How China has Created a New Slave Empire in Africa.

manifest destiny, human nature, the ten commandments, armageddon, my white american hands are bloody............crap.....I think I'm becoming a nihilist.

reply to post by mopusvindictus

---

Also, it has been proven by an Irish university that cold weather produces a slightly bigger brain. That's why Germans and Japanese are the most superior people in the world intellectually. (And for the record, Germans are the biggest ethnic group in the US.) So if you want to help Africans, move them to Greenland.

And seriously, can you guys name a rich tropical/hot country? Singapore maybe, but it's because its neighbors aren't bright enough. And it's just a small city. Same with Brunei. Too small, lots of oil. Israel? Meh. It steals from the world. Dubai? nah. lots of oil that they keep investing. Philippines has a potential, (I should know, I'm from here) but we have a lot of dumb people here as well that keep laying eggs.

[edit on 10/1/08 by homo_borg]

reply to post by homo_borg

---

You sound like a neo nazi eskimo that loves bagles.

No offence.

[edit on 1-10-2008 by N.B.A.Y.S.O.H]

reply to post by Camilo1

---

You can start by limiting your consumption. Personally I'm all for the American financial crisis. Now finally food and oil prices should go down a bit.

stark racism,shame on you!

It took a rocket scientist to figure out the Chinese are abusing Africa for its resources. Interesting....

The chinese are not a bad people. They are doing the same thing Europeans had been doing not to long ago?

More powerful nations abuse and pillage poorer ones, that is a fact, and is human nature.

The Chinese are present day European colonists, nothing more.

Even though the Chinese cant get my Dell laptop charger working, even after 8 tries, thats a different matter.

reply to post by karby

---

What is Stormfront?

Yeah the Chinese neeeeevvvver point guns at peoples heads see the attached for proof

YouTube Link

[edit on 1-10-2008 by red_leader]

Look folks whatever the moral debate may be about China's involvement in Africa, in the end the debate is moot.

The West has no right to dictate how China should conduct its business. The morals of the West are not a universal standard by which other groups must conduct themselves.

Additionally, it is not the West's job to stand up for Africa. Let them do it themselves. This may seem uncaring in the short term, but in the long term it will ensure that Africa gets its just deserts (without us being vilified for exploitation or colonialism).

Let China conduct its business. Hell, let them invade outright if they want. This is neither our battle nor our obligation.

we are talking about africa,if you got other chinese domestic issues to talk about,why not open another thread.china dont force african countries against their own will,it is totally their own choice,not like western colonists,using brutal force to barge into that land.

because china's friendly approach,the country is univerally regarded as positve influence and benificial for africa by african governments and people.that is the obvious truth .those who lost their monoply and strangling hand over africa may feel frustrated and piss,huh,let them depressed,africa now has alternative choices and cant be bullied around.

Soon the entire africa will learn Chinese. Colonisation is not necessarily a bad thing. The British colonised Hong Kong and how investors flock there as they have a sizable English speaking population unlike the mainland.

If it is the US or British colonising Africa, will you be complaining? I dont think so. Every man for his own.

In the past, Hong Kong was ceded to the British because China lost some kind of opium war.

Let's face it. The weak always gets bullied.

That is life.

Yup China has its head screwed on. The US and UK along with other countries are broke so couldn't try a 'Takeout' even if it tried.
The thing is though. China needs raw materials cause it has such a top-heavy export market. The US and Europe would be stuck with materials it didn't need

Raped continent?
That's debatable. Considering that the European colonists pretty much traded their way into Africa.
Having spoken and worked with S.Africans they can attest that since S Africa has been given independence things are a lot tougher and there is tons of more crime.

the choice is always in african's hand.they will be very glad to have alternatives

When I refer to "Africa" in this thread I will be referring only those most poverty and disease stricken countries on that continent. Countries ranging from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, to Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Somalia, and the Sudan.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Central Africa was doomed from the very beginning. It just wasn't a continent that civilization was made to spring out of. Its geopolitical history is long and brutal. The very geography of the continent is wild. Those that remained were destined, it seems, to toil through the hardships that is that that vast, unforgiving continent.

While Africa is now simply a playground for the powers that be, it truly was a testing ground for the emergence of the first civilized peoples. Naturally, they left the place.

I'm not saying there is something inherently wrong with Africa or its people. On the contrary, in our modern world, with sufficient capital and human resources, Africa can be transformed, and for the first time in history it is truly feasible.

But then again, what leader of a highly unstable country, in terms of its both socioeconomic and political status, would subvert the only form of income they receive in the name of principal alone? The fact is that all of Africa's income, very little of which makes its way to the people that fuel those industries, comes from multinational corporations, whose few African workers are virtually slaves.

The political leaders of Africa really have to form an affront against this cyclical corruption. But it all comes down to the people, and this new generation.

1. At the very least, African leaders must continue dialogue through the AU, and attempt at reforging all long broken political relationships.
   
2. African people must take the initiative in forming their own non-governmental organizations to fight for the most pressing issues affecting their nations.
   
3. African people must rid themselves of their subsistence on foreign aid; they must refuse to work for foreign corporations.
   
4. Africans must assault their current political leaders through the profession of Democratic ideas and beliefs; they must work in either transforming current legislature and diplomatic agreements and relationships, or if unsuccessful ultimately forming new Republics, or drafting new Constitutions.
   

We need to see a new wave of originally African political leaders, and in their efforts they must depose of old regimes and establish new governance. Economically, during this transition period, it would be tough. The continent would have to pool all its intellectual resources in the formation of their own, uniquely African industries. They can no longer depend on income from multinational corporations, and they must stop all foreign aid.

The major tragedy is that Africa is so entrenched in foreign exploitation, and so abused by international socioeconomic regulations, the CAP (Common Agricultural Policy), for example, that they are especially incapable of starting afresh, even if they unanimously and immediately rejected all foreign influence, and by extension those nations' leverage over Africa's people. They are unable to compete in the basic industry that all nations must start out on, and that is agriculture. Any agriculture that is done on that continent will have to be done for subsistence alone, as their product can not possibly compete with those of Europe's highly socialized, mechanized and subsidized industries. At the moment the purchase of their products is dependent on largely fair trade agreements, and the good will of like-minded individuals from across the world.

The only form of economy that would truly benefit those countries, it seems, in the current state of global affairs, is a state run, centralized economic model, based on 5 year agricultural and industrial plans. The governments would have to take out international loans to provide income to those industries, directly planned by the state, which would otherwise make no financial sense, as they are not profiting from it on the international market. Access to food and water would provide a stable basis for which Africa can emerge from the depredation at the hands of foreign powers. The second wave of five year plans would focus on the extraction of natural resources, and the development of rather arbitrary economic industries; the only purpose of these industries being economic stimulation. Finally, the plans are culminated by a new independence from foreign corporations and the ability of African firms to capitalize on whatever they so choose. Naturally, the continent would then flow into a more mainstream free market capitalism, with of course all the social regulations necessary to keep that system in check. Of course, this African transformation would be consummated by the birth of a fierce African nationalism, which would bring about the end of all foreign influence on that continent for the rest of time.

[edit on 2-10-2008 by cognoscente]

[edit on 2-10-2008 by cognoscente]

Seriously, by the tone of your post you sound very sincere and logical. I have to ask where are you from? To me it sounds like advice from aliens that exist in a distant galaxy.

Are you at all familiar with sub-saharan Africa? What goes on in Africa? African’s living in other countries for centuries? You are preaching logic. Do you have any idea how out of place that is?

[edit on 2-10-2008 by Sonya610]

I'm not quite sure I understand what you're trying to say. Is it that I am being too pragmatic? Of course, all these things I mentioned seem so much easier to accomplish in words than is probably true. I did define my "Africa" at the beginning of the post, by the way. I'm aware that sub-Saharan Africa is a region largely driven by nomadism and the Caravan trade, that it is a highly diverse region geographically speaking; it is home to many ethnicities, and represents a wholly different life then the picture I painted in my latest post.

There was also a reason for my confidence in my logic. My post was meant to convey an inspirational overtone, one that Africans themselves would value.

Now, to address your own response to my post, I offer you a question.

Do you honestly believe that Mugabe's legitimacy as President in Zimbabwe should not ever be questioned? In fact, I think his rule should be deposed without question. He is driving the country into the ground. He venerates foreign investment, and by extension the multinational corporations, which exploit the local population and extract the country's resources without any obligation to the compensation of the citizens of that country, whose resources are in fact their common right by heritage alone. Very few locals are employed by those companies, and those that do are virtually slaves. How does Mugabe expect capitalism to work in his own country when he is constantly bombarding his own citizens with unfair competition from foreign industries. This guy is bat # crazy and will not leave office until he dies. He has only his own interests in mind. Any form of political congruity in the past months have only been a ploy to further his own position of power. He will act diplomatic and sign various accords, and then blatantly disregard their ever existing. Tell me that an African should tolerate living under a Despot such as himself for the rest of their undoubtedly miserable lives.

[edit on 3-10-2008 by cognoscente]

reply to post by cognoscente

---

And yet it was his own population who violently overthrew the Rhodesian government, along with Joshua Nkomo and ZAPU.

It is a logical statement that the malady of Africa is bad governance, combined with entrenched corruption. But it takes a brave man to acknowledge that each time a leader comes into his place, he is supported by the population. Each time, be it a coup or an election, a tyrant is seemingly born.

I hate to say it, but I really do question whether Africa is capable of self-governance. Its a fact that Zimbabwe was better under British rule, Nigeria better under British rule, Mozambique under French rule etc etc. The only country which is still vicious and violent is CR Congo... which is equally brutal as it was under Leopold's belgian rule.

Maybe China should be involved to an even greater extent than they already are? International law is too revered by the West to take any action... perhaps China and India can engage colonialism in Africa to improve the place while expanding their resource base.

Almost nobody will find this an acceptable position politically and I will no doubt be slated for it, but I sincerely think this proposition may be the only way for Africa. Admittedly the proposition is only for temporary stability, but maybe that is all that Africa is capable of?

I really don't think most of those countries are capable of it either. Not in the sense of maintaining large cities, feeding larger populations, sustaining an infrastructure of clean water, basic medical care, etc...

I do not think they will ever be capable of it. But they won't have to take responsibility because they can always blame it on their previous oppressors, or their future oppressors.

[edit on 3-10-2008 by Sonya610]

reply to post by Sonya610

---

You're probably right. And in a sense, the only reason Europeans or Asians actually succeeded was most likely due to luck. The people living in Africa were destined to live the way they do, not because of the interference of industrialized nations, not because of the exploitation of multinational corporations, but because of their own, and I hate to say it, industrial insufficiency. But in a modern world, a complete reversal is entirely possible. Hopefully, Africans living abroad, who have made it big, can lend their philanthropy to a cause as noble as restoring their home continent. That's one way. Communism is another, albeit highly controlled method for increasing industrial production. Basically, whatever happens there, has to be done out of African will alone. This modern world of ours has enough capital to do whatever we want, enough resources to transform any desert into a lush paradise, wherever young entrepreneurs are willing to risk a little cash.

In the end though, it's all the sheep's fault. Easily domesticated animals formed the basis for the success of the Eurasian peoples. This close agrarian relationship contributed to the evolution of very fit people, in a biological sense.


[edit on 3-10-2008 by cognoscente]