Live 8 & Dickens & why Live 8 won't make a damn bit of difference in Africa

fixed your post.

 

So Africa is our Latin America, yes?

 

I'm sorry, but does anyone know a doctor who's good with split things? Sides, if at all possible.

If your idea of a progressive model for African development is Zimbabwe, then you should really review your choice of threads to contribute to.

Malawi? You mean the same Malawi that is so corrupt it was actually left off the list of 18 nations due to have their debt wiped out by this G8 initiative, despite being one of the poorest nations on the face of this earth? The Malawi in which a third of all men have HIV/Aids? The Malawi in which famine befalls the populace with the same crushing regularity that ITN posts something stupid on Bigsoccer? The Malawi which even today put itself further into the mire in a stand-off between president and parliament that will see the national budget remain unresolved even as the latest food shortages really begin to bite?

And don't even get me started on Nigeria. Lots of oil doesn't equal progressive development - not in a country where you need an escort with an AK-47 the minute you leave the airport.

 

I am not an expert of Africa. While I believe Live8 is a worthy cause, deep down we all know not much will change on the continent. 20 years from now, Africa will probably still be a mess. Blaming current western leaders, especially Bush will not solve the problem. It seems Africa needs to move on from its tribal mentality. In all honesty, there are very few African countries that have developed into stable nation states. Until social, political and cultural conditions improve, Africa will still flounder.

The real question is what can western nations really do to improve the situation. Forgiving debt, feeding the hungary and having a comprehensive Aids policy are all positive, but they won't change the underlying factors causing Africa to fall further behind.

Many on here love to bash Bush. He is evil incarnate. However, Bono is absolutely right when he states this is counterproductive and is not fair to the President nor to the American people. There is no sense in blaming Bush for Africa's problem. Once Bush is gone, Africa will still be a mess.

 

But isn't that what Live8 is focused on? Not blaming leader X, but trying to convince all the leaders of powerful countries to come up with solutions and a unified commitment to fix all of africa's problems - or at least how to help them solve their own - instead of using development loans to economically mine the resources of the continent?

That is the definition of "systematic" that other bright posters don't understand - it means enough with band-aids, and time for a group of the brightest doctors on the planet to make a long-term commitment to diagnosing and aiding a sick patient.

 

Errr ... you appear to be getting your retaliation in first on this one. No one has used this thread to "bash Bush". We're responding to Karl's typically inane attempt to us Live8 to bash "lefties" - and in the process of so doing, also taking the time to discuss the issues at hand in Africa with rather more sense than his latest op-ed cut'n'paste manages.

 

So, misgovernment, civil unrest & disease are externally caused?

 

Puppet regimes set up by former colonial powers and plundering nations of their natural resources, which contributes to faltering economies with less means to deal with disease...yeah, I'd say a lot of these problems are either directly externally caused or other external causes prevent them from being able to deal with them. Considering many countries in Africa have only been indendepent from colonial rule since the sixties and seventies (and some even into the eighties) I'd say the bulk of their plight can be laid directly at the feet of their former rulers.

Even after independence most of the colonialists continued to meddle in their internal affairs behind the scenes (and often not so behind the scenes) and even if they hadn't they basically handed these poor people a ********ing trainwreck and left them them on their own to fix it. The greatest statesmen in history couldn't sort the garbage of colonialism out in 30-40 years, I just can't believe people blame them for most of what goes on over there. There might be many corrupt leaders, but even if they were upright nobody could realistically expect these countries to be thriving in such a short period of time when they started under adverse conditions.

 

Dude, when you look at most of sub saharan Africa, Zimbabwe is one of the most successful countries, imo. I just used an example of a somewhat successful country in Africa.

Malawi is in a rock bottom situation, I agree, but with the land distribution project they have set up, which will give land to 20,000 landless families, it at least shows that the government is slowly taking steps in helping its own. http://www.chronicle.co.zw/2005/April/14/international/int4.htm

As for Nigeria, it is possible they can become a world power. It might not be progressive in the aspect of you can walk through the streets without protection. But at an industrial standpoint, they've got a lot going for them.

 

At some point African countries are going to have to look into the mirror and start blaming themselves for their problems, not others. And their apologists need to do the same thing. It's the awful truth. No one forced promiscuity/AIDS on Africa. No one is externally playing up tribal differences. Petty dictatorships & tyranical regimes appear more the norm that the exception. This applies to the entire continent.

 

Much of the first two come from bogus national boundaries and/or colonizers exacerbating tribal tensions in order to make it easier to control the colonies.

 

How simple-minded and binary of you!! It can't be some of each with you, can it? Because that would involve the subtle thinking of a teenager, and you're not that advanced yet, mentally.

If you think Africans are more promiscuous than "Westerners" than you're, to quote Rick, misinformed. Ya think it might be lack of ability to afford condoms? Huh? Ya think?

"Is" no. "Was" yes.

If it's a continental norm, why might that be? I want to read your theory.

I have a pretty good idea what your real theory is, I'm just interested in how you're gonna dress it up for public consumption.

 

Funny thing is it was the Europeans who colonized Africa, not the evil imperialistic Americans.

 

Take the Congo for instance. They got their independence from Belgium in 1960, and what did Belgium do? Turned right around (literally immediately), fanned the flames of seperatism and backed a seperatist government in the Katanga province (which. oh, just so happened to have large deposits of copper, zinc, diamonds, cobalt, tin, etc.) You can't deny that foreign meddling (even after independence) has frequently screwed these countries over by fanning the flames of seperatism, tribalism and then taking advantage of their resources.

 

A map of colonial Africa in the early 19th century





The European colonial powers didn't actually allow for African independence until after WWII, in some cases well after WWII (for instance, the Congo in 1960, Algeria in 1962, and Angola in 1971), and even then, the colonizers didn't let them go easily. Algeria didn't gain independence from France until after 8 years of war, and Angol didn't gain independence from Portugal until after 15 years of war.

So saying that the Africans have only themselves to blame for their plight is ignorant at best.

 

Again, that begs the question. What can the west do to best help Africa? If the west goes into Africa heavy handed, many of the African coutries will view that as a form of colonization. If, on the other hand, the west just gives some money, then history will repeat itself as corrupt governments will take this largesse for their personal benefit.

This may sound a bit simplistic. I would let the Europeans deal with Africa and let the US help out our South American neighbors. Maybe, it should be the other way around.

 

I guess you're up with the "CIA invented it" camp? WHO may differ:
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/2003/statement5/en/

 

So African countries aren't capable of re-drawing their boundaries or splitting like the USSR, Yugoslavia & Czechoslovakia? Tribes aren't capable of resisting those evil colonizers decades after independence?

 

I hadn't heard you were endowed with all this wisdom, superdave. Must be great to know it all & still have time to engage in ad hominem attacks. You fill the role of apologist well.

 

This link isn't a comparison. We're still waiting.

 

How is that funny, in either the "ironic" or "humorous" way???

 

It is, actually.

Still waiting for your explanation on why the ills you names are an African continental norm. You've written, what, 3 posts, and haven't answered my question.

 

Funny in the ironic way. The way the US is vilified on these boards, you would think we caused all the world's problems. Lo and behold, the current situation in Africa is caused primarily by European colonization. Do you get now, SuuuuuuperDave or should we call you Wile E Coyote?

 

http://www.enotes.com/third-world/40508