Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Africa: the Prison Continent

page: 6
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rebel_Lion
Hes simply pointing out, in a colourful manner, that Western aid supports their intrest in that particular region. Oil for Aid programms and such, they don't just help anyone its very well thought out.



WOW! It seems like no matter what I write, I am doomed to have this regurgitated back to me.

I will try once more, and I will be as specific as I can.


Originally posted by syrinx high priest
the saddest part is the main reasons for the lack of international urgency to help are mostly racism and ignorance.


Okay, so here he writes that racism and ignorance are the main reasons for the lack of international urgency.


Originally posted by syrinx high priest
there are some countries that have natural resources to export, but most of them don't. No oil, no aid I guess.


Here he immediately follows up by suggesting that lack of oil is the main reason for the lack of international urgency.

What I am asking is for him to decide or clarify. Is it racism? Is it ignorance? Is it lack of oil?

I get what he is attempting to say about oil; I want to know how racism/ignorance factors in. It doesn’t make sense when you’re talking about a profit margin.

Please don’t tell me about the oil again. I get it!




posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hamburglar

Originally posted by Rebel_Lion
Hes simply pointing out, in a colourful manner, that Western aid supports their intrest in that particular region. Oil for Aid programms and such, they don't just help anyone its very well thought out.



WOW! It seems like no matter what I write, I am doomed to have this regurgitated back to me.

I will try once more, and I will be as specific as I can.


Originally posted by syrinx high priest
the saddest part is the main reasons for the lack of international urgency to help are mostly racism and ignorance.


Okay, so here he writes that racism and ignorance are the main reasons for the lack of international urgency.


Originally posted by syrinx high priest
there are some countries that have natural resources to export, but most of them don't. No oil, no aid I guess.


Here he immediately follows up by suggesting that lack of oil is the main reason for the lack of international urgency.

What I am asking is for him to decide or clarify. Is it racism? Is it ignorance? Is it lack of oil?

I get what he is attempting to say about oil; I want to know how racism/ignorance factors in. It doesn’t make sense when you’re talking about a profit margin.

Please don’t tell me about the oil again. I get it!


*Mod edit*you must be fun at a party


again, you read the original post , and all you can think to do is argue semantics ? I 'd say your illustrating my point for me


[edit on 3-2-2006 by Amuk]



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 11:09 AM
link   
Most, of the western inhabitants, with pale fair skin, and straight hair, and blue eyes will never understand, what the hell is going on in Africa. Because they do not care

My brother you are wrong, white people cannot accpet what is going on because it is too much for them. They must either feel guilty or feel nothing for their peoples actions abroad. Most choose to feel nothing as it seems to support them.

Notice how a white person cannot sit with people of ethnic orgin as well as we can sit with them. Bring up a talk about rasicm and they retreat into themselves as an admission of guilt as to what is fact. They don't want it either but with the fear of change and fear of reprisals they do not know what to do. I've even heard them say things to the liking of,

''I don't have blonde hair and blue eyes! I didn't ask to be promoted in some way!''

If you have time, watch the film, Lawrence of Arabia, its there in full swing... like Tarzan, the white folk who know what is happening can see it but just don't know what to do.

Many are oppressed and hand fed by their own system and belive the media spin whereas we, being directly affected by it, are more wary of newspaper headlines and government policy and can therefore pointout its flaws and 'slight of truths'.

For example, a white finacier was murdered in his home not so long ago by a black burglar, this is the type of fear inspiring story that the papers love. The dark black man robbing a rich white person. Bad vs Good. Light Vs Darkness.
Last year a terrible incident happened to a young girl of 17, she was abducted and mutilated in a south london flat. Something that made the headlines once but was quickly put down... An Asian man was tied to the back of a car and dragged through the streets until he died. Didn't even make the papers. (see Iain Blairs talk on the matter)

White supremecy is forced upon these people and ourselves so much so it goes unnoticed. It is now Institutional rather than direct. Political correctness prevents people from talking about issues, gagging them for fear of offence.... I could go on.

do u think, china and the rest of the asian tigers got where they are by the aid of the western countries through, Aid?": NO!

We don't want any Aid to be given to Africa, Free andf fair Trade is what is needed. And root out corrupt politicans, and the dictators!

Exactly.




[edit on 3-2-2006 by Rebel_Lion]



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Funny that some in this thread are mixing Arabs invasion of African centuries ago with Muslin propagation of Islam.

Actually many areas of Africa flourished during the Arab invasions in the 7th century.

Very nice if any of you are trying to divert the thread to muslin Bashing, but I challenge you to read the historical facts of Arabs invasion and what it brought to the African continent, then the Portugal invasion and subsequently the occupation of other European countries.

What ever the Arabs did to Africa pale in comparison to what the European countries did to them starting with Portugal.

The Europeans found that many areas in Africa were semi-modern by European standards of the time.

While European countries were after Gold, minerals and precious stones they oppressed the people of Africa.

Now when they all left the African lands after raping them the Radical Islamic movement has been allowed to spread.

Get your historical facts rights people

Nobody here is a racist or propagators of lies only the ones that do not get their historical facts straight.

Attacking others because base on racism is a nice way to gain approval for others that have not clue what the entire Thread is all about.

Nobody cares about Africa because is is the Black continent and I stand by that comment.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hamburglar

Originally posted by Rebel_Lion
Hes simply pointing out, in a colourful manner, that Western aid supports their intrest in that particular region. Oil for Aid programms and such, they don't just help anyone its very well thought out.



WOW! It seems like no matter what I write, I am doomed to have this regurgitated back to me.

I will try once more, and I will be as specific as I can.


Originally posted by syrinx high priest
the saddest part is the main reasons for the lack of international urgency to help are mostly racism and ignorance.


Okay, so here he writes that racism and ignorance are the main reasons for the lack of international urgency.


Originally posted by syrinx high priest
there are some countries that have natural resources to export, but most of them don't. No oil, no aid I guess.


Here he immediately follows up by suggesting that lack of oil is the main reason for the lack of international urgency.

What I am asking is for him to decide or clarify. Is it racism? Is it ignorance? Is it lack of oil?

I get what he is attempting to say about oil; I want to know how racism/ignorance factors in. It doesn’t make sense when you’re talking about a profit margin.

Please don’t tell me about the oil again. I get it!


Going in circles.

It could even be said to be all those things.

Racism and ignorance - In that its not as though europe is quick to undo what has been done to third world nations. Racism is particually bad in Europe and they would not like to see those nations stand for themselves for fear of, reprisals, and for fear of those people intergrating into their societies. I have travelled much of Europe and its actually quite bad, the greeks seem to like tooting their horns as they drive past and tell tales in their churches, apparently when they used to paint their tapestries (sp) the paint would sometimes turn brown for no reason.

They don't like the Arabs or black people.

Lack of oil - as in lack of resoruces that are of value to said nations. Sugar is one but is is refined in factories rather than bought from certain countries. If a nation has diamaonds and gold they'll get aid faster than bush can lift a pen. If you have fruit, its not done in such a hurry.

Money. Capitalism. Profit margins. -lol- Food. Water. Shelter.

I'm not going over this part again, the circle has done its circumference wouldn't you say?

Politics is a better focus point than a 'mistake that wasn't'.

[edit on 3-2-2006 by Rebel_Lion]



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
Excuse me, but how far did the Arab Colonizers go? Did they Colonize America, Australia, Asia and entire continent of Africa? How can their Trade with Slaves from Africa be compared to the White Man's SUPERMACY over this Planet as a whole?


So, what are you saying, that the Arabs are somehow morally superior because they never got around to oppressing people the way they would have liked to? I'm sure Kurds, Yezidis, Druze, Copts, countless extinct minorities, and the whole northern half of India take great comfort in the knowledge that they had the good fortune to be impoverished and forcefully converted by one race, and not the other.

I'm not saying that Europeans should be "forgiven." I'm saying that you are pretending that, because Europeans exist, no one else ever did anything wrong.



If you take Northern America for Example - what was the ONLY reason for the Economic boom? It was the CHEAP labour forces (Slaves from Africa)


Incorrect. Slavery was not the reason for the economic boom. Hispaniola (the nations of Haiti and San Domingo) would be the richest island on earth, since they were covered with slavery.



that worked on the Vast Cotton Plantantions (STOLEN from Native Indians) - which made an Excellent Economic Combination, that boosted the Economy of the Newly formed American Empire.


First, the indians didn't have vast cotton plantations. Cotton was introduced from Egypt. Second, it didn't make an economic combination--it stifled industrial production in the South, meaning that the south could not compete against the non-slave north, and would eventually collapse during the civil war.

Second, there were no slaves or cotton in New Englad, the center of American economic expansion. The bulk of southern cotton was shipped directly to the textile centers of England. The northern US didn't have the population to consitute a real market for Southern Cotton. And once the British perfected short staple cotton farming in India in the 1820's, there was a world cotton glut. So you'll have to look elsewhere for the sources of American prosperity. Slave Cotton kept the south poor, rural, and non-competitive vis-a-vis the North.




Can you show me a Similar comparison in the Muslim World?


Economically? No. The Muslim world had a culture that was remarkably stable over time, and so never experienced the transformations due to market forces the west did.

Morally? Sure. How about the fact that most of the Arab's slaves were 9 or 10 year old boys who were castrated (no anaesthesia) to serve as eunuchs. How about the fact that America, the worst pro-slavery holdout in the west, didn't totally outlaw slavery until the 1860's; whereas arab states continued to practice sex slavery for another century, only outlawing it under western pressure. You may find that situation somehow morally preferable or less oppressive. I bet a lot of readers won't, though.



Zimbabwean Whites, although making up less than 1% of the population, owned more than 70% of the arable land, comprising mainly the best.


Exactly. The problem was not land reforms per se. The problem is that Mugabe replaced one form of inequality with another. Instead of merely removing the whites and assigning their land to the black employees, Mugabe removed the blacks as well, and gave the ranches to his political supporters--thus preserving the inequality while only changing the melatonin levels of the repressors. Amazingly, whites are not the only ones capable of infamy.



One can not expect that such countries would Blossom at the second that they gain Independance on one way or another.


True. But one could expect that their new indigenous leadership might not rob their own people with even more of the hearty gusto that their onetime white oppressors had shown.




Zimbabwe is therefore caught in the Vicious Circle of its own Poverty and it can not get out.


To put it more succinctly, Zimbabwe is trapped in a cycle of . . . Mugabe!





They face a wide variety of difficult economic Problems as they struggle to consolidate and upgrade their progress in the modern market-oriented economy.


But they aren't making any progress. They are sliding backwards. At one time, their state was one of the most advanced on the continent. Best phone system, best roads, electric trains, etc. The thugs who control the government have let the infrastructure languish while they tighten their grip on all aspects of national life. The difficult problems you mention, (other than climate) are largely of their own making at this point.



They face a Shortage of foreign exchange, soaring inflation (586% in 2005), and supply shortages.


All of this was self inflicted. If you drive the wealthy out of your country (even when white!), they will try to take all their wealth with them. It also stifles investment from outsiders, who are afraid you will sieze their property next.




Badly needed support from the IMF has been suspended because of the country's failure to meet budgetary goals.


Again, because of Mugabe's "kleptocracy." The IMF loans money, and has been known to forgive loans and set low (non-competitive) rates, to help developing countries. Do you honestly think that if the IMF forgave all of Zimbabwe's debt, that Mugabe would do something besides running the national debt back up till it was maxed out, then stealing it?




The impact of land reform [emphasis added by Strangecraft] in Zimbabwe has badly damaged the ability of the commercial farming sector to gain foreign exchange.


Thanks. Your making my points for me now. Saves me the typing. I guess this is your own reply to your questions about land reform above.




So, what do you Suggest Herr Doctor we do to help the Nations and Nationalities of Africa?



Every state has different needs.

Here's how I would advise the next president of Zimbabwe:

1. Set up a currency auction in the nation's capital. Let the exchange rate float and find its own level.

2. Redo the land reform this way. Explain that you plan to expropriate the largest quintile of farms in the nation. Current owners can choose between a cash payout, or keeping half the land and recieving a payout over 25 years in 2005 inflation-adjusted currency. "Victims" receive legal recognition that no part of the remaining farm may be seized in further reforms. The land that is seized is given first to employees of record, in 100 acre plots. The rest is auctioned to the public, with no individual able to purchase more than 100 acres. Orderly land reform would do a lot for economic stability.

3. Sign a promise not to nationalize the platinum and gold mines, in exchange for a tax on foreign mine companies. The money would be invested in infrastructure, and not maintenance of the debt. One percent of the mined product would be paid in kind, into a national bullion depository

4. Tell the IMF to go to hell. We are not borrowing any more money. Period. We are no longer printing currency, but the currency as a whole is now backed by the bullion in the depository. Continue paying on the current debt.

5. Set up a civilian police force, and disband the "security force."

6. Institute stiff penalties, including capital punishment for bribery.

7. De-nationalize the businesses that Mugabe has stolen. Don't return them to his victims, which is impossible, but set up a stock market in the nations capital, with a powerful policing agency to prevent fraud. Mongolia did this when they threw out the communists, and had a %2000 precent growth in the stock average, in one year. . . .

8. Emphasize metal fabrication as a local industry. Instead of shipping the raw materials out of country (mercantilism), develop Zimabwean wire-rolling factories, coking operations, etc. to enhance the values of exports. Allow foreign investment (but not control) in these industries.

9. Encourage meatpacking as a major industry. Goats and Pigs are quite drought resistant. Set up a rigorous meat inspection service, and export processed meat to your neighbors. With a major river on one border, this should not be economically impossible.

10. Free and fair elections. Even on local levels.

.

Some of these (maybe most) would not work completely. But some of them would, and what a people needs most is self-confidence and trust of their leaders.

And none of these propositions relies on foreign governments, or blames them for the current (temporary) poverty. It does rely on worthy leadership.

.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 11:53 AM
link   
dr_strangecraft.... I'll be back... need some food and a cig


[edit on 3-2-2006 by Rebel_Lion]



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
If you take Northern America for Example - what was the ONLY reason for the Economic boom? It was the CHEAP labour forces (Slaves from Africa) that worked on the Vast Cotton Plantantions (STOLEN from Native Indians) - which made an Excellent Economic Combination, that boosted the Economy of the Newly formed American Empire.

Can you show me a Similar comparison in the Muslim World?


As Dr Strangecraft mentioned it wasn't slavery on it's own that made North America a success. There were eight times more slaves sent to Brazil and there were more than five times as many slaves sent to the Spanish colonies than were sent to the US. link Why aren't those nations the wealthiest in the world?

Also, the slaves sent to the Arab world weren't all domestic servants and not all slaves in America worked on farms.
There were slaves sent to Iraq to drain the marshes in Basrah. link

And let's not continue the myth that the slaves of Arabs were more humanely treated than those of Europeans. Islam's Wretched Record on Slavery

It's time to stop putting all of the blame for Africa on the Europeans.

[edit on 3-2-2006 by AceOfBase]



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by AceOfBase

It's time to stop putting all of the blame for Africa on the Europeans.


Can not, because that will be irresponsible and again another slap in the face to the people in Africa that the only sin they has done is to be easily target for more powerful countries.

I disagree.

The blame game is what is keeping other countries in world for taking responsibility for the millions of people from Africa that has become victims under invasion, exploitation and slavery.

Somebody has to take responsibility.

African people are humans just like you and me



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043

The blame game is what is keeping other countries in world for taking responsibility for the millions of people from Africa that has become victims under invasion, exploitation and slavery.

Somebody has to take responsibility.


The EU and US have already taken responsibility for their part of African history but they are the only ones. Look at the donations to that region and tell me how many muslim countries you see donating money.

ubsaharanafricaaid.jpg

link



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Oh please Base your lack of knowledge stinks. The only point you have made is that the Arab involvement was terrible... in fact it was twisted. I won't go into the things they used to do to my people... notice the italics used to emphasize on, my just so you know that what some are talking about on here is more of a direct knowledge rather than superficial,

''let me go on the net and ask jeeves a few questions to support my lack of knowledge on the matter''

Type of debate. Many on here speak on a factual basis and I get the impression that'd you'd rather be rejoicing in the BNP retrial than anything else. If your next comment isn't worthy I'll put you on ignore and request that others on here do so also so we can have a civilized discussion.

Thank you.

quote:
If you take Northern America for Example - what was the ONLY reason for the Economic boom? It was the CHEAP labour forces (Slaves from Africa)


Incorrect. Slavery was not the reason for the economic boom. Hispaniola (the nations of Haiti and San Domingo) would be the richest island on earth, since they were covered with slavery.

Certain countries were used as platforms to export slaves and as the inhabitants of those islands and south americans were wiped out by the Europeans its obvious that they had other things to do at the time.

Its is obvious that slavery was the reason for the economic boom in Europe, thats long been established. Barclays, HSBC and many other companies profited so much so that they cannot afford to repay their debt to us... notice the emphasis on us your intellect is falling in line with AceOfBases' you're running in circles and crossing yourself on a topic you hardly know about except through scrawled readings on books by Authors who'd rather not make known what happened then.

First, the indians didn't have vast cotton plantations. Cotton was introduced from Egypt. Second, it didn't make an economic combination--it stifled industrial production in the South, meaning that the south could not compete against the non-slave north, and would eventually collapse during the civil war.

Yes the indians of the EAST did and I'm sure still do have cotton plantations, watch the film Ghandi. Its stifled nothing and again boosted the industry of America. When the North abolished slavery the south refused to do so because of the money and convienience of having slaves. If it stifled the industry they wouldn't have continued or even started it in the first place.

Get your facts right for crying out loud.

Englands part in the slave trade was one of insurance, shipping etc. Again, get your facts right before you debate Strange your lack of knowledge is surprising... All this really backs up my comment on white people not being able to understand what happened and what is happening out there, you have no real knowledge on the topic, you're only hanging on to faulse truths to deny European involvement you'd rather attempt to free yourself from some form of guilt than stop and take note on the facts. Its all there.

Morally? Sure. How about the fact that most of the Arab's slaves were 9 or 10 year old boys who were castrated (no anaesthesia) to serve as eunuchs. How about the fact that America, the worst pro-slavery holdout in the west, didn't totally outlaw slavery until the 1860's; whereas arab states continued to practice sex slavery for another century, only outlawing it under western pressure. You may find that situation somehow morally preferable or less oppressive. I bet a lot of readers won't, though

You're right there.

Again, I'll be back. Take note of the Sites motto, you guys stink of it so bad you dont know it.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
*Mod edit* you must be fun at a party


Wow again! I ask a legitimate question and this is what you have for me? Calling me names? Really? What are you, an infant?


Originally posted by syrinx high priest
again, you read the original post , and all you can think to do is argue semantics ? I 'd say your illustrating my point for me


And at this juncture, I'd say you have no point. You've contradicted yourself in your own post, and resorted to name-calling when asked about it. In the future, try to be more respectful, especially when someone is NOT EVEN ARGUING WITH YOU. I've just been trying to get you to clarify your point because it doesn't compute the way you've written it.

Mod Edit: Removed offensive material

[edit on 2/3/06 by FredT]

[edit on 3-2-2006 by Amuk]



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rebel_Lion
Going in circles.


Sure feels that way! Thanks for the effort, but this is getting old (and ugly), and I don't think he'll ever get the point. My purpose was to get HIM to think about what he'd written, and explain how one thing can be the main reason, and then another thing can be the main reason. By definition, a main reason is a single thing. I think he was just spewing things off the cuff, and I wanted him to clairy.

Thanks anyway, but I understood each of the individual implications from the get-go. I just don't think that racism and oil mesh well to establish some ultimate reason for non-chalance. Given the value of money to corps over all else, something so trivial as race wouldn't really make a difference to an oil company. Again, he's just trying to lump everything into a single basket, and it doesn't work.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by AceOfBase

The EU and US have already taken responsibility for their part of African history but they are the only ones. Look at the donations to that region and tell me how many muslim countries you see donating money.



Look more into it Ace, most of the donations never get in the hands of the people that need it, US has cut of the donations also.

When it comes to aids is a stipulation that Africa has to buy medication from US pharmaceuticals over other generic brands from other countries, that are less expensive.

Only people that are closes to main cities and that can afford treatments can get help.

That is what is causing the migration of the populations in Africa to certain areas because the they think they will get help.

Is so much more involve on the problems with African and the help they supposedly get that it will take ten more threads to just covert them by topic.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rebel_Lion
If you take Northern America for Example - what was the ONLY reason for the Economic boom? It was the CHEAP labour forces (Slaves from Africa)


Really? Because, as I recall, the first North American settlers were French. And the French outlawed slavery in 1794. The fact that the majority of the settlers were extremely poor Huguenots really doesn't help your case. The first sucessful North American colony was founded in 1604 in Acadia, so unless in one generation you're suggesting poor folks who salted cod for a living could afford to import slaves, you're wrong.

Of course, North America's riches had nothing to do with the fact that it was a massive untamed wilderness brimming with every natural resource and commodity you could ever want! Nope, that fine timber? Worthless. Fish and other foodstuffs? Worthless. Beaver pelts? Totally not in style!


Its is obvious that slavery was the reason for the economic boom in Europe, thats long been established. Barclays, HSBC and many other companies profited so much so that they cannot afford to repay their debt to us...


HSBC? Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Company? OH! You mean Hudson's Bay Company! Say, you wouldn't happen to know where that is, would you?



Strange, how that's all in the north, in the frigid parts of thw world known as the True North (the strong and free variety, fake northerners! That's right, all you fake northerners, take your ball and go home.), the parts of the world where it is largely too cold to grow cotton or much else. To be frank, attempts by the company to import slaves ended after the first attempt, because they largely froze to death. So, unless you're telling me that somehow Africans were in North America when we got here, then you're spouting a lot of garbage.


Yes the indians of the EAST did and I'm sure still do have cotton plantations, watch the film Ghandi. Its stifled nothing and again boosted the industry of America. When the North abolished slavery the south refused to do so because of the money and convienience of having slaves. If it stifled the industry they wouldn't have continued or even started it in the first place.


Yes, the Indians of the east, who would transport cotton halfway around the world to America, where they actually had cotton already! Logic, good sir! Let me ask you this: if the South's industry was so strong for so long off the backs of slaves after the abolition, then why the hell is the south the most dirt-poor, trailer trash, uneducated area of the States?


Englands part in the slave trade was one of insurance, shipping etc.


England is a part of North America now?

This isn't a game of blame-whitey. Yeah, sure, the Europeans of yore did a lot of screwed up things. But maybe, just maybe, it's time to realize that a certain portion of Africa's problem isn't our fault. Militias ethnically cleansing, dictators, and even African mismanagement share some of the blame for making things worse and worse.

DE

[edit on 3-2-2006 by DeusEx]



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 01:31 PM
link   



Medical Aid Agency Highlights Media Silence On Humanitarian Crises


Conflicts in Africa and global shortcomings in confronting the ravages of AIDS dominated a list published Thursday by Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) of the most underreported humanitarian stories of 2005.

The list highlighted the lack of media attention paid to the human cost of fighting in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), northern Uganda and the Ivory Coast and unrelenting crises in Somalia and southern Sudan...

Conflicts in Africa and global shortcomings in confronting the ravages of AIDS dominated a list published Thursday by Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) of the most underreported humanitarian stories of 2005. The list highlighted the lack of media attention paid to the human cost of fighting in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), northern Uganda and the Ivory Coast and unrelenting crises in Somalia and southern Sudan...



The article continues:




According to Andrew Tyndall, publisher of the online media-tracking journal The Tyndall Report, the 10 stories highlighted by MSF accounted for just eight minutes of the more than 240 hours of nightly newscasts on the three US television networks in 2005.

In a year dominated by the war in Iraq and the Asian tsunami, only six minutes were devoted to conflicts in DR Congo and Chechnya. The remaining stories highlighted by MSF were not covered at all


"People all over the US tell us how much they want to show solidarity and do more to help others in crisis around the world. But how can they when a crisis is virtually invisible?"



Food for thought... Invisible.


[edit on 3-2-2006 by loam]



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Exactly, I am glad that you bring that article, we have been so manipulated by the media that only we the news that sources wants.

Africa problems are on going and as long as is not intervention by any of the powerful nations in the world it will keep on going.

Then again it goes to the reason as Why?

The answer, well, the world has other more pressing matters that are considered more important.

Like our next chapter in the middle east dilemma, Iran.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Take a look at Ghandi's work and outlook.

While he knew that the UK was responsible for the bulk of his country's suffering, he didn't waste a lot of breath on the past abuses.

Instead, he talked about Indians taking responsibility for Indian prosperity. Making their own salt, weaving their own clothes, etc.

He led his people to achieve independence in a single generation, with a lot fewer casualties than in most wars for independence. And with no IMF loans.

And how?

By focusing on the fact that his people's happiness was their own responsibility.

That if the imperialist ties to UK were oppressing India, then cut the ties, and start over on your own. Did india recieve a lot of financial help from the UK after they'd gotten independence? Nothing like the scale of many of the basket-cases in Africa have received since independence.

And India was far more lucrative for the Brits that the whole of Africa ever was. UK didn't pull out of india, they sent in machine-guns to mow down pacifists.

And they lost.

Why? Because Ghandhi helped his people, Hindu, Sikh, Muslim, even Christian see that they were one, and more importantly, despite temporary setbacks You are the one who is ultimately responsible for your own happiness.

Ghandhi stressed a doctrine of self-reliance in the face of mercantilism. Not blame of the enemy and excuse-making for Indian failures.

Yes, Africa is messed up. And white people had a big part to play in that, once ukpon a time (the past). But African prosperity will come from Africans insisting on liberty, open markets, and their leaders not selling out to criminals, foreign or domestic.

If Africa achieves that, it will be free and rich. To the degree its people fail, they will be poor and oppressed. Just like people in America, China or Greenland.

Finally, if Africa is a "prison continent," then it is a prison in which the prisoners are increasingly guarded by thier own countrymen.


.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 02:04 PM
link   


The EU and US have already taken responsibility for their part of African history but they are the only ones. Look at the donations to that region and tell me how many muslim countries you see donating money.


Hmm. That's not the point ace, I am thinking, if they have dione their part of the little aid that seesm to come from them? why they don't start with reparations? Because they know that will be curtains for the western world? No? I don't think u have an inkinling Ace of a Base, of what the hell, Aid means? No? It is not necessarily cash terms, but as we all know, when we say Aid we only thibnk, if we throw money at a problem it will go away, but alas it has';n t happen. Aid in the common diplomatic sense, doesn't mean cash, it could mean throwing by helicopter, a few tonnes of wheat, and flour, mix up a pourri, and have screaming, squabbling persons, fight for the crumbs, they are starving, do u think they will eat, caviars? no they will eat something if it's even grass, and yet we have so much we throw away 50 % of our food everyyear . Another thing, we as Black people have ourselves to blame, for one,past, our ancestors should have never the invaders come and take the lands, and rape it. and two in the present, we should band together and help the motherland. That's where we all come form, but no most of us are contented with the lives we have here, and end up doing the same thing in the west killing each other out in the ghetthos, may not be with machetes,and knives, but with load Tech 9's and uzis.

Peace



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
Take a look at Ghandi's work and outlook.

While he knew that the UK was responsible for the bulk of his country's suffering, he didn't waste a lot of breath on the past abuses.
Instead, he talked about Indians taking responsibility for Indian prosperity. Making their own salt, weaving their own clothes, etc.
He led his people to achieve independence in a single generation, with a lot fewer casualties than in most wars for independence. And with no IMF loans.
And how?

By focusing on the fact that his people's happiness was their own responsibility.


Very Well Said, dr_strangecraft

Africa today is primarily due to the african peoples own inertia, though there can be no denial of European colonialistic ravagings of the continent, it cannot be held forever as an excuse for their misery.

I would also like to say that thought the colonialistic powers did exploit its people and resources, the Europeans also brought with them the idea of governance, education, order, stability, justice( for what it was worth ! ) and the idea of an economy. Today South Africa has much to thank its colonial masters for.

The Indians learnt to use this to wise up to their colonialistic powers and turn the tables on them. Even today they have similar systems which the British have left behind in their governance and judiciary.

So in a way the African cannot say that they gained nothing, though the loss may have been greater but the important difference that you have brought out is the difference in the attitudes of the people. And for Gandhi to do it in India which is such a large nation, I am sure the africans can do the same. What the africans face today is not so much the poverty of physical requirements but rather a poverty of Spirit.






top topics



 
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join