http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7544834.stm
I find it ironic that the former president was in fact elected with the support of the previous military junta, seems to be a trend in Africa, eh?
Any thoughts?
Printable View
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7544834.stm
I find it ironic that the former president was in fact elected with the support of the previous military junta, seems to be a trend in Africa, eh?
Any thoughts?
Colonial rule is underrated. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by SwedishFish
No, we've had enough of those, thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by SwedishFish
Honestly, there's just too much of this going on in Africa for me to care. I've been idling when it comes to catching up with the world and the headlines lately, and I actually had no idea any political unrest going on in Mauritania. Mugabe gets all the attention in Swedish media.
Hehe, true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Innocentius
I had no idea either, africa is the 2 m's mugabe and mandela... occasional mention of nigeria somewhere...
It appears that there was some difficultys within the goverment that set this off..... and some goverment minister are supporting the coup, was it the goverments fault for the coup or where the politicians that left just looking to remove the current govement for thier benefit ?
According to sources, the President fired top generals, the same generals who later orchestrated the coup in response.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
I'm too late! ~:mecry:
Twice the size of France, only a handful of nomads, slavery as the norm, and plenty of newly discovered oil. I was sooo trying to get four hundred adventurous lads together and install myself as dictator. ~:mecry:
Thats the great thing about africa, there always another country ripe for a coup even if someone got to your other choice first ;)
A regime change in [African country] is about as interesting to - and common in - the media as a bombing in [Muslim, Middle Eastern country], a mining accident in [(Old)Communist country], or a smaller (5 or less dead) massacre in [Western country].
I actually fully agree with that sadly. The way European powers abandoned so quickly their colonial posessions is a disgusting blemish on western culture and history. The only thing that makes it worse is the innaction to help fix what they cuased. Seriously one of the statements from celebrities, namely european, that pisses me off the most is saying the USA should pay more to assist the african nations.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
Quite honestly with exceptions to the destruction of civil liberties and the use of african colonials as forced medical guinea pigs. Colonailism was better then what they are going through now. There are very few places were colonies have done well after they've been abandoned by there former masters. India/Australia has to be one of the shinning examples, but then they werent really hastily abandoned. It was gradual, and the powers that be ensured they could handle it.
I'm very sorry on your behalf, Louis; it happens to the best.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
It wasn't either; this was triggered by the president's wish to rid the military's top commanders. AFAIK.Quote:
Originally Posted by Innocentius
I hope the shinning was not too humiliating. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by BigTex
...and Australia could more easily be put in the same category as Canada and the US. The colonists never really left.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigTex
We also weren't subjected to slavery. You are also only taking into account the white experience here, not the experience of our native Aboriginals. I would write more, but I have to go to Uni.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigTex
Sorry my references to Australia and India are merely meant that their governments are the most stable. They are one of the few old colonies that are still functional after their former masters left.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
There really is a big difference between india and australia probably shouldnt have used them together. But still the fact remains it is a former colony that is a first world nation. India is on it's way to becoming a world power, something was truly lost in the decolonization of Africa and the Middle East by European powers.
The USA rebelled, won, gained it's independance. Canada is still a territory of the crown.Quote:
Originally Posted by Panzerjaeger
Australia was colonized more so then africa true. Are you saying that this has lead to it being more stable then the other former colonies? Was the prime belief of colonialism partly true, are these countries incapable of governing themselves?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigTex
I'm saying that modern Australia was built, administrated, and populated by former Europeans who pushed the natives aside and never really cut ties with Europe and Western culture/advancement, much like the USA and Canada. I wouldn't really put that country in the same category as India or Africa, where the indigenous populations were left to try and sort things out.
Panzerjager does have a point.
1. South Africa is one of the few stable mineral rich African countries, and it was run by whites, and did very well for itself.
2. Rhodesia had money coming out of it's earlobes before it became Zimbabwe under Mugabe.
3. Australia is white, has a white majority, and is alot more homogenous than any African country.
India is really the only example of a former British colony maintaining a stable independence, and that's through a strong nationalism and independence movement under Gandhi. The British did allow many Indians into low-level government jobs, ensuring that the bureaucracy was functioning before handing it over to the politicians.
Other African nations had entirely European governments. Namely the Congo (I watched Lumumba).
They were ready, but the Belgians were too ingrained in the system for independence to work.
Actually we have largely severed our cultural ties with England (And soon perhaps our political ties *crosses fingers*) and have now turned in so many ways towards America. Other than that though, I agree with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
Considering the American enthusiasm to break up the old colonial empires post WW2 I find it funny that it is the Europeans who were at fault in acceding to this; oh, and in almost all cases, the locals wanted us out. So we should have stayed as the blacks aren't able to rule themselves - you white supremacist?Quote:
Originally Posted by BigTex
If we'd stayed it was disgusting white supremacy, leaving is disgusting white... erm... callousness.
Colonies that have done relatively well: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India (Pakistan and Bangladesh less so), UAE, Egypt, Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica (debatable). Kenya was an example but no longer. Yes, the ones that worked were let go, the real failures fought for it. Look at Haiti. Fought for independence, by far the worse Caribbean island.
Most African countries are not countries. The problem arises that all stick to the artificial boundries that were drawn. In Europe the boundaries have been in a state of flux with failing countries loosing land and successful ones gaining. Survival of the fittest.
Imagine this in Zimbabwe (or Sierra Leone, Somalia or wherever). It is basically imploding. The surrounding countries could easily take land at the edges, in essence shrinking the size of the problem. If a country feels that it can not engulf any more, it stops.
Kenya has shown that even in the most apparently stable countries one's tribal heritage counts for more than anything else. Engulfing land with an ethnic populace that is similar will be far easier; indeed taking hospital areas will help strengthen the failing country.
Yes. Oddly Like playing Civ 4. Giving the damn continent to a group of 13 year old geeks would arrive at better solutions than the UN and locals have for the last 50 years!
~:smoking:
No it's not. It's a constitutional monarchy, like the United Kingdom. As is Australia and New Zealand.Quote:
The USA rebelled, won, gained it's independance. Canada is still a territory of the crown.
And in steps one of the resident Africa experts.
BigTex, i read your initial entry into this thread and my head nearly exploded, as they would say on the chans, through pure raaaaage. The European powers did not abandon the colonies so quickly. Think about it. You're a country like Britain. You've grown big, fat and rich from having a giant empire. You tried pretty damn hard to hold onto India, but couldn't due to overwhelming opposition. You're still recovering from a war that has left your country broken. Do you want to give up the rest of your empire, an empire that could help get you back on your feet? Of course not. But obviously the natives wouldn't have this. They were quite happy to shove us out, despite having very little experience in running a country.
And then with the great satan gone, they all turn in on themselves. Petty tribal disputes that had been suppressed by 'evil' colonialism resurface, and before you know it, a continent that was once regarded as being a land of riches quickly becomes well known for being one of the few places in the world to contain constant warfare, starvation and general human suffering on a massive scale.
Countries like India and such haven't been successful because of Britain treating them nicely - if anything, we just packed our bags and left. Simple as. And they've done fine. The reason Africa as a whole is a failed nation is because of their own culture. African tribal culture cannot work in the modern world. It cannot work with regards to nation states and general civilized society.
And as had been mentioned, a good example is Rhodesia. White power, it was stable, and had so much money that it was coming out of it's ears and other orifices. It fed most of Africa. Then introduce Chinese-sponsored, marxist guerilla, Robert Gabriel Mugabe into the mix, along with a few insignificant others backed by the USSR. Fighting a war of attrition against the white minority, it was inevitable they would win. And look what happened there. For the first few years, he seemed to be doing quite well. But already the tribal problems were showing, with genocide in Matabeland completely ignored by the world. Why was this genocide against another tribe ignored? Because Mugabe was seen as a hero. He had gotten the 'evil' white man out of power, and handed another African nation back to Africans.
Now he is seen for the evil bastard he truly is, and has made his once beautiful country into another typical African hellhole.
South Africa is going the same way. Apartheid was a truly evil system, but at least the country could be considered a second-world, maybe even first-world country. Under the corrupt leadership of its tribal natives and their failure to maintain law and order, they are now offering a truly unique sight to the world - the first ever first-world country to regress into a third-world country. An entire nation stagnating.
Face it - as long as African tribal culture exists as it does, Africa will be nothing more than a mismanaged, corrupt, brutal and uninhabitable hellhole, the closest thing we can have to hell on Earth.
I would say in fairness for the majority of the ethnic populations of those countries they just swopped poverty under white leaders for poverty under black leaders, sure they where the chosen parts of those populations who were better off under white leaders, i would say except maybe in the case of rhodesia and a few others, im assuming most people would rather have a crap life under thier own guys than a crap life under some foriegners....
We need to clone mandela and send 1 out to each african country, im not sure how well his administration was run but we can be sure he's not a genocidal maniac...
I think getting rid of subsidies and tarrifs on argiculture would be a huge boom for africa....
Why do people think that the poorest countries have the lowest manufacturing costs?Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
The poorest and most underdeveloped countries are threatened by cheaper foreign products flooding them and thus ruining their local economy, not the other way around.
Why do people think that the poorest countries have the lowest manufacturing costs?
you confused me with the word manufacturing here, im talking of farming...
I assumed that people in africa work for much cheaper, rather than use machinery and other expensive equipment they put more (cheap) man hours into farming, so what you end up with is a product that mostly just needed inexpensive labour to produce, whereas a farmer in britian would need to make an income of at least 10,000 to have a decent lifestyle and make it worthwhile (most minimum wage factory jobs would pay equivelent for probably less work...) whereas i hear regularly of africans living on a dollar a day or just a few dollars a day, so even just say 3,000 a year would be a good income for an african farmer....
I always thought the foriegn goods (as in farm goods) were cheaper than african just because of tarrifs and subsidies, or am i wrong on this...
I suppose the equipment used in more mordern countries could make thier farms more productive and thus need less profit of each crop/animal.. i suppose transport costs as there is a less rich domestic market as well ?
I agree with most of what Mikeus said... i too take exception with BigTex on "There are very few places were colonies have done well after they've been abandoned by there former masters. India/Australia has to be one of the shinning examples, but then they werent really hastily abandoned. It was gradual, and the powers that be ensured they could handle it."Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeus Caesar
Britain left India not out of their graciousness but because they could not longer sustain the empire... they had benefited for long but were no longer able to keep it in check...anyways this discussion is not the point of the topic...
I have always felt that the rest of the world has grown/developed (culturally and otherwise) faster than Africa.... their tribal culture still holding them back.
In response to the tribal culture the countries should be split up. Let the different tribes care for their own small patches of lands instead of caring too much for other tribes.
But uhh...is this the case in Mauritania? :inquisitive:
In general Commonwealth countries have done well.
Can add in Malaysia and Singapore to the list of ex-British Empire do wells.
Hong Kong although never a nation is a treasure chest for China, and is an ex-British occupied area.
Fiji is an example of coup-lite. They are holding back their own development because of tribal and racial friction rising above national interests.
Australia is in the same category as New Zealand and Canada. All three have the same head of state as the UK.
India is in the same category as the USA. India with the inspiration of Ghandi rebelled against British rule.
Yes, I'm talking about farming too.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
But anyway, you're underestimating the advantages of industrialism. An industrialized farmer grows a LOT more food than an undeveloped african farmer will. Fertilizers, machinery, etc will all make things more profitable. And I wasn't talking about countries like UK or France, I'm talking about those a level below that, like Brazil. A poor country by our standards with cheap labour, but they have quite advanced agricultural methods, and is very capable of flooding the markets of the poorest countries with cheap food.
Yes, I'm talking about farming too.
But anyway, you're underestimating the advantages of industrialism. An industrialized farmer grows a LOT more food than an undeveloped african farmer will. Fertilizers, machinery, etc will all make things more profitable. And I wasn't talking about countries like UK or France, I'm talking about those a level below that, like Brazil. A poor country by our standards with cheap labour, but they have quite advanced agricultural methods, and is very capable of flooding the markets of the poorest countries with cheap food.
I suppose i didn't consider that, i was just thinking of 1st world compared to 3rd world, was i right in that sense though, can a 3rd world farmer beat a unsubsidised 1st world farmer for price ?
How could we help them compete with 2nd world farmers, would simply giving them equipment and fertilisers be a good solution (though i suppose anything needing fuel could be an issue...)