http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...duekoue-gbagbo
This story knocked kate off the frontpage :furious3:
Printable View
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...duekoue-gbagbo
This story knocked kate off the frontpage :furious3:
I find it interesting that he's a "pro-democracy activist", yet he refuses to step down when he loses the election. I guess he's only pro-democracy if he's the one who gets to be in charge.Quote:
Who is Laurent Gbagbo?
Born to a Catholic family in 1945, Gbagbo, below, studied at the Sorbonne in Paris and became a history professor. A pro-democracy activist, he served time in prison and was rewarded with the presidency in 2000. He has two wives.
A pretty bad situation, and it's not encouraging that the rebels are committing atrocities on civilians. Another news article I read made it seem to me like the UN and France were siding with the rebels, I think they would be better off not choosing sides, even if Outtara was supposed to be the winner of the election.
I would suggest that the tragedy in the Ivory Coast deserves more than a one-line throw away.
You are indeed right, however, that much of the world's media have been notably quiet on the matter.
The civil war there appears to have entered the endgame, with Gbagbo apparently suing with the UN for peace - or at least, for some degree of protection. I understand that French forces have been involved with some targeted strikes against the "government" forces. However, there are also reports that Gbagbo has changed his mind about surrender.
Since both the UN and France are there (perhaps someone could refer me to the authorisation for the French strikes - does it derive from the UN mandate?) the question about intervention is moot. What do Orgahs think will emerge from this vicious internal conflict? Will the southern support for Gbago be punished by the northern alliance that has brought Ouattara to the presidency - a legitimate but divisive win?
And should the BBC Radio 4 news presenter who last night compared the situation in Ivory Coast with George Bush's controversial 2000 election win, be locked naked in the stocks with a radish up his fundament?
Another colony that after throwing off Evil Oppression from Europeans to go its own independent way to the future... wants the Europeans to come in, sort everything out, police them and sort out the country.
Having one's cake and eating it comes to mind.
~:smoking:
Those were my thoughts exactly. I had to re-read the article like 3 times to make sure I had read it correctly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuchip
You are born into a violent world of exploitation, no doubt some will continue the trendQuote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Europe, as always, has blood on its hands
I think it's absolutely the right thing to do, and it sets the right precedant, unlike Gadaffi. The man lost a democratic election, but having been given ten months grace the local populace and the UN have lost patience, so now he faces helicopter gunships. This was the right point for the UN to intervene, rather than 20-40 years later.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
Can we make it an onion, and can we nail his ears to the headboard?Quote:
And should the BBC Radio 4 news presenter who last night compared the situation in Ivory Coast with George Bush's controversial 2000 election win, be locked naked in the stocks with a radish up his fundament?
Yea I want to take back my second statement saying the UN shouldn't pick sides, it was late at night and I was tired when I wrote that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
No it doesn't. We didn't do this..... I didn't do this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
I wonder why nobody has picked up on the would-be dictator that's slaughtering people to stay in power is christian, while the democratically elected president is muslim.
Yes, that was sarcasm. I know fully well that the european right consists of hypocritical fanatics.
Well of course you didn't. I'm not going to ask you to pay reperations or even give aid just drop the high mighty "Afirca is bad because of Africans, lolz now they are coming back cuz they are being genocided." When these men were born into a violent exploitative world brought own by Euro imperialistsQuote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Strike raises a good point here, and its fascinating how its disregarded by conservatives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Conservatives are always very fond of whining about corrupting the morals of young minds. Stuff like secularism, sex education, etc are all going to corrupt our young and lead to dystopia.
But centuries of violence and oppression? Nah, that doesn't have any impact on the minds of the young or the culture of a region. :dizzy2:
I take things as I find them, Africa is a hole now because of the way it is being run, and it is being run by Africans. I can't change the past, so I am not overly worried about it, in any case your charactarisation is crude - in many places in Africa (i.e. S. Africa) educational standards are actually falling under the post-colonial system, and law and order are deteriorating.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
This particlar African president was so oppressed he went to university in Paris, but his children's generation are so free they all live in huts and are menaced by bandits.
Centuries? Most brutality was after the Worls Wars when the system began to break down.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Well without European intervention, Africa wouldn't exactly be a bastion of the free world. The reality is without colonization Africa would have 0 democracies today.
But this rhetoric about European's having blood on their hands, or Africans crawling back to their European masters, is pretty pointless.
Just deal with things as they are now.
And you seen no correlation between that and aparthied? I'm not a big fan of the revenge tactics the ANC uses to whip up the populace but there is a reason it whips them up, there is a reason they pursue things contradictory to their own interests. It's worth noting most white south africans live out their days in the commenwealth complaining about the hellhole they created while the blacks are stuck footing the billQuote:
I take things as I find them, Africa is a hole now because of the way it is being run, and it is being run by Africans. I can't change the past, so I am not overly worried about it, in any case your charactarisation is crude - in many places in Africa (i.e. S. Africa) educational standards are actually falling under the post-colonial system, and law and order are deteriorating.
A shakesperian tragedy
And that is why we call it exploitation old beanQuote:
This particlar African president was so oppressed he went to university in Paris, but his children's generation are so free they all live in huts and are menaced by bandits
And Ireland would still be a hellhole had the English not had the good sense to give it a leg upQuote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
So would England if it wasn't for the Normans who had been made great by Louis's people and on and on and on and on till were back to Africa sometime around 8million yrs agoQuote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
I was making the point that it's pointless to talk in alternate realities, unless RHY has some sort of machiene that allows to travel to themQuote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
I still <3 you
Sure of course S. African educational standards were higher back in the day when the only stats that mattered were the white ones plus the few people they used to run things for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
The reality is Africa is a hole in a lot of places because of poverty or a lack of strong institutions, colonies are noted for not having strong local institutions as it tends to empower the locals, therefore everything is run in second gear from wherever the centre is.
Usually someone will point to places like Ireland as an example of a democratic former colony but the problem is that the institutions here were strong precisely because London made no distinction constitutionally between Swinford in Co Mayo and Swindon in Wiltshire. (there may have been a inate social bias between the two but that's a differ story)
This helped us greatly in our independence movement as London needed low to mid level civil servants from within Ireland to run the place, after we just continued on the same style of running the place and really just painted the post boxes green is all.
no botherQuote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
None of that is an excuse for firing all the white policemen as soon as you come into office (guess who did that), and then having their replacements outdo the enforcers of Aparteid in brutality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Excuses matter not at all, it is no longer a white man's mess, a white man would struggle to even get elected. Isn't that the current problem with the South African opposition movement, a white woman as leader?
Actually, the Normans turned both England and Ireland into hellholes, but in both cases they have been sidestepped and we are doing reasonably well now, thank you.Quote:
And Ireland would still be a hellhole had the English not had the good sense to give it a leg up
When it comes to Sub-Saharan Africa it's really not that simple as “Europeans created a culture of at least one civil war before breakfast” or whatever dystopia you like. South Africa is the only state that didn't at one point become a total failure, mainly because the people who actually had a clue how to run a state weren't forced out of office as a result of the country being “independent”. That's what the independence meant in most of those African countries: let's boot out the state employees of the former colonists and replace one with people with less experience and sometimes without any clue whatsoever. Watch the corruption and mismanagement go rampant.
Whatever the Europeans did in those years, the Africans went on to make it a thousand times worse for themselves, and that was if they had any sense to stop before needless civil wars and military coups. There are few leaders from Africa which are seen as good, let alone great, and there are even fewer examples of thriving African economies. A major problem is the rampant corruption, for one thing. Africa used to feed itself in the 60's and export surplus food. Now it can barely manage to import enough to stave off the next famine.
So yeah the practical reality is that for a lot of Africans they were better off under the European yoke than they have been since under their own leadership. And that is saying something about how utterly appalling the African leadership has been, since we all know the European ones were no angels either.
The republic has a universal right to intervene on behalf of human rights and liberty. Anywhere, anytime, to the ends of the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
The question is: How come the tyrant has the brutality to think is entitled to supress a people? Why is he supported?
I don't really believe this, the Colonies had strong institutions, you can see this especially in the former Idian and Asian economies, the difference was that in African the institutions were majority-run by colonists, largely because there was no educated local class to work with. Even so - men like Mandela were able to become Lawyers in South Africa and I don't believe there was a ever a "keep the darkies stupid" policy, at least not in British colonies. Rather, the focus was on Westernisation and Christianisation.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
I know this BBC article looks mainly at India but we shouldn't dismiss colonialism as being all bad.
After all, it created relatively strong state institutions, a political class, introduced concepts like democracy etc.
I know I don't have a crystal ball Strike, but African states would have none of the typical preconditions for democracy without European intervention.
Well I don't think you can compare the situation in Ireland and I would argue that it could not be called a colony. But still, yeah, Ireland has some similiarities with the colonies in that English rule still helped haul it out of the dark ages in some respects. As can be testified to by the fact that the heart of the Republic is not out in the middle of Mayo, but in the old centre of Anglo-Irish rule, Dublin, and based a fair bit on the insitutions created there as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
I dont think the policies of pre dismantlment european colonies is realy relevent, the issue here is whether we should take the responsability to aid our former dominions and try to set right the mistakes we made or just or let them sort themselves out. For the record I'd vote for the latter unless we are explicitly asked not to interfere by both loyalist and rebelion factions in these civil wars.
No the colonies had strong central control thats not the same as good institiutions.Quote:
I don't really believe this, the Colonies had strong institutions
you basically agreed with my point then that stronger local empowerment breeds more chance of sucess later, how long do you think these classes of people would have stayed educated if they were kept out of the political and economic system.Quote:
you can see this especially in the former Idian and Asian economies, the difference was that in African the institutions were majority-run by colonists, largely because there was no educated local class to work with.
And it would not have worked if not for the fact that the civil servants using the institutions were basically were the same people who worked in them pre-independence. If London had made a distinction between Ireland and England like they did for places in Africa say back in the 19th century then it is likely we would have had poor institutions ready for use after independence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
That's why India is a sucess because there were plenty people working for the British Raj who were locals and when independence came they stayed continued in there job basically with a new colour on the post box.
I've got to agree with Strike on this one. When you subjugate and exploit a group of people for generations while at the same time stripping them of their cultural institutions and then pack up and leave one day, you cannot really scoff at the chaos the void you've left has created and expect gratitude for gifting them with democracy. It's kind of like the people here in the states who say black people should be thankful to here and not in Africa. :shrug:
Another point would be the borders.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
In Africa, they're not natural or decided by those who live there. The tension between france and germany lead to two world wars, imagine if someone decided to make a state out of western germany and eastern france.... Of course there would be civil war. Like we see in Africa.
Complete rubbish. It wasn't England that hauled Ireland out of the Dark Ages, but Eire that preserved a great deal of Western philosophy and culture through the Dark Ages. You might wish to read outside your narrow sectarian bias. Dublin became important because of the Vikings, not because of the English.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
gaelic cowboy is right about the institutions that existed for takeover by the Republic and the unusual relationship between Britain and Ireland that facilitated a smooth (ish) transition.
It may not have had the fame at that time of Rome or Paris but Dublin was very important trade hub in its own right any city that is around since the 7-8 century must be doing something rightQuote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
It is Ireland which saved West European civilisation during the Dark Ages.
It is England whose intitutes were established by foreign conquerors, hauling it out of the Dark Ages. As can be testified to by the fact that the heart of England is not out in the middle of Yorkshire, but in London at the southwestern extremity, close to the continent from where Celts, Romans, Normans/French brought conquest, colonisation and culture.
To be fair, Anglo-Saxon institutions were considerably more advanced than continental ones at the time of the Conquest - especially in terms of law, commerce and citizens' rights. England was a very rich prize. Yorkshire was actually Danish held from much of the Dark Ages - 'twas Winchester that should have been (and was) the capital of England.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Is there a parallel between Africa today and Britain once the legions had left? If so history suggests that the locals should just be left to themselves, slaughtering and being slaughtered, until someone from outside comes in and stabilises things by gobbling it all up.
Don't be an idoit, everyone knows the only ethnic group below the Shara is blackQuote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
And of course God fearing white SAfricans who are being slaughtered by the blacks whom they gave a guiding Chrisitian hand to all those years, making sure their little brains wouldn't be to overwhelmed by the white mans learning and ways
Most unereving if I do say so myself
I'm fully aware there is basically nothing yall can do to right these wrongs now but in the same vein, dont piss on my boots and tell me its raining
I dunno if there is a parallel as in reality there was not as much slaughter as we like to believe, what changed was that a highly urbanised lifestyle became unsustainable after the legions left. (apparently the "Saxon Invasion" is largely a myth or blown out of proportion"Quote:
Originally Posted by Slyspy
To be fair whoever held Britain would have used London as the capital eventually there was a river useful for both defense and trade plus it was close to rich farmland further south and add in easy access to the North Sea and English Channel. The only other place suitable would be on the Severn but it faces the wrong way for trade from Europe, cities are rarely built purely for administration purposes and when they are they generally are pretty antiseptic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Nobody thought of re-colonisation? Better for us, better for them, we could be more humane this time.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
And the only Ethnic group in Europe is white? And the only ethnic groups in Asia are brown (Indian/Nepalese/Pakistani) or yellow (Chinese, Japanese, Mongolian, etc)?Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
The fact is that there are many different ethnic groups throughout Africa. Only outside of Africa are blacks seen as a single group.
(Do not interpret this comment as an implied support for any other aspect of this discussion)
*taps Jaguara on the shoulder and whispers "SFTS was being ironic" softly but completely not-gay in his ear*Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaguara
You need learn more of Sarcastic Strike. Which is what that post was, 1000%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaguara
LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by Jaguara
Well I just made his point for all the people who are not used to him/didn't get it!Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Embarrassing myself for the betterment of society on a daily basis!
Jaguara
Bonus point is that a common colonialist practice was to enforce a minority as the local ruling class (presumably to control it better). No social tension at all because of this... Tutsi and Tamils is examples that I know of.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
You're just jealous because Sweden dind't have a colony after 1905.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
That should be 1878 I think. I doubt Norway or Wismar enjoy being called colonies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skullheadhq
Checkmate it seems.
one man, one vote................................. once!Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuchip