nations - poor nations which became heavily indebted as a result of irresponsible Western lending programmes during the 1970s and 1980s (wdm.org.uk).

Poverty begets chancers and violence - in a country where the government is weakened by a lack of funds, anyone with a modicum of ambition and an (Western-made) AK can make a grab for power. Look at Uganda, Sierra Leone, Liberia or Angola.

I'm not trying to heap guilt upon the West for Africa's misery, I refuse to feel bad about the action of my forebears, ashes and sackcloth aren't answers to poverty. My point is that sub-saharan Africa's problems are not solely the fault of dumb, avaricious blacks who can't be trusted with their own continent. And moreover, if we are to learn from the past, we should see that solutions for Africa have to come out of dialogue with Africa - they mustn't be imposed upon her by Western politicians or the "guiding hand of the market".
Edward

But this is yet another example of a highly dubious statistic masquerading as a killer fact. For example the concept of 'debt' here is not defined, and presumably includes here any form of lending from whatever source to the whole of the third world (i.e. most of the world's countries), and certainly not just (or even mainly) to the African economies.

Its easy to knock the IMF and World Bank. They are easy targets. Some of the criticism of them is justified (as some key figures in these institutions have acknowledged) but much of it isn't. The structural adjustment programmes are much more flexible than is often realised. In my opinion a key weakness of World Bank strategies over the years is that they have not been tough enough, and have not imposed stringent enough conditions or monitoring requirements on aid packages. This mistake is now being rectified. From some of the pejorative brickbats thrown so easily at the IMF and WB, one would think that they exist solely to extract money from Africa, whereas the reality is that they (together with other agencies) have poured hundreds of billions of dollars into it over the years (admittedly to little effect).

As for misappropriated government funds not going towards the amassing of personal fortunes in Nigeria (but instead being used for preferential treatment in homelands (presumably tribal homelands), well, this may have been true to some extent when elected politicians needed to buy political support, but for most of Nigeria's post-colonial history, the only real tribal allegiance of the kleptocratic ruling elites has been to the 'Merbenzi' (i.e. the Mercedes Benz) tribe. Much of the rake off has ended up in Swiss banks rather than in development projects in tribal homelands.

As for your other comments, they are almost a caricature of the dependency/ centre-periphery models of global development peddled by various leftist thinkers in the 1970s and 1980s. They were wrong then and they are wrong now. Africa needs greater integration into the global market place, including all that implies (including more involvement by dividend and profit seeking MNCs) not less. It needs a rapid improvement in its productive capacity, which will not be advanced one iota by the current nostrums being peddled by Geldof and his supporters. Globalisation implies marketisation, even though of course there can be different forms of market economy. By all means let Africa pursue an African model of development (this idea is not new - it was advanced decades ago by Rene Dumont in his famous book 'False Start in Africa') - if a workable model can be found (Botswana is of course the great white hope at the moment, but similar exemplars have been identied before without much success). But this will require a fundamental change in the social infrastructure, which which make African societies and economies more compatible with a rapidly globalising world economy.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
But this is yet another example of a highly dubious statistic masquerading as a killer fact. For example the concept of 'debt' here is not defined, and presumably includes here any form of lending from whatever source to the whole of the third world (i.e. most of the world's countries), and certainly not just (or even mainly) to the African economies.

Its easy to knock the IMF and World Bank. They are easy targets. Some of the criticism of them is justified (as some key figures in these institutions have acknowledged) but much of it isn't. The structural adjustment programmes are much more flexible than is often realised. In my opinion a key weakness of World Bank strategies over the years is that they have not been tough enough, and have not imposed stringent enough conditions or monitoring requirements on aid packages. This mistake is now being rectified. From some of the pejorative brickbats thrown so easily at the IMF and WB, one would think that they exist solely to extract money from Africa, whereas the reality is that they (together with other agencies) have poured hundreds of billions of dollars into it over the years (admittedly to little effect).

As for misappropriated government funds not going towards the amassing of personal fortunes in Nigeria (but instead being used for preferential treatment in homelands (presumably tribal homelands), well, this may have been true to some extent when elected politicians needed to buy political support, but for most of Nigeria's post-colonial history, the only real tribal allegiance of the kleptocratic ruling elites has been to the 'Merbenzi' (i.e. the Mercedes Benz) tribe. Much of the rake off has ended up in Swiss banks rather than in development projects in tribal homelands.

As for your other comments, they are almost a caricature of the dependency/ centre-periphery models of global development peddled by various leftist thinkers in the 1970s and 1980s. They were wrong then and they are wrong now. Africa needs greater integration into the global market place, including all that implies (including more involvement by dividend and profit seeking MNCs) not less. It needs a rapid improvement in its productive capacity, which will not be advanced one iota by the current nostrums being peddled by Geldof and his supporters. Globalisation implies marketisation, even though of course there can be different forms of market economy. By all means let Africa pursue an African model of development (this idea is not new - it was advanced decades ago by Rene Dumont in his famous book 'False Start in Africa') - if a workable model can be found (Botswana is of course the great white hope at the moment, but similar exemplars have been identied before without much success). But this will require a fundamental change in the social infrastructure, which which make African societies and economies more compatible with a rapidly globalising world economy. You ask for facts & statistics and then when someone gives them to you, you say they are dubious. Your Facts & statistics of course are all carefully researched I presume? Hot air rises - thats a scientific fact!

Originally posted by tulip
You ask for facts & statistics and then when someone gives them to you, you say they are dubious. Your Facts & statistics of course are all carefully researched I presume? Hot air rises - thats a scientific fact!

My dear Tulip, when I saw your post I was bright eyed in anticipation, because I thought you were going to provide me with some of the evidence you were promising about Africa's pre-colonial development. Ah, well, perhaps next time.

As for the evidence about the total amount of lending to Africa in relation to the reserves of the central banks, well here goes. According to the latest UNCTAD report on the subject of African debt (published in September 2004) Africa had a debt stock of $295 billion at the end of 2002, of which $208 billion was owed by sub-Saharan Africa. In total, between 1970 and 2002, the whole of Africa received around $540 billion in loans. The latest figures I have seen for the reserves of the central banks are that in 2004 these amounted to $3.8 trillion and were rising. The statistics produced by Edward therefore were based on the elementary mistake of conflating all 3rd World debt and confusing this with African debt and at the same time providing a false or out-dated figure for central bank reserves.

Our friend Mr Mugabe seems to be setting a fine example of black rule in Africa- persecuting black people worse than their previous white rulers ever did. If ever African people needed help it is now.

Originally posted by Nimrod
Our friend Mr Mugabe seems to be setting a fine example of black rule in Africa- persecuting black people worse than their previous white rulers ever did. If ever African people needed help it is now.
Personally I think Lord Chaverly needs the most help around here!

Mugabe is yet another example of how people in power manage to exploit the very people they claim to be helping. The ones who need the help end up suffering more than ever. Maybe Robert Mugabe is a reinvented Arthur Scargill.:suspect:

Have any of the people posting on this thread ever lived in South Africa??
Any first hand experiences of the crime rate? The bribery? The corruption?
The postings from the American contingent amuse me.
America never was a colonial power, was it?
Much of the corruption and politics of many African nations were instigated by the oil companies.
Having many South African friends, the general idea of most of the "middle class" whites there, is that there are only a few years left, before South Africa follows a similar fate as Rhodesia.
Asians have been prominent in South Africa since the days of Saint Ghandi, and much before that, but they, and many other "Non Whites" are leaving.
In these days of internet banking etc, you don't have to leave with a suitcase full of banknotes.
Electric fences, guard dogs, and very pretty steel grills on all windows and doors, barriers and guards (armed) at entrances to suburban estates! Says much for the state of minds there.
Farms are being bought, and then neglected, giving rise? to the decline in property values
There is still a high standard of living, if you can afford it, but woe betide the impoverished, whatever colour.

Originally posted by kirky
first cast eh!


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v239/kirky1963/bitepicture.jpg

That was well funny Kirky, Could not have wished for a better bite + The photo got me P!$$ing myself laughing. :hihi:

I lived In South Africa for over 25 years....My Wife is..South African.

What I have read so far in this thread is nothing more than opinions that are only based on the biased tabloids and from books that were written by individuals that gave their own opinions as to how South Africa is and what its problems are.

Firstly....South Africa since getting majority rule has been getting handouts from the UK since joining the commonwealth after majority rule.

Since the change over, crime such as murders, rape etc have increased 1000%.
Once where there were decent areas, these have now become no go areas.
One such area is Hilbrow that is in Johannesburg...Braamfontein is another.
Some streets of Johannesburg are now makeshift market streets with litter piled up against the walls.

If you go to Johannesburg....you will find that stopping at night at a red light..(called Robot in SA) can cause your life can be prematurely ended.

<<<gone off topic....sorry.

South Africa.....Does get handouts....it is also in debt and has an unemployment rate of around 1 in 3.

Another point here...... without the white population in S.A. the economy would be none existant like in Rhodesia.
The way things are going......there wont be any around in the next 15 years...if Mbeki gets his wish to.....One Settler..One bullet.

Greater integration into the global market place sounds great - but it depends on what terms.

If you mean allowing Africa to export value added goods while protecting her home market from cheap foreign imports, without the crippling weight of debt or meddling from self-interested Western nations in her domestic affairs; and this coupled with an African voice at the international institutions which represents her vast population, then sure!

But if you mean Africa's steady colonisation by foreign MNCs who simply act to extract her mineral wealth, exploit her cheap labour and lax labour and environmental laws, and siphon profits back to the Far East or the West; or if you mean a more advanced version of the status quo, with Africa defenceless in the face of subsidised Western imports, Western political meddling, and privatisation of public services and public spending cuts required to keep foreign investors and currency speculators happy, then that's no kind of solution.

On the issue of corruption, I do agree that radical action needs to be taken. But much of the rightwing baggage that comes with the discussion of corruption reeks of racism. For a start there's the implication that blacks are not capable of running their own states and need Master to sort it all out for them. Then there's the suggestion that the West is exclusively capable of solving Africa's problems and can be trusted to act without avaricious self-interest in rearranging the African political scene. Ending African corruption is a necessary step to ending African poverty; but it is necessary to do so in a way that does not increase Western control over Africa.
Edward

"Farms are being bought, and then neglected, giving rise? to the decline in property values"

Actually you will find South Africa currently has one of the best performing residential property markets in the world! http://www.internationalpropertysolutions.com/Articles/BestMarket.asp

Of course there are problems with the country, but personally I think it is often in the interests of South African ex-pats to justify their decision to leave by exaggerating the negative. Cape Town is a beautiful city - our lifestlye there was not dissimilar to our lifestyle here in Sheffield (OK, minus the beach) For all the whingers, there are plenty of people (in Cape Town at least, which is where we're from) who say that their lives have improved dramatically since the demise of Apartheid and the arrival of the ANC. From my own personal experience with friends and family in SA there is a great deal of optimism about the country's future. And check out this article for more realistic and upbeat perspectives:

http://www.safrica.info/public_services/sa_abroad/sa_communities/homecoming.htm,

Originally posted by Edward
Greater integration into the global market place sounds great - but it depends on what terms.

If you mean allowing Africa to export value added goods while protecting her home market from cheap foreign imports, without the crippling weight of debt or meddling from self-interested Western nations in her domestic affairs; and this coupled with an African voice at the international institutions which represents her vast population, then sure!

But if you mean Africa's steady colonisation by foreign MNCs who simply act to extract her mineral wealth, exploit her cheap labour and lax labour and environmental laws, and siphon profits back to the Far East or the West; or if you mean a more advanced version of the status quo, with Africa defenceless in the face of subsidised Western imports, Western political meddling, and privatisation of public services and public spending cuts required to keep foreign investors and currency speculators happy, then that's no kind of solution.

On the issue of corruption, I do agree that radical action needs to be taken. But much of the rightwing baggage that comes with the discussion of corruption reeks of racism. For a start there's the implication that blacks are not capable of running their own states and need Master to sort it all out for them. Then there's the suggestion that the West is exclusively capable of solving Africa's problems and can be trusted to act without avaricious self-interest in rearranging the African political scene. Ending African corruption is a necessary step to ending African poverty; but it is necessary to do so in a way that does not increase Western control over Africa.
Edward

If this is the quality of analysis underpinning Africa’s current development policy, then God help Africa. If acted upon as a prescription for Africa’s development, it will condemn the continent to further decades of decline, while every other region will in all likelihood continue to advance towards greater economic growth and prosperity within a rapidly globalizing world economic system. As I said earlier, your ideas are a caricature of the dependency/centre-periphery models of global development (a key feature of which was the demonisation of MNCs and of the global financial institutions) which were popular as explanations of underdevelopment in Latin America, Asia and Africa in the 1970s and 1980s). Luckily for them, Latin Americans and Asians have largely emancipated themselves from belief in these failed nostrums. These results are plain to see in any recent development reports you care to consult (e.g. from UNCTAD, the World Bank, the IMF or the WTO). – i.e. Asia and Latin America are becoming richer (through growing interdependency in the global market place and through rapid increases in both investment and trade), whereas Africa is becoming poorer.

Taking your key points in order, with regard to trade: the fundamental problem with African trade has less to do with trade barriers than with Africa’s export and production capacities – or rather lack of them. African countries can already protect their home markets perfectly legally from foreign imports, in accordance with WTO (and before that, GATT) rules, and also in accordance with the preferential trade regimes operated by the EU and by many other developed countries. But before this makes sense, they need viable domestic industries to protect. To give but one example, the EU has (with some exceptions, such as the indefensible sugar regime) already lifted most of the barriers to the EU market for the poorest LDCs (all countries in sub-Saharan Africa, with the exception of South Africa) through its preferential trade regime, encompassing for example the ‘Everything But Arms ‘policy for duty free access, through other aspects of the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP)and through the Cotonou agreement. The results have so far been disappointing, because of Africa’s dire export capacity. The EU has now realized this and is linking these policies to capacity building measures (which shows that opening up markets by itself will not solve Africa’s problems). This needs to be done in conjunction with fundamental domestic structural reforms also, a far tougher nut to crack and one which will not be solved by the superficial panaceas being proffered by Geldof and his ilk, such as the current fixation with ‘debt relief’ (appealing because it provides an easy and tangible target - Western governments - and it because it appears to offer both a cause of, and a tangible solution to, the problem of Africa’s maldevelopment . It offers neither). Even if the ‘crippling burden’ (to use a well worn phrase) of African debt was to be wiped out tomorrow, ignoring for a moment the ramifications of moral hazard, Africa would still be crippled by far more intractable burdens which lend themselves far less to sloganeering or encapsulation into the mantras of the celebrity consciences.

Your reference to Africa’s ‘steady colonisation’ by MNCs is about as wide of the mark as it gets. In fact, most MNCs want nothing to do with Africa, in spite of its low labour costs, as there are so many other far more promising places in which to invest (i.e. places with viable capital and labour markets, working insfrastructures and stable political and economic systems). The exception to this are the extractive (rather than manufacturing or services) MNCs, which have little choice. Your paranoid attitude towards MNCs was of course also once prevalent in other places, such as India, in the former communist states and in Latin America. Now each of these locations are vying with each other to attract foreign direct and portfolio investment (a far more effective engine of growth than foreign aid). In fact the World Bank has set up MIGA (the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency) to facilitate MNC investment in developing countries, although so far with only limited success in Africa (for example, MIGA's portfolio in sub-Saharan Africa still stands at less than $1 billion). .

Your references to Western self- interest, meddling and control seeking are (not surprisingly given the quality of the rest of your ill-considered rant) buttressed by emotive references to ‘racism’ (when you have no valid arguments play the race card or, as in some of your previous posts, introduce false and misleading statistics, as admittedly there is a good chance that these will be accepted at their face value and swallowed wholesale by those who have neither the time nor the inclination to check them for their accuracy or veracity). Well, the ‘West’(here meaning, collectively, Western governments and also the global economic institutions) is damned if it does and damned if it does not. Given that the vast bulk of the aid bestowed on Africa in the past half century has emanated directly or indirectly from Western governments, it seems reasonable to expect the ‘West’ to have some role in how this aid money is to be used (as is also the case with any other part of the world). In fact, for much of this period the Western governments and the global institutions have been far too lax in accounting for how aid monies have been spent in Africa., partly no doubt for fear of being accused of ‘meddling’ or even worse of ‘neo-colonialism’ or ‘racism’ (favoured slogans of both the kleptocratic demagogues in Africa and of the anti-globalisation lobbies and their credulous supporters in the West). It was admitted very recently by the head of the Ugandan inland revenue service that, if Uganda had an effective means of revenue collection, the accrued taxes each year would significantly exceed Uganda’s annual external debt servicing requirements. Central and Eastern European economies had a similar problem during the transition to the market in the early 1990s and sought Western assistance and ‘know how’ to put viable taxation systems in place. The West duly responded with aid and assistance programmes for Central and Eastern Europe, with stringent conditions and monitoring requirements attached. No doubt this could be construed as ‘meddling’ too. Africa could do with a lot more ‘meddling’ of this kind if such be the case.

What I find most breathtakingly presumptuous about your tendentious rant is the implicit assumption that you have some special insight into the motives of ‘West’ towards Africa and that these motives are likely to be wholly malign, inspired by the desires for domination and exploitation. This is typical of the Manichean world view of the anti globalization protestors and of the new moral missionaries of the celebrity charity industry. Its so easy to present Africa’s problems as a simple struggle between good and evil, to castigate MNCs as financial vampires hovering over a prostrate Africa, or to condemn the staff of the global financial institutions as venal and rigid idiots or as morally blind, jobsworth mediocrities.. In fact, these latter have a much deeper and more sophisticated understanding of development issues, and of the practical, frequently unglamorous and incremental policies and hard choices required to effectively tackle them, than was ever dreamt of in Geldof’s simplistic philosophy, or is ever likely to be contained in the glaring economic illiteracies of 'GloBonomics'. The new Director-General of the WTO, Pascal Lamy, a former EU trade commissioner, in fact has quite a good track record on trade and development issues and seems likely to play a key role in promoting and facilitating the Doha development agenda. The jury is still out on the new head of the World Bank, Paul Wolfowitz (he would not have been my choice, but that's another story). But its interesting that one of the first things Wolfowitz has done in his new role is to visit Africa and to pronounce that African development issues will be accorded high priority. The ‘West’s’ motives towards Africa are likely to be a mixture of self interest (including enlightened self interest) and also even elements of altruism. Posturing, grandstanding and the peddling of false diagnoses and instant panaceas will do nothing to effectively address Africa's development problems and in fact are likely to exacerbate them.

Your comments about Asian growth being achieved through following the agenda of the global financial institutions are not borne out by the facts. In the 1980s, South Korea, Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines had found prosperity through doing precisely what the IMF and World Bank had ordered them not to do – investing heavily in education, promoting certain industries, retaining controls on money entering or leaving the economy through speculation, and retaining protectionist policies. Despite Stiglitz’s assurances that it was unnecessary, the IMF forced the East Asian economies to remove their controls on speculation – and international speculators caused the collapse of the Thai Baht in 1997. The collapse of the Baht caused a regional crisis, and Thailand was swiftly plied with billions of dollars in loans – these billions were quickly pulled out of Thailand either by Western banks recovering their loans, or by national elites shifting their wealth abroad.

A similar process appears to be occurring in Latin America – the IMF’s wealth creation has been successful in Latin America in as far as it has created wealth for small elites and foreign investors. The recent leap forward in Venezuelan living standards following the government’s nationalisation of the oil industry stands in contrast to the continued stagnation in Colombia, whose oil wealth continues to flow in large part abroad. The benevolent guiding hand of the IMF has, moreover, failed to avert mass poverty in Bolivia as a result of iniquitous use of the country’s gas reserves, or mass landlessness in Paraguay, where foreign MNCs have encouraged the government to support vast monocultural GM projects. In the course of supporting these foreign-financed projects, the Paraguayan government has ejected over 100,000 farmers from their land – 90% of Paraguayan land is now owned by 2% of the population (figures from http://www.indymedia.org/en/2004/11/112406.shtml). Brazil and Uruguay, following the IMF’s handling of the Argentine crises, are now on the verge of their own economic recessions. Brazil, in order to retain the primary surplus that foreign investors demand, has been forced to cut education and healthcare programmes. In the year 2000, according to the St. James Mission in Ecuador, that country paid 57% of its income in servicing interest charged on external debt.

Trade liberalisation and deregulated sale of national assets over the last 20 years has cost sub Saharan Africa US$149bn, according to the more conservative calculations in a recent Christian Aid report (The Economics of Failure: the Real Cost of ‘Free’ Trade). To take an example, in 2002 the national Ugandan NGO forum in Kampala reported that in order to qualify for World Bank funding, Uganda was forced to sell off most of its state-owned industry before it had any means of regulating their sale. What should have raised $500m for the government raised $2m. The difference was pocketed by corrupt Ugandan officials. This is a textbook example of Western vested interests promoting good governance. The West only chastised the brutally corrupt Ugandan dictator Museveni in 1997 when he reintroduced free primary education. Likewise, the World Bank and the IMF have funded Paul Kagame, leader of the Rwandan Akazu (the presidential clan which was complicit in the massacres of the 1990s), who faithfully supplied the West with minerals stolen from the DRC. The West and its financiers have also enjoyed cordial commercial relations with such paragons of transparency and democracy as Suharto, Saddam Hussein, Mobutu, and Pinochet.

The result of IMF/World Bank Structural Adjustment Programmes and conditional aid, loans or debt relief is generally to the advantage of foreign investors and speculators, and to domestic industrial elites (a kleptocratic elite created by the unregulated sale of national resources and public services does not equate to a healthy local investor class); but to the detriment of public spending, investment in health and education (the IMF’s Malthusian calculation that education is not necessary for the chattel-workforces of LDCs resembles less a sensible economic policy than a torturous justification of the venal subordination of human dignity to the demands of capital), national ownership of industries and national resources, democracy and standard of living for the majority.

A World Bank report by William Easterly from 2001 shows that in the years before the IMF and World Bank started introducing conditionalities on loans, aid and debt relief, median LDC growth was 2.5% pa. From 1980 to 1998 it has fallen to 0.0%. It is difficult to see how the pauperisation experienced by nations undergoing structural adjustment is conducive to economic growth – even if it is, decades of misery and environmental destruction which constitute the “short term difficulties” of transition nations are hardly a price worth paying. Indeed, the IMF’s arguable successes in Zambia have been overturned by the HIV/AIDS crisis occasioned by the public health spending cuts they forced upon the country. Zambia’s life expectancy is now the lowest in the world.

According to figures from the Inter-Press service ( http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0614-02.htm), despite recent European commitments to remove trade-distorting measures, around US$3bn of rich-world domestic agricultural subsidies remain, whose effect is to price developing economies out of the European markets. This is just one piece of a body of evidence which reveals a conflict of interest in action. The Western governments and financial institutions claim that it is in their interest to allow Africa to compete successfully on the global level. It is in fact in their interest to allow Africa to compete unsuccessfully – so that the West can profit from the low prices and lawlessness which result from her misery.

That the West acts ‘altruistically’ towards the Third World is false; that the political will exists in the West to unilaterally do away with corrupt dictators and elites is false; and that Western vested interests are compatible with the interests of the bulk of the Third World’s population is also false.

Were this not so, were the institutions of the West intent upon creating of Africa a continent of equals, why would the much-beloved Pascal Lamy have found it necessary to defend Western hegemony by destroying the 2003 world trade talks? For the first time in the history of the WTO, poorer countries were using collective bargaining techniques to make demands upon the rich nations – and they were not demands for tighter controls on the conduct of their financial affairs, they were not calls for further liberalisation, conditionalities, the continuation of World Bank policies such as the setting up of Vietnamese coffee plantations, which were responsible for the murderous crash of coffee prices in that year.

The effect of the cessation of the 2003 talks was to leave the door open for more bilateral trade agreements between the rich and poor – the collective advantage of the poor was destroyed. The implication of this strategy – that it is justifiable to override the wishes of the majority of the world’s population as they are misguided and greedy – is paternalistic, anti-democratic and racist, and no amount of agitated rhetorical scrabbling will change that, any more than it could justify the Whig government’s decision to allow ‘economic realities’ to assert themselves during the Potato Famine of the 1840s. As the British governor in Dublin pointed out to the Malthusian exhortations of the British press for the Irish to simply die and accept the law of the market, “you cannot answer the cry of want with a quotation of political orthodoxy”.