Africa; take this as racist if you want, but it isn't.

[Burris]

Has there been a successful country in Africa that isn't Arab or ran by whites until the 90s? I don't see why I should help Africa is my money is just going to be squandered away by some military junta in 5 years.

I know it's "our fault" or whatever for being evil imperialists, but I can't think of anything being better if we didn't come. There were tribal wars and civil wars all the time in Africa. Ethiopia was the most stable and well, that's gone.

[Fenris Wolf]

No, as far as I know, you're right. All "we" did was introduce more effective weapons and the ability to become a despot. As far as I can tell, it's a purely cultural/traditional thing that has caused these factions to continually war with each other...I highly doubt many of them even know why they're fighting other than "he has more power than me" at this point.

[Puddle]

I did support christians children fund a few years back. Helping starving children is good karma. I was thinking on sponsoring a child again.

[Burris]

I feel for the children, but from my basic understanding of Africa, they are still using centuries old farming techniques when they're not fighting each other, so they're burning what little land they have to the point of it not being usable. WE need to get some agricultural experts over to East and West Africa to show them how far farming has come since the industrial age.

Southern Africa is just hopeless and North Africa is doing pretty well for itself.

[Ska Wars]

Off the top of my head Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, Botswana, Mauritius and The Seychelles are doing ok for themselves, although Seychelles was pretty much a one-party state until the early 90s they they're out, and Guinea was Spanish owned until the 60s so they didn't really land on their feet until the 80's. I may be wrong though as African history is really not my strong point at all.

As far as aid to these countries, it can be a sod at times. The number of leaders who have wasted it is staggering, but at the same time the number of people that are forced to live on food aid is far too great to cut back on it. Yes alot of it can probably be attribute to guilt in some respect, but the situation is so dire in some countries that it goes past that. It's a shame organisations like the Vatican refuse to do more (their stance on AIDs in Africa is one of the things that removes nearly all my respect for the Catholic Church). I do feel now that we've began to help though we have a moral obligation to see it.

Despite being very liberal, I do admit, sometimes I wonder why can't certain leaders just be 'removed' for the greater good.

On a side note, has anyone (apart from Faceman obviously) seen Africa Addio?

[Rob]

I can't think of anything being better if we didn't come. There were tribal wars and civil wars all the time in Africa.

I don't think that's relevant. The fact is, we did come--enslave, rape, pillage, and abuse a continent full of people for their skin colour for centuries. But I know you know that, and you know as well as I do it's hardly surprising how largely fucked up so much of that continent is.

They don't want outside involvement (ie AU vs UN peacekeeping), they can't seem to get their shit together on their own; I know. Their political "growing up" is no doubt going to be a long and painful process, as they have the misfortune of not only having to recover from centuries of dominance by and dependence upon foreigners, but have to do so in an increasingly globalised economy as well.

I like to think that our centuries of abuse obligate us to help them out for some time to come. Their people were quite literally used to build our societies and economies, I can't figure that we don't owe the same right back. I also don't buy that because it was a different generation that did the exploiting, that our generation is off the hook.

[Burris]

While that may be true for East Africa, and to some extent South Eastern Africa, that does not explain Somalia, or Ethiopia (Untouched by colonialism except WWII.) Do you think that extra population in Africa that the imperialist nations took away would've made a difference honestly? I could only see it as worse in the long run. I understand what you're saying but I fail to see how slavery equates to the hardship of the people NOT in bondage. You'll also agree the only place where slavery is in large practice is in Africa, by themselves.

As far as economic "raping" many of the Asian nations are doing very well, and they certainly don't have the vast amount of resources that Africa has. Laos and Cambodia even are making very fast recoveries, granted they still have a long way to go.

[Rob]

While that may be true for East Africa, and to some extent South Eastern Africa, that does not explain Somalia, or Ethiopia (Untouched by colonialism except WWII.)

Somalia was a colony state. Two, actually.

Ethiopia is certainly a bit of an abberation I'll give you, honestly I don't know enough about its history to speak with any authority on it... A lot of the classes I did in uni glossed over it to focus instead on the colonised states. It's a real gap in my knowledge that I'm not proud of.

Do you think that extra population in Africa that the imperialist nations took away would've made a difference honestly? I could only see it as worse in the long run. I understand what you're saying but I fail to see how slavery equates to the hardship of the people NOT in bondage.

Without a hint of doubt it affected it. What was the most most likely demographic for taking slaves? Young, able-bodied men and boys who could be fashioned into that. This is something I covered a lot in a course I did a few years ago actually, the massive deduction of males from the population had absolutely devastating demographical and by extension economical results on the people who were still living in the areas where the slaves were being drawn from.

And this, needless to say, continued in-land to a massive degree--not just in the coastal areas. As the "good potential" slave population in the western coastal areas began to be depleted, they turned in-land and began paying the various tribal and ethnic groups for any captured slaves. I honestly don't believe it's even possible to overstate how incomprehensibly devastating the slave trade was to the African continent as a whole.

You'll also agree the only place where slavery is in large practice is in Africa, by themselves.

No doubt, though I understand it's a booming industry in many parts of Asia as well.

As far as economic "raping" many of the Asian nations are doing very well, and they certainly don't have the vast amount of resources that Africa has. Laos and Cambodia even are making very fast recoveries, granted they still have a long way to go.

I think there's far too many variables to be able to make any valid comparison between the two. Yes, large parts of Asia were taken advantage of economically, culturally (etc) and that shouldn't be understated, but the colonisation of east Asia was markedly different than the African colonisation. Africa was quite literally on the European doorstep, affording them easy access to the entire landmass. Africa also bears the unpleasant distinction of being labelled "the dark continent" until not too long ago--a pretty loud indicator of just how staggeringly racially-guided politics of the age were.

[Burris]

If they can't feed what they have what makes you think they could feed I dunno, let's say an extra 100,000,000.

[Cheeto]

Rob you do realize that the majority of slaves in Africa taken to the rest of the world were enslaved BY Africans? And that the slave trade was alive and well long before white people became customers? Some of the larger tribes were in the habit of mowing through and conquering smaller ones whenever they needed a new source of expendable labor and sexual conquests. Did the colonialism help things over there? Not at all, but it's current state is certainly not to be laid at the feet of white people, they've had a huge hand in their own status. Centuries of trade and tradition bear that out.