Kevin Myers Action

Maximilian

bean wrote: »

as per my previous reply:
I dont read them, its when i heard some people around me telling me that africa (edit)deserves what they have and all they do for us is bring disease and unemployment quoting the Myers article. Any point he tries to make about corrupt government was not well made and was dismissive of the misery over there

He stated his opinion, im challenging his statement that the only thing to come out of Africa is aids. Again, i stated many times in my previous replies

If you don't read his articles than how can they upset you? Are you basing your view on hearsay without actually reading the articles themselves?

You are not "challenging his statement". You are writing to the bloody Ombudsman etc. and calling for "action" against Mr. Myers.

bean wrote: »

Agreed, im just sick of these uncontested statements being made, the letters to the editors by way of disagreement are not read by most and Myers notions spread across the country.

Arse. I read the letters, as do others. You have not a shred of evidence to back this up. What's more you clearly dispute peoples right to read Myers and agree with him. Instead you portray his opinion as some kind of virus infecting and brainwashing readers.

Seriously, go back to reading the Daily Mail. It will give you piece of mind in the long run.

[By the way if you're trolling, awesome work]

bean

Maximilian wrote: »

If you don't read his articles than how can they upset you? Are you basing your view on hearsay without actually reading the articles themselves?

You are not "challenging his statement". You are writing to the bloody Ombudsman etc. and calling for "action" against Mr. Myers.



Arse. I read the letters, as do others. You have not a shred of evidence to back this up. What's more you clearly dispute peoples right to read Myers and agree with him. Instead you portray his opinion as some kind of virus infecting and brainwashing readers.

Seriously, go back to reading the Daily Mail. It will give you piece of mind in the long run.

[By the way if you're trolling, awesome work]

Arse biscuits! like i mentioned several times before in several replies i read the article when i heard people refer to it before i wrote to them.

And no i still believe that not every person who reads an article or hears about it from a friend will then look for a corresponding letter about that article in the next few issues of a publication.

Kevin Myers opinion some kind of virus? well put but i wouldnt go that far

Maximilian

bean wrote: »

Arse biscuits! like i mentioned several times before in several replies i read the article when i heard people refer to it before i wrote to them.

And no i still believe that not every person who reads an article or hears about it from a friend will then look for a corresponding letter about that article in the next few issues of a publication.

Kevin Myers opinion some kind of virus? well put but i wouldnt go that far

"Not every person" will look at subsequent letters. Oh no, some people will not be exposed to a rebuttal!

A normal person will read an opinion piece like that and they will either agree with it or disagree. That's how people work. You however think action is needed because people might - of their own volition - agree with Myers, contrary to your own preferences.

And you think Myers' opinions are vile. The irony.

panda100

Maximilian wrote: »

A normal person will read an opinion piece like that and they will either agree with it or disagree. .

But the more and more people are exposed to his racist crap the more it starts to sink in and they start to believe it.

When did you last read an opinion/analysis piece in Irish media praising or championing asylum seekers or travellers in this country?

We're only ever exposed to one side of the coin and not the other and that is why its not realy about 'freedom of speech' but the same racist views being exposed to us again and again without serious rebuttal.

bean

Maximilian wrote: »

[By the way if you're trolling, awesome work]

Troll, moi? Non sir. Now Mr Myers King of the Trolls..

bean

Maximilian wrote: »

And you think Myers' opinions are vile. The irony.

Yep i do think that his opinion that the only thing to come out of Africa is AIDS is vile. Again ive already stated that

bean

panda100 wrote: »

We're only ever exposed to one side of the coin and not the other and that is why its not realy about 'freedom of speech' but the same racist views being exposed to us again and again without serious rebuttal.

Yea gets my goat that

Hrududu

He may be full of ****e but he is entitled to his opinion. The opinion that he should be silenced because of what he thinks is frankly a little chilling. And just reminds me of that stupid Brand/Ross debacle.

bean

Hrududu wrote: »

He may be full of ****e but he is entitled to his opinion. The opinion that he should be silenced because of what he thinks is frankly a little chilling. And just reminds me of that stupid Brand/Ross debacle.

Im objecting to his unfair inacccurate statement that maintains that nothing good comes out of africa only aids. This is valid and im within my rights to complain as mentioned in my previous replies.

It is nothing like the Brand situation as mentioned in my previous replies

dsmythy

panda100 wrote: »

The only 'ism' that coincides with the massive increase in suicide in this country is capitalism. Our suicide rate increased dramatically with the celtic Tiger. The more and more material our country has gotten over the last decade and the more obsessed with money,possesions, apperances etc , Ireland has becomethe more and more we see rates of depression rising and suicide rates elevated.

So by that theory suicides should be going down over the next two years?

Maximilian

bean wrote: »

Troll, moi? Non sir. Now Mr Myers King of the Trolls..

You know, that I almost agree with. He comes out with very provocative opinions that many disagree with but he does cause people to think about the issues where otherwise they might not. The result is, as KM himself puts it:

It will win no friends, and will provoke the self-righteous wrath of, well, the self-righteous, letter-writing wrathful, a species which never fails to contaminate almost every debate in Irish life with its sneers and its moral superiority.

bean wrote: »

Yep i do think that his opinion that the only thing to come out of Africa is AIDS is vile. Again ive already stated that

You are entirely fixated on that one statement, taking it out of context, while ignoring the rest of the article. The point was that Africa takes little responsibility for and is in fact completely responsible for much of its own problems. All that the West's charitable efforts seem to accomplish is provide more people to perpetuate and continue the various wars. Or something to that effect. And yes, they are spreading AIDS.

All that is true but of course, it's just one side of a very multi-faceted story and that does not mean we shouldn't do what we can for the people there. The main motivator for charitable donations is guilt. People tend to donate money to charity for that very reason rather than out of some noble desire to help. If people think Africa's problem are all their own fault, they might be dissuaded from giving to charity. I think the people outraged by KM's comments are outraged so for this reason. Better to ignore the unpalatable truth, lest it stand in the way of the greater good.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

so as the quality of life increases the suicide rate increases? are you seriously making that argument?

as for suicides being selfish, how selfish is it to want someone to stay alive just to make yourself feel better? If they want out, they want out.

Slig

bean wrote: »

Saying that Africa has brought nothing to the world but aids is inaccurate unfair and does spread a kind of hatred that i cant take.

bean wrote: »

id say that it has something to do with the fact that the water supplies in these places dry up and appear somewhere else and living beside a mosquito ridden putrid water source with wild animals nearby isnt healthy

bean wrote: »

perhaps into a warzone or into a city scape that has no employment food or shelter or into a the midst of ethnic cleansing war or perhaps back to another ridden dangerous putrid water supply

Really doin great convincing us Africa has something worthwhile to contribute

bean

Maximilian wrote: »

You know, that I almost agree with. He comes out with very provocative opinions that many disagree with but he does cause people to think about the issues where otherwise they might not. The result is, as KM himself puts it:





You are entirely fixated on that one statement, taking it out of context, while ignoring the rest of the article. The point was that Africa takes little responsibility for and is in fact completely responsible for much of its own problems. All that the West's charitable efforts seem to accomplish is provide more people to perpetuate and continue the various wars. Or something to that effect. And yes, they are spreading AIDS.

All that is true but of course, it's just one side of a very multi-faceted story and that does not mean we shouldn't do what we can for the people there. The main motivator for charitable donations is guilt. People tend to donate money to charity for that very reason rather than out of some noble desire to help. If people think Africa's problem are all their own fault, they might be dissuaded from giving to charity. I think the people outraged by KM's comments are outraged so for this reason. Better to ignore the unpalatable truth, lest it stand in the way of the greater good.

As mentioned in previous replies i have addressed this. For me the article tells me that African nations are entirely victims of their own terrible deeds; this is untrue.

I believe that corrput institutions many of whom are as a result of foreign corporate and government interference in the past are responsible for perpetrating this mess, lord knows they didnt start it though.

Those trying to help must and most do now realise that the institutions there are harming their efforts to help. If Mr Myres is trying to make that point he really did a clumsy job. Instead i read about Africas only tendency is to war and ruin their own country and spread disease to the rest of the world.

This is not an unpalatable truth it is a lie.

bean

Slig wrote: »

Really doin great convincing us Africa has something worthwhile to contribute

The raw materials that we use, the oil that we use, their culture and intellect.

If Africa was given a chance to be the country it could be it would give us more raw materials that are replishable, further contribute to the world economy and culture.

If populations were given chance to be educated paid for with a fair price for commodities instead of them being taken unfairly it could be so much more

Maximilian

bean wrote: »

As mentioned in previous replies i have addressed this. For me the article tells me that African nations are entirely victims of their own terrible deeds; this is untrue.

I believe that corrput institutions many of whom are as a result of foreign corporate and government interference in the past are responsible for perpetrating this mess, lord knows they didnt start it though.

Those trying to help must and most do now realise that the institutions there are harming their efforts to help. If Mr Myres is trying to make that point he really did a clumsy job. Instead i read about Africas only tendency is to war and ruin their own country and spread disease to the rest of the world.

This is not an unpalatable truth it is a lie.

Since you are so knowledgeable, what governments did the West put in power and how did they convince leaders, soldiers & plain ordinary tribesmen to slaughter their own people? You believe? Who in the West is whispering into their ears as they raise a machete to strike?

Where is the lie here? Africa doesn't tend to wage war on itself? It doesn't lead itself to ruin? Its inhabitants don't spread AIDS? Are you disputing the truth of such statements?

Nehaxak

Myers is nothing more than a racist and propagandist and the paper he writes for knows this, supports and champions his racist views.

The Nazi's, their supporters and the propagandist media around them at the time used to do this when they first started to single out jews and ethnic minorities.
Pictures of big nose jews appeared all over along with stories about them, how they are, how they smell, blah blah blah, same kind of shíte being done now by Myers and that piece of shít newspaper.

Same kind of thing, same kind of tried and trusted propaganda technique being used and same kind of inbred idiots reading and agreeing with what's been wrote.

Oh and freedom of speech my arse, gtfo if you even think it has anything to do with that. This is Ireland not America and one only has to look back not so long ago when Irish Republicans weren't even allowed have their voices broadcast to see that freedom of speech in this country means absolutely nothing.
What Myers wrote about Africa and people from Africa is racist, plain and simple racist propaganda and it has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

What he wrote about suicide just fcking disgusts me, what a complete total and utter wanker he is.

bean

Maximilian wrote: »

Since you are so knowledgeable, what governments did the West put in power and how did they convince leaders, soldiers & plain ordinary tribesmen to slaughter their own people? You believe? Who in the West is whispering into their ears as they raise a machete to strike?

Where is the lie here? Africa doesn't tend to wage war on itself? It doesn't lead itself to ruin? Its inhabitants don't spread AIDS? Are you disputing the truth of such statements?

im not so knowledgeable. I know that through unfair trade deals, slavery, blood diamonds for foreign trade, wars raged for oil and other resources sponsored by foreign companies all erode the chance for progress.

This has been going on for years costing the country its future. When you cant afford to build decent infrastructure, increase jobs to help people feed their families only bad things happen such as violence ignorance and even intolerence. Lack of education leads to poor or nonexistant farming methods and help to cause health issues such as the spread of aids. All this could have been paid for with a fairer deal.

Unfortunately once you are on this tragic path it is hard to get off it. The few regimes that continue this misery are as a result of the lack of education and infrastructure and law, this was denied to them as mentioned above.

To say that the only thing to come out of Africa is Aids is a lie despite all its problems and they are not entirely victims of their own failures

Maximilian

bean wrote: »

im not so knowledgeable. I know that through unfair trade deals, slavery, blood diamonds for foreign trade, wars raged for oil and other resources sponsored by foreign companies all erode the chance for progress.

This has been going on for years costing the country its future. When you cant afford to build decent infrastructure, increase jobs to help people feed their families only bad things happen such as violence ignorance and even intolerence. Lack of education leads to poor or nonexistant farming methods and help to cause health issues such as the spread of aids. All this could have been paid for with a fairer deal.

Unfortunately once you are on this tragic path it is hard to get off it. The few regimes that continue this misery are as a result of the lack of education and infrastructure and law, this was denied to them as mentioned above.

To say that the only thing to come out of Africa is Aids is a lie despite all its problems and they are not entirely victims of their own failures

And how do you know all of this would not have occurred anyway? Slavery was in Africa long before Europe landed on their shores. Yes there is exploitation but who pulls the triggers in the end? There is tragedy in Africa and they should be helped but all the help that has been given thus far has not changed anything. Africa is not some sweet innocent, blameless victim. That's a point some people seem to wish swept under the carpet.

And back you go to the AIDS quote. Clearly an exaggeration for effect but never mind. You yourself say "they are not entirely victims of their own failures" - so you therefore accept that they are at least partially responsible for their own failures, no?

Diogenes

Maximilian wrote: »

Since you are so knowledgeable, what governments did the West put in power and how did they convince leaders, soldiers & plain ordinary tribesmen to slaughter their own people? You believe? Who in the West is whispering into their ears as they raise a machete to strike?

Well yes. In the 19th century Belgian Colonists promoted the Hutu's over the Tutsis. They felt the Hutu's were descents of the last of the Atlantian civilisation, and were more intelligent. They were given greater freedom and responsibility. This resentment and cultural difference was the very heart of the Rwandan genocide.

I'm not saying that it's all the Belgian monarchies fault, I'm just point out that our history in Africa is a little more complex than we keep pouring money at them.

Where is the lie here? Africa doesn't tend to wage war on itself? It doesn't lead itself to ruin? Its inhabitants don't spread AIDS? Are you disputing the truth of such statements?

And again, the spread of Aids in Africa started by mainly white European truck drivers going up and down the continent and sleeping with black prostitutes.

I find the attitude in the original piece to be frankly a juvenile pig ignorant worldview of our (the Western World) relationship with Africa.

Yes we give millions in Aid, but we take billions more out. We saddle poor countries with the IMF and World Bank debt that the dictators that ran them into ground built up. Ethopia exports food, and grows coffee a cash crop. Why? because they need cash to service their massive international debt.

We take their natural resources, Shell and other companies will deal and support unsavoury regimes.

It's a complicated issue and seeing it boiled down in such a juvenile simplistic manner as "we shouldn't give them money they'll just more of them and they'll waste is" is just puerile.

dsmythy

Diogenes wrote: »

I'm not saying that it's all the Belgian monarchies fault, I'm just point out that our history in Africa is a little more complex than we keep pouring money at them.

Whoa there, we're not Belgian. I wasn't part of this "we" you talk of.

Diogenes

dsmythy wrote: »

Whoa there, where not Belgian. I wasn't part of this "we" you talk of.

I was generalising about the West.

bean

Maximilian wrote: »

And how do you know all of this would not have occurred anyway? Slavery was in Africa long before Europe landed on their shores. Yes there is exploitation but who pulls the triggers in the end? There is tragedy in Africa and they should be helped but all the help that has been given thus far has not changed anything. Africa is not some sweet innocent, blameless victim. That's a point some people seem to wish swept under the carpet.

And back you go to the AIDS quote. Clearly an exaggeration for effect but never mind. You yourself say "they are not entirely victims of their own failures" - so you therefore accept that they are at least partially responsible for their own failures, no?

In Zaire a corrupt dictator was installed by the CIA to fight communist forces.
Sudan, a dictatiorship backed by China, other govts have propped up these terrible regimes.

There is no way that Africa would be the same nation that that it is now if it was not abused, it would be better off. There is a degree of responsibility that everyone must have but they have only been in control of their own interests for 40 years often less.

Mr Myers does not acknowledge the hard deal that africa has had. His article tells us that Africa is entirely a victim of their own failures

dsmythy

Diogenes wrote: »

I was generalising about the West.

I know.

We're worrying too much about the past and not thinking of the present and future. China is entering Africa now with about the same human rights levels as the Europeans of the 18th and 19th century.

And the Koreans have a plantation going in Madagascar.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7737643.stm

bean

Diogenes wrote: »

Well yes. In the 19th century Belgian Colonists promoted the Hutu's over the Tutsis. They felt the Hutu's were descents of the last of the Atlantian civilisation, and were more intelligent. They were given greater freedom and responsibility. This resentment and cultural difference was the very heart of the Rwandan genocide.

I'm not saying that it's all the Belgian monarchies fault, I'm just point out that our history in Africa is a little more complex than we keep pouring money at them.



And again, the spread of Aids in Africa started by mainly white European truck drivers going up and down the continent and sleeping with black prostitutes.

I find the attitude in the original piece to be frankly a juvenile pig ignorant worldview of our (the Western World) relationship with Africa.

Yes we give millions in Aid, but we take billions more out. We saddle poor countries with the IMF and World Bank debt that the dictators that ran them into ground built up. Ethopia exports food, and grows coffee a cash crop. Why? because they need cash to service their massive international debt.

We take their natural resources, Shell and other companies will deal and support unsavoury regimes.

It's a complicated issue and seeing it boiled down in such a juvenile simplistic manner as "we shouldn't give them money they'll just more of them and they'll waste is" is just puerile.

Belgium, didnt they take the congo and made it the personal possession of the king of Belgium and several million africans died under as a direct result of his policies

bean

dsmythy wrote: »

I know.

We're worrying too much about the past and not thinking of the present and future. China is entering Africa now with about the same human rights levels as the Europeans of the 18th and 19th century.

true enough

Diogenes

dsmythy wrote: »

I know.

We're worrying too much about the past and not thinking of the present and future. China is entering Africa now with about the same human rights levels as the Europeans of the 18th and 19th century.

And the Koreans have a plantation going in Madagascar.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7737643.stm

I'd say Europe is still exploiting Africa it's just gotten more complicated and cleverer, about the manner in which it's doing it.

bean wrote:

Belgium, didnt they take the congo and made it the personal possession of the king of Belgium and several million africans died under as a direct result of his policies

It's difficult to judge the actual numbers, but yes, Conard's book "Heart of Darkness" is based in the Congo and deals with it.

Maximilian

Diogenes wrote: »

Well yes. In the 19th century Belgian Colonists promoted the Hutu's over the Tutsis. They felt the Hutu's were descents of the last of the Atlantian civilisation, and were more intelligent. They were given greater freedom and responsibility. This resentment and cultural difference was the very heart of the Rwandan genocide.

I'm not saying that it's all the Belgian monarchies fault, I'm just point out that our history in Africa is a little more complex than we keep pouring money at them.

I take your point but even then, nobody other than those two tribes themselves decided to kill each other.

Diogenes wrote: »

And again, the spread of Aids in Africa started by mainly white European truck drivers going up and down the continent and sleeping with black prostitutes.

I find the attitude in the original piece to be frankly a juvenile pig ignorant worldview of our (the Western World) relationship with Africa.

Yes we give millions in Aid, but we take billions more out. We saddle poor countries with the IMF and World Bank debt that the dictators that ran them into ground built up. Ethopia exports food, and grows coffee a cash crop. Why? because they need cash to service their massive international debt.

We take their natural resources, Shell and other companies will deal and support unsavoury regimes.

It's a complicated issue and seeing it boiled down in such a juvenile simplistic manner as "we shouldn't give them money they'll just more of them and they'll waste is" is just puerile.

There's something like 22m people in Africa with HIV. That's an awful lot of truck drivers if you don't mind me saying.

As for the rest of it, I think the point Myers was making is that all the help Africa has received and continues to receive seemingly changes nothing and they themselves don't appear to do much to help themselves. Now to what extent that's true is open to debate but I don't see why Myers should be villified for saying it. Many people probably think it anyway.

dsmythy

Diogenes wrote: »

And again, the spread of Aids in Africa started by mainly white European truck drivers going up and down the continent and sleeping with black prostitutes.

I'm sorry, but you'll have to provide a link proving this.

bean

My Myers also talks about the copious aid that was given.

The aid from other countries came mostly in loans with rates that were criminally high the terms of which were not always given. You cant use the money you got from the resource that are being stipped from the country as Mr Myers mentions cause it is only foreign companies that can extract them and the profits go to abroad.

Meanwhile the rates build, no money is being spent on education etc intead most of the GDP goes on paying back loans.