Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
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 never Said it - you are putting Words in my Mouth. Slave Trade is Bad, no matter who does it, where and when. Arabs did it, Europeans did it,
Americans did it, Asians did it - everybody did IT! For your information, it is still going on you know? This time the Slave owners are big Bad
Corporations, which have Sweat shops spread all over the Asia, where their products are being made for petty payrole but with excellet profits. It was
always like that.
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
I am sorry, but the European colonizers conquered and exploited not just Africa - but also America, Asia, Australia - actually, as I said before,
there isn't a continent, which the White Imperialism would not Colonize. And during the conquest and colonizaton of the new World, the Europens made
a FORTUNE with exploiting Africa and America. You can see that today, when you walk the streets of London, Rome, Berlin, Amsterdan, Lisbona or Madrid.
You see Centuries of Imperalism hidden in enormous Buildings, that stand as a single Monument of how much these Empires really STOLE form all their
colonise to ammount such great fortune.
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.
Yes it was. With Cheap Labour forces, which needed almost NO PAY at all, and fresh STOLEN land from the Native Indians, what could go wrong?
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.
The Indians in America had LAND before - with the Arrivals of European colonists they didn't have anymore land, just a Bible in their hands, Sickness
in their bodies and brandy in their hand. They did not have any power, they were systematicly removed and the new, and stronger Man
their place. It worked great didn't it? Africa Slaves on Massive plantantions of Sugarcane, Tobacco, Coffee, Cotton - and all of it, so Cheap! What a
Massive Economic boost for Europe!
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.
So what was the reason for economic expansion? Exterminaton of Native Indian Population? See, for the New World to get the Europea superpowers alot of
Profit, they would have to commit two genocides: Indian and African. All in the name of God. Allow me to make a comparison:
Lets say that the Islamic Chaliphate would conquer for example India, and wanted the native Indians
to work for their new Lords and Masters on
their Land, which was now a part of Islamic Chaliphate. But the Indians prooved to be a bad labour force, so they killed them. Almost all of them. So,
they needed a NEW Work force now, and they turned to Africa, because they knew Africans had a prior history of Slavery, since prisoners of war were
usually used as slaves later. So they would go down to Africa and take as many slaves need to fill the gap which was created by the systematic
eliminaton of the native population.
Well, if that happened, you could not stop talking about it untill today, would you?
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.
Agreed. Muslim world did not take Slaves to improve their Economy - they took them for Servants, not for Hard Labour. And it was know, that the Muslim
Empire always improved ALL OF IT, not just the Motherland, and leave the colonies to themselves - like the Europeans loved to do.
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.
I don't have a problem with that statement either - with a little add-on. Slavery is STILL Going on, this time in a much more refined and hidden
form. As I mentioned before, there are slaves that work in massive sweat shops for pennies, so that big BAD WESTERN Corporations can yet again get
more Profit out of their projects. That's why the World still remains as it was centurie ago: the Power shifted almost entirely to the Western
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.
Ofcourse the Facts that the Western Corporations really do not want any of his Land Reforms to work, for they would then loose their influence in this
Regions. If you did not notice, the Corporations really own this planet - not Goverments, and they sure own Africa too. And their interst is, that
Africa remains SPLIT and UNSECURE, for this is the Perfect timing to Steal all their Resources, for they are plenty of those in Africa. They do not
want to see Mugabo get it all straight and solve his economic problems - they wnat him to get more Loan and to possibly get involved in a civil war,
like Congo! That would be even Better - for War means even more PROFIT!
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
Ofcourse the Minute some ruler of a foriegn country announces that he is an INDEPENDANT from the Western Corporate system, he would be systemataicly
slowed down and his progress stopped. If you are not with US you are against US - they say. Like Venezuela for example. When things do not go the
Western Way, then this country has to be somehow destabilized and a pro-west, pro-business leader has to be installed as soon as possible!
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?
I never said that the man is a Saint, but do you see the Enviroment he is in? Don't you see that Corruption is Tailor made for Western Exploatation
of African resouces? Don't you see that the West really does NOT want to see African people owning their Resources, and owning their Land, and owning
their Future, and owning their Economy - that would mean that this RICH Continent now belongs to the Black Man, and the White Man would have to PAY
more for the natural resoruces he really 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
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.
Hey, those are really Great points, I must admit!
But do you seriously think that the people of Zimbabwe and their president can do that alone? Do you really think that they could go ABOVE and AROUND
the powers of the Western Corporat intersts in this Region, which are trying really hard for every effort to FAIL? As I said before, nobody in the
West wants to see Africans controlling AFRICA and her Resources. That would mean that they would loose power in this region. And that is something
that they will not allow to happen.
Let's see the Case of Democratic Republic of Congo
Sometimes described as the Africa's first World War - the conflcit in DRC Involved SEVEN Natons. Why? There have been a number of complex reasons,
including conflicts over basic resources such as water, access and control over rich minerals and other resources as well as various political
agendas. This has been fueled and supported by various national and international corporations and other regimes which have an interest in the outcome
of the conflict.
It all started with the Belgian Imposed Colonial Rule, which called this region Congo Free State and they were in Power until 1960. Then, few months
became head of the State he was Overthrown by the US alongside with European
Support for their own little Cold War games and imposed their ally, Mobutu Sese Soko
Deadly Legacy: U.S. Arms to Africa and the Congo War
U.S. policy toward Mobutu was rationalized on the grounds of fighting “communism” and Soviet influence in Africa, but the U.S. was clearly more
concerned with securing its own interests in the region than helping foster a stable, secure, and peaceful future for the people of Central Africa.
Lying at the center of the continent, Zaire could provide the U.S. with access to important resources, transportation routes, and political favors.
Over the years, U.S. rhetoric changed slightly, placing greater emphasis on democratic reform of the regime and increased attention to human rights,
but in reality policy continued to focus on promoting narrowly defined U.S. economic and strategic interests.
The U.S. prolonged the rule of Zairian dictator Mobutu Sese Soko by providing more than $300 million in weapons and $100 million in military training.
Mobutu used his U.S.-supplied arsenal to repress his own people and plunder his nation's economy for three decades, until his brutal regime was
overthrown by Laurent Kabila's forces in 1997. When Kabila took power, the Clinton administration quickly offered military support by developing a
plan for new training operations with the armed forces.
Due to the vast minerals and other resources in the region, the US backed the dictator
in his overthrow of previous leader, Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba in 1960 (Lumumba was also non-aligned in geopolitical/cold-war sense,
so not seen favorably by the US.) Corruption, siphoning off massive personal wealth, a plunge in copper prices, and mounting debt led to enormous
Today, Mobutu is Deposed and Dead, but his legacies live on. His family holds his fortune, and his country holds his $12 billion debt. In a nation
with an annual income of $110 per capita, each resident theoretically owes foreign creditors $236.
Since then there have been MANY Internal Conflicts in this Region, where all sides have been supported by neighbours. The Conflicts were FUELED by
weapons sales and military training, and this weapons came from former Soviet Block, as well as from United States.
US Army Operated Secretly in Congo
The United States military has been covertly involved in the wars in the Democratic Republic of Congo, a US parliamentary subcommittee has been
told. Intelligence specialist Wayne Madsen, appearing before the US House subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, also said
American companies, including one linked to former President George Bush Snr, the father of the current US President, are stoking the Congo conflict
for monetary gains.
What a GREAT Legacy, huh?
And you know WHAT?
While the People of Congo are Dying, the Networks of the Elite are
Stealing their Resources!
There are many resources and minerals etc being exploited, including: Water, Diamonds, Coltan, Cassiterite, Tin, Copper, Timber, for Congo is Rich in
A number of major human rights groups have charged that some Multinational Corporations from Rich
Nations have been PROFITING from the War and have developed “elite networks” of key political, military, and business elites to plunder the
Congo's natural resources.
That sure does HELP the African People and the People of Congo to end the Suffering, end the endless Civil Wars and start CONTROLLING their Continent
and their own WEALTH!
And the POWER yet again remains in the Hands of the WHITE MAN, while the BLACK MAN is shooting and killing himself.
UN Cuts Details of Western Profiteers from Congo Report
Last October , the panel accused 85 companies of breaching OECD standards through their business activities. Rape, murder, torture and other
human rights abuses followed the scramble to exploit Congo's wealth after war exploded in 1998.
For example the trade in coltan, a rare mineral used in computers and mobile phones, had social effects “akin to slavery”, the panel said. But no
Western government had investigated the companies alleged to have links with such abuses. Some, including ones from the UK, US, Belgium and Germany,
had lobbied to have their companies' names cleared from the “list of shame”.
“Many governments overtly or covertly exerted pressure on the panel and the Security Council to exonerate their companies,” Ms Feeney said. Some
companies gave legitimate explanations for their business in Congo, or pulled out. But lawyers for others challenge the panel's findings, often
capitalising on errors in earlier reports as proof of unreliability.
In the report this week, the cases against 48 companies are “resolved” and requiring “no further action”.
And then you still have the Guts to start BLAMING African People for their Suffering? How can they Remove their Own Rotten Politicans, and Rotten
Goverment and Rotten Dictators, when the Entire World does not Want them to? How can they remove the Corruption from their own Contient, when the
Corruption RUNS THE WORLD? And it is not the Corruption of the Muslims World...
Oxfam - The human tragedy of the conflict in the Democratic
Republic of Congo
- More than two million people are internally displaced; of these, over 50 per cent are in eastern DRC. More than one million of the
displaced have received absolutely no outside assistance.
- It is estimated that up to 2.5 million people in DRC have died since the outbreak of the war, many from preventable diseases.
- At least 37 per cent of the population, approximately 18.5 million people, have no access to any kind of formal health care.
- 16 million people have critical food needs.
- There are 2,056 doctors for a population of 50 million; of these, 930 are in Kinshasa.
- Infant mortality rates in the east of the country have in places reached 41 per cent per year.
- Severe malnutrition rates among children under five have reached 30 per cent in some areas.
- National maternal mortality is 1837 per 100,000 live births, one of the worst in the world. Rates as high as 3,000/100,000 live births have been
recorded in eastern DRC.
- DRC is ranked 152nd on the UNDP Human Development index of 174 countries: a fall of 12 places since 1992.
- 2.5 million people in Kinshasa live on less than US$1 per day. In some parts of eastern DRC, people are living on US$0.18 per day.
- 80 per cent of families in rural areas of the two Kivu Provinces have been displaced at least once in the past five years.
- There are more than 10,000 child soldiers. Over 15 per cent of newly recruited combatants are children under the age of 18. A substantial number
are under the age of 12.
- Officially, between 800,000 and 900,000 children have been orphaned by AIDS.
- 40 per cent of health infrastructure has been destroyed in Masisi, North Kivu.
- Only 45 per cent of people have access to safe drinking water. In some rural areas, this is as low as three per cent.
- Four out of ten children are not in school. 400,000 displaced children have no access to education.
- Of 145,000 km of roads, no more than 2,500km are asphalt.
So - why is it again, that the WESTERN Media Ignores this Conflict?
Just because the Africans Dont want to Liberate themselves
Or is it, because NOBODY CARES?