Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Myers on Africa...
Options
Comments
-
Of course it's attractive in the short term like a shiny bauble you see in the shop but once you get it home you realise you didn't really need it, it wasn't as amazing as you thought it was and now what the hell are you going to do with all the packaging.
Agreed. A combination of all these things above makes me think we are in big trouble (to put it mildly).0 -
a few here keeps on assuming that dropping populations are a bad thing
why?
just because theres less slaves to pay your pension is not a valid reason, whats wrong with saving for own pension/retirement?
less people => less pressure on environment
less people => more wealth passed on to the siblings
less people => more resources left for siblings
one of the factors attributing to population slowdown is increased education, people just realize that you can have 1-2 children and give them the best advantage and attention
I believe the world is over-populated. There are major issues to face with a declining population, I believe however they are easier to solve than the issues that come with a rapidly increasing population.
Dropping poulations are considered a bad thing by economists because it limits the market and by politicians because it lessens your level of influence in the world. The bigger the country the more clout they have. I agree with neither.0 -
I would suggest that the fact that western populations are declining so markedly has the potential to create much strife.
1) In Europe many services depend on tax intake to pay for them. As populations get older the need for services (notably health) becomes greater, but the means to pay for them diminishes with the tax take. Looking at Spain and Italy for instance, this will be a huge problem. Social democracy might not be feasible a few decades hence.
2) European states are often co-terminous with nations that have strong senses of historic, ethnic identities. Nations are protective and culturally proud of 'their ways'. Bringing in migrants is one way to address the population problem, but as numbers in crease the potential for the balkanisation of communities and cities, as well as the rise of extremism, increases. If most of the immigrants come from superstitious and benighted regions, and if there is a failure to integrate or to form a cohesive society, this is a real problem for civic and social stability. Expect more Geert Wilders type characters and French riots in the next twenty years, not less.
* Disclaimer: I am not a believer in the Eurabia prediction of Bat Y'eor et al., nor am I in any way nationalistic (I consider myself a post-nationalist), but these are problems for the societies we live in. Declining human population might be good for the Earth and biodiversity, but within humanity, such a demographic discrepancy between rich and poor/educated and uneducated, in the scramble for resources, might prove devastating.0 -
I would suggest that the fact that western populations are declining so markedly has the potential to create much strife.
1) In Europe many services depend on tax intake to pay for them. As populations get older the need for services (notably health) becomes greater, but the means to pay for them diminishes with the tax take. Looking at Spain and Italy for instance, this will be a huge problem. Social democracy might not be feasible a few decades hence.
2) European states are often co-terminous with nations that have strong senses of historic, ethnic identities. Nations are protective and culturally proud of 'their ways'. Bringing in migrants is one way to address the population problem, but as numbers in crease the potential for the balkanisation of communities and cities, as well as the rise of extremism, increases. If most of the immigrants come from superstitious and benighted regions, and if there is a failure to integrate or to form a cohesive society, this is a real problem for civic and social stability. Expect more Geert Wilders type characters and French riots in the next twenty years, not less.
* Disclaimer: I am not a believer in the Eurabia prediction of Bat Y'eor et al., nor am I in any way nationalistic (I consider myself a post-nationalist), but these are problems for the societies we live in. Declining human population might be good for the Earth and biodiversity, but within humanity, such a demographic discrepancy between rich and poor/educated and uneducated, in the scramble for resources, might prove devastating.
I don't see how bringing in massive amounts of immigrants solves the problem though. All it will do is delay it for a few years. You will then need more again to pay for the traditional population plus the original immigrants in a never ending upwards spiral. Anyway this isn't an immigration discussion so I'll leave it there.
The demographic discrepancy you mention is one of the major issues, with the overall size imo being the greatest dilemma of all.0 -
bill_ashmount wrote: »I don't see how bringing in massive amounts of immigrants solves the problem though. All it will do is delay it for a few years. You will then need more again to pay for the traditional population plus the original immigrants in a never ending upwards spiral. Anyway this isn't an immigration discussion so I'll leave it there.
The demographic discrepancy you mention is one of the major issues, with the overall size imo being the greatest dilemma of all.
everyone is forgetting the big elephant in the room
technology
dropping population doesn't necessarily need to mean dropping productivity since technology is a large variable
Ireland is a prime example, are we not richer and more productive now with half the people we had in the 19th century?0 -
Advertisement
-
everyone is forgetting the big elephant in the room
technology
dropping population doesn't necessarily need to mean dropping productivity since technology is a large variable
Ireland is a prime example, are we not richer and more productive now with half the people we had in the 19th century?
I read somewhere the Japanese are making a huge push on robot technology to address their declining population. When and what they come up with will be interesting.0 -
It’s a possibility, but we’re talking worst-case scenario here. People have been migrating from developing countries to Europe for a whole lot longer than any of us have been around and the predictions of doom have yet to come to pass – Europe is still here and is doing pretty well for itself, current economic difficulties aside.2) European states are often co-terminous with nations that have strong senses of historic, ethnic identities. Nations are protective and culturally proud of 'their ways'. Bringing in migrants is one way to address the population problem, but as numbers in crease the potential for the balkanisation of communities and cities, as well as the rise of extremism, increases. If most of the immigrants come from superstitious and benighted regions, and if there is a failure to integrate or to form a cohesive society, this is a real problem for civic and social stability. Expect more Geert Wilders type characters and French riots in the next twenty years, not less.
And besides, do we really have an alternative? There’s no way we can force people to have kids, so the only alternative (unless I’m overlooking something) is immigration. Not only will this provide Europe with the population balance it requires, it also relieves the pressure a little on developing nations (although it well inevitably result in a ‘brain-drain’ to some degree), but, more importantly, it is one of the most effective forms of ‘aid’ there is – remittances sent home by the emigrant raise the standard of living of their family/community, slowly lifting people out of poverty.
One other thing, from Myers’ article:
This guy seriously needs to take out an atlas and observe the fact that Africa is about three times the size of Europe and making generalisations about the entire continent is about as meaningful as making comparisons between Ireland and Belarus. It’s also important to consider different aspects of aid, rather than dismissing it out of hand as ineffective simply because Ethiopia is still poor (from our perspective).Ethiopia is the sterling exemplar of why it's time we seriously re-examined our responses to the gathering catastrophe that is Africa.0 -
It’s a possibility, but we’re talking worst-case scenario here. People have been migrating from developing countries to Europe for a whole lot longer than any of us have been around and the predictions of doom have yet to come to pass – Europe is still here and is doing pretty well for itself, current economic difficulties aside.
And besides, do we really have an alternative? There’s no way we can force people to have kids, so the only alternative (unless I’m overlooking something) is immigration. Not only will this provide Europe with the population balance it requires, it also relieves the pressure a little on developing nations (although it well inevitably result in a ‘brain-drain’ to some degree), but, more importantly, it is one of the most effective forms of ‘aid’ there is – remittances sent home by the emigrant raise the standard of living of their family/community, slowly lifting people out of poverty.
One other thing, from Myers’ article:
This guy seriously needs to take out an atlas and observe the fact that Africa is about three times the size of Europe and making generalisations about the entire continent is about as meaningful as making comparisons between Ireland and Belarus. It’s also important to consider different aspects of aid, rather than dismissing it out of hand as ineffective simply because Ethiopia is still poor (from our perspective).
I think there is an alternative. European countries could provide incentives to families to have more children, then we would not have to import workers. This would avoid many of the problems associated with integration and riots(such as in France in 2005). For some reason the EU does not seem to be willing to look at this as a solution.
I think the idea Vladimir Putin has of offering cash to families who have many kids is a good one and could be used by the EU.0 -
I think there is an alternative. European countries could provide incentives to families to have more children, then we would not have to import workers. This would avoid many of the problems associated with integration and riots(such as in France in 2005). For some reason the EU does not seem to be willing to look at this as a solution.
I think the idea Vladimir Putin has of offering cash to families who have many kids is a good one and could be used by the EU.
These incentives don't tend to work. People won't have an extra child for a few thousand dollars. It would be a lifetime of work that many aren't prepared for.
Nearly every country in the world will have to face this issue in this century. Europe seems more open to immigration although for how much longer I am not sure. Other developed countries such as Japan and South Korea will not allow immigration into their societies.0 -
I think there is an alternative. European countries could provide incentives to families to have more children, then we would not have to import workers. This would avoid many of the problems associated with integration and riots(such as in France in 2005). For some reason the EU does not seem to be willing to look at this as a solution.
I think the idea Vladimir Putin has of offering cash to families who have many kids is a good one and could be used by the EU.
once again
you assume that falling population is a bad thing? why??
a solution to a world with dwindling resources is to keep increasing the human population? i see....
heres a question for people to think about
would you like your /grandchildren in 2109 to:
a) live in a world where the population has stabilized at around 5 billion people and everyone is relatively well off
b) live in a world with 15 billion people and everyone is fighting over dwindling resources?0 -
Advertisement
-
bill_ashmount wrote: »These incentives don't tend to work. People won't have an extra child for a few thousand dollars. It would be a lifetime of work that many aren't prepared for.
Nearly every country in the world will have to face this issue in this century. Europe seems more open to immigration although for how much longer I am not sure. Other developed countries such as Japan and South Korea will not allow immigration into their societies.
not only developed countries have this problem
China who everyone assumes is the next big thing has huge gender imbalance and a rapidly aging population0 -
not only developed countries have this problem
China who everyone assumes is the next big thing has huge gender imbalance and a rapidly aging population
China is heading towards something like 120 men for every 100 women. They have started to implement policies now though to resdress the situation. If they don't the country will fall apart. They could be left with a lot of angry men with a lot of pent up pressure
I believe India has a male bias problem as well.0 -
heres a question for people to think about
would you like your /grandchildren in 2109 to:
a) live in a world where the population has stabilized at around 5 billion people and everyone is relatively well off
b) live in a world with 15 billion people and everyone is fighting over dwindling resources?
This to me is the ultimate question, how many people can the world support at an equal standard of living? I would guess 5 billion at most. We are currently at 6.8 billion and seem to be making a mess of everything and that's with wide variations in living standards.0 -
once again
you assume that falling population is a bad thing? why??
While I can't answer for the other poster, and while I agree with you fundamentally that less is better, I am concerned about the falling population of Europe because it contrasts so starkly with the surge in population in regions of the world that are not exactly known for their progressivism and tolerance. It is the discrepancy that bothers me. My preference would be for a worldwide fall in population.0 -
While I can't answer for the other poster, and while I agree with you fundamentally that less is better, I am concerned about the falling population of Europe because it contrasts so starkly with the surge in population in regions of the world that are not exactly known for their progressivism and tolerance.
I hesitate to point this out, but the for the last hundred years, Europe hasn't been a shining beacon of progressivism and tolerance. 60 years ago, large portions of Europe were going out of their way to engage in mass ethic cleansing, less than 20 years ago Bosnia and Herzegovina was the site of mass genocide, and are now currently applying for EU membership.
If anything the story of Europe over the last 30 years, is how quickly progressive societal changes happen.
Those who claim there is no longer a "White Man's Burden" (a fantastically racist term coined by that bigot Kipling) the West's involvement in Africa didn't finish in the rash of independence that occured post WWII, both the Soviet Union and the US treated Africa like a giant chessboard during the height of the cold war, with each side, funding and supplying dictatorships, juntas, rebels and coups. One needs to only look at Uganda for the tragic story of post colonial africa. Often these funded dictators racked up massive debts to the World Bank and the IMF, and once deposed these organisations now insisted that the democratic regimes honour these debts, leaving these countries incapable of basic infrastructure spending.
Myers argue is as usual simplistic, patronising with an underlying air of racism and bigotry.0 -
Furet wrote:I am concerned about the falling population of Europe because it contrasts so starkly with the surge in population in regions of the world that are not exactly known for their progressivism and tolerance. It is also the discrepancy that bothers me.
You could nearly call it a kind of global dysgenics. The average IQ of the world's population is likely to be much lower in fifty years from now than it is today. We're living in a century in which serious brain-power will be required to solve some serious global problems and so the fall in global intelligence could have serious consequences for the survival of our advanced civilization.
And what makes it worse is that the global discrepancy in population growth will be replicated within countries. Not only will population growth be higher in the poorer and least educated parts of the world, but within countries themselves, the poorest, least-educated, least-productive elements will account for a disproportionate amount of the growth in those populations. Very depressing altogether.0 -
I hesitate to point this out, but the for the last hundred years, Europe hasn't been a shining beacon of progressivism and tolerance. 60 years ago, large portions of Europe were going out of their way to engage in mass ethic cleansing, less than 20 years ago Bosnia and Herzegovina was the site of mass genocide, and are now currently applying for EU membership.
Agreed.If anything the story of Europe over the last 30 years, is how quickly progressive societal changes happen.
Given certain pre-requisites, yes.
I think the tribal nature of society is a big limiting factor in the advancement of African countries. Europe's nations are much more cohesive. That cohesion developed gradually over centuries, but the physical geography of Europe helped. Its east-west orientation and temperate lattitude for instance meant that climate across the continent was fairly static and benign, and this in turn led to the development of agriculture, cities, trade and nations. Africa has been afforded no such luxury, and has remained tribal and on the breadline. I'm not oblivious to imperialism and its affects, but longer term factors cannot be ignored: fundamentally, tribal strife is a major issue for Africa; it hinders its social, cultural, civic and political development, and there's very little anyone can do about that, apart from Africans themselves.0 -
And besides, do we really have an alternative? There’s no way we can force people to have kids, so the only alternative (unless I’m overlooking something) is immigration. Not only will this provide Europe with the population balance it requires, it also relieves the pressure a little on developing nations (although it well inevitably result in a ‘brain-drain’ to some degree), but, more importantly, it is one of the most effective forms of ‘aid’ there is – remittances sent home by the emigrant raise the standard of living of their family/community, slowly lifting people out of poverty.
I think it is very immoral to suggest we can solve our problems by importing humans from poorer countries. As others have mentioned already, Japan is investing heavily in robotic technology to combat the ageing problem. Having a huge population will surely be a disadvantage as technology progresses and more low end jobs continue to disappear.0 -
Sesshoumaru wrote: »I think it is very immoral to suggest we can solve our problems by importing humans from poorer countries. As others have mentioned already, Japan is investing heavily in robotic technology to combat the ageing problem. Having a huge population will surely be a disadvantage as technology progresses and more low end jobs continue to disappear.
Importing people doesn't solve the problem it just delays it by a few years. Economic and political concerns are generally concerned with the present rather than the future though.0 -
Agreed.
Given certain pre-requisites, yes.
I think the tribal nature of society is a big limiting factor in the advancement of African countries. Europe's nations are much more cohesive. That cohesion developed gradually over centuries, but the physical geography of Europe helped. Its east-west orientation and temperate lattitude for instance meant that climate across the continent was fairly static and benign, and this in turn led to the development of agriculture, cities, trade and nations.
No sorry the huge majority of Africa is suitable for argiculture. And in terms of mineral wealth and natural resources it's still far more rich than Europe.Africa has been afforded no such luxury, and has remained tribal and on the breadline. I'm not oblivious to imperialism and its affects, but longer term factors cannot be ignored: fundamentally, tribal strife is a major issue for Africa; it hinders its social, cultural, civic and political development, and there's very little anyone can do about that, apart from Africans themselves.
Part of the problem is that African countries were carved up on arbitrary lines by the colonialists, and when they left the borders remained the, but there was no tribal or social cohesion to these nations. For example the Rwandan Genocide can trace its routes to Belgium colonial inference between the Hutus and Tutsu.
However in a similar vein, the Soviet carve up of Eastern Europe post WW2 led to social and ethic groups being lumped together. We can't stand over African aloof and feeling superior and european, when we're still holding war crimes tribunals in the hague.0 -
Advertisement
-
theres one thing that Myers and others here are very wrong about
they view Africa as a basket case, and some of Myers comments are downright racist and i believe that landed him in trouble before
while it should be viewed as an opportunity (as the Chineese are doing to their advantage)
A Marshall Plan of sorts would:
1. bring people out of poverty and set them on a path (Model it after EU minus a few decades)
2. create new markets to export to
It worked before between the US and Europe after WW2, why not now?
Hes right about one thing, giving aid shows no respect and usually kills local economies
Providing investment on the other hand me thinks is a much more worthwhile task, and surely the people would appreciate that in same way as we in Ireland appreciate investment too
its all about respect0 -
I don't think I want to know what a Marshall Plan for Africa would cost. In Europe you had a technologically savvy populace with a pretty hefty density and a fairly good infrastructure.
Africa is simply huge.
NTM0 -
No sorry the huge majority of Africa is suitable for argiculture. And in terms of mineral wealth and natural resources it's still far more rich than Europe.
I am not saying that you can't grow things in Africa. I am saying that over the millenia, African geography has inhibited the development of forms of agriculture that enabled Europe to urbanise and advance at a rate which Africa could not match, and that this enabled European peoples to shed their tribalism to make way for kingdoms, empires and states that were regulated, urban, and altogether more homogenous than most African societies.
I am taking my cue from no less an authority than Jared Diamond here:Ask someone to tell you quickly what they associate with Africa, and the answers you'll get will probably range from "cradle of humankind" and "big animals" to "poverty" and "tribalism." How did one continent come to embody such extremes?
Geography and history go a long way toward providing the explanations. Geographically, Africa resembles a bulging sandwich. The sole continent to span both the north and south temperate zones, it has a thick tropical core lying between one thin temperate zone in the north and another in the south. That simple geographic reality explains a great deal about Africa today.
As to its human history, this is the place where some seven million years ago the evolutionary lines of apes and protohumans diverged. It remained the only continent our ancestors inhabited until around two million years ago, when Homo erectus expanded out of Africa into Europe and Asia. Over the next 1.5 million years the populations of those three continents followed such different evolutionary courses that they became distinct species. Europe's became the Neandertals, Asia's remained Homo erectus, but Africa's evolved into our own species, Homo sapiens. Sometime between 100,000 and 50,000 years ago our African ancestors underwent some further profound change. Whether it was the development of complex speech or something else, such as a change in brain wiring, we aren't sure. Whatever it was, it transformed those early Homo sapiens into what paleoanthropologists call "behaviorally modern" Homo sapiens. Those people, probably with brains similar to our own, expanded again into Europe and Asia. Once there, they exterminated or replaced or interbred with Neandertals and Asia's hominins and became the dominant human species throughout the world.
In effect, Africans enjoyed not just one but three huge head starts over humans on other continents. That makes Africa's economic struggles today, compared with the successes of other continents, particularly puzzling. It's the opposite of what one would expect from the runner first off the block. Here again geography and history give us answers.
It turns out that the rules of the competitive race among the world's humans changed radically about 10,000 years ago, with the origins of agriculture. The domestication of wild plants and animals meant our ancestors could grow their own food instead of having to hunt or gather it in the wild. That allowed people to settle in permanent villages, to increase their populations, and to feed specialists—inventors, soldiers, and kings—who did not produce food. With domestication came other advances, including the first metal tools, writing, and state societies.
The problem is that only a tiny minority of wild plants and animals lend themselves to domestication, and those few are concentrated in about half a dozen parts of the world. As every schoolchild learns, the world's earliest and most productive farming arose in the Fertile Crescent of southwestern Asia, where wheat, barley, sheep, cattle, and goats were domesticated. While those plants and animals spread east and west in Eurasia, in Africa they were stopped by the continent's north-south orientation. Crops and livestock tend to spread much more slowly from north to south than from east to west, because different latitudes require adaptation to different climates, seasonalities, day lengths, and diseases. Africa's own native plant species—sorghum, oil palm, coffee, millets, and yams—weren't domesticated until thousands of years after Asia and Europe had agriculture. And Africa's geography kept oil palm, yams, and other crops of equatorial Africa from spreading into southern Africa's temperate zone. While South Africa today boasts the continent's richest agricultural lands, the crops grown there are mostly northern temperate crops, such as wheat and grapes, brought directly on ships by European colonists. Those same crops never succeeded in spreading south through the thick tropical core of Africa.
The domesticated sheep and cattle of Fertile Crescent origins took about 5,000 years to spread from the Mediterranean down to the southern tip of Africa. The continent's own native animals—with the exception of guinea fowl and possibly donkeys and one breed of cattle—proved impossible to domesticate. History might have turned out differently if African armies, fed by barnyard-giraffe meat and backed by waves of cavalry mounted on huge rhinos, had swept into Europe to overrun its mutton-fed soldiers mounted on puny horses. That this didn't happen was no fault of the Africans; it was because of the kinds of wild animals available to them.
Ironically, the long human presence in Africa is probably the reason the continent's species of big animals survive today. African animals co-evolved with humans for millions of years, as human hunting prowess gradually progressed from the rudimentary skills of our early ancestors. That gave the animals time to learn a healthy fear of man, and with it a healthy avoidance of human hunters. In contrast, North and South America and Australia were settled by humans only within the last tens of thousands of years. To the misfortune of the big animals of those continents, the first humans they encountered were already fully modern people, with modern brains and hunting skills. Most of those animals—woolly mammoths, saber-toothed cats, and in Australia marsupials as big as rhinoceroses—disappeared soon after humans arrived. Entire species may have been exterminated before they had time to learn to beware of hunters.
Unfortunately the long human presence in Africa also encouraged something else to thrive—diseases. The continent has a well-deserved reputation for having spawned some of our nastiest ones: malaria, yellow fever, East African sleeping sickness, and AIDS. These and many other human illnesses arose when microbes causing disease in animals crossed species lines to evolve into a human disease. For a microbe already adapted to one species to adapt to another can be difficult and require a lot of evolutionary time. Much more time has been available in Africa, cradle of humankind, than in any other part of the planet. That's half the answer to Africa's disease burden; the other half is that the animal species most closely related to humans—those whose microbes required the least adaptation to jump species—are the African great apes and monkeys.
Africa continues to be shaped in other ways by its long history and its geography. Of mainland Africa's ten richest countries—the only ones with annual per capita gross domestic products over $3,500—nine lie partly or entirely within its temperate zones: Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco in the north; and Swaziland, South Africa, Botswana, and Namibia in the south. Gabon is Africa's only tropical country to make the list. In addition, nearly a third of the countries of mainland Africa (15 out of 47) are landlocked, and the only African river navigable from the ocean for long distances inland is the Nile. Since waterways provide the cheapest way to transport cumbersome goods, geography again thwarts Africa's progress.
See the link below for Diamond's optimistic views on future possibilities.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0509/resources_geo2.html0 -
Manic Moran wrote: »I don't think I want to know what a Marshall Plan for Africa would cost. In Europe you had a technologically savvy populace with a pretty hefty density and a fairly good infrastructure.
Africa is simply huge.
NTM
some interesting facts and figures....Jim Bianco of Bianco Research crunched the inflation adjusted numbers. The bailout has cost more than all of these big budget government expenditures – combined:
• Marshall Plan: Cost: $12.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $115.3 billion
• Louisiana Purchase: Cost: $15 million, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $217 billion
• Race to the Moon: Cost: $36.4 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $237 billion
• S&L Crisis: Cost: $153 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $256 billion
• Korean War: Cost: $54 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $454 billion
• The New Deal: Cost: $32 billion (Est), Inflation Adjusted Cost: $500 billion (Est)
• Invasion of Iraq: Cost: $551b, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $597 billion
• Vietnam War: Cost: $111 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $698 billion
• NASA: Cost: $416.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $851.2 billion
TOTAL: $3.92 trillion
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2008/11/big-bailouts-bigger-bucks/
btw NAMA @ €90 billion euro == €132 billion dollars....0 -
I am not saying that you can't grow things in Africa. I am saying that over the millenia, African geography has inhibited the development of forms of agriculture that enabled Europe to urbanise and advance at a rate which Africa could not match, and that this enabled European peoples to shed their tribalism to make way for kingdoms, empires and states that were regulated, urban, and altogether more homogenous than most African societies.
I am taking my cue from no less an authority than Jared Diamond here:
See the link below for Diamond's optimistic views on future possibilities.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0509/resources_geo2.html
African geography did not inhibit growth or improvement of agriculture. If anything the poverty of resources available in Europe is what caused people here to be forced to expand in different ways. The history of Europe is littered with such resource based struggles, such as the Viking invasions or the colonisation of Ireland by England for instance.
I have read the article you linked before but was not impressed, it provides the usual arguments for moral and racial superiority of the West, albeit written in a less jagged way than it used to be. The application of the term tribalism as a means of defining the whole of Africa is itself a lazy, half assed means of establishing the writers superiority. Is this tribalism to be pinned on the Ancient Egyptians, or the Moorish empire, which was so backward and tribal that it was only capable of controlling Portugal and Spain for 800 years? It is applied to the Central African region of the DRC, Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi all the time nowadays, conviently ignoring the fact that the 'tribal' distinctions (in the Hutu/Tutsi example) were created by the Belgian colonists and have no basis in realities of archaeology or language.0 -
Myers argue is as usual simplistic, patronising with an underlying air of racism and bigotry.
A case of evil whitey keeping the black man down, huh?:rolleyes:
The only racism in Africa, is aimed at the white population. Take South Africa for example, where thousands of white farmers were murdered. Why? For being white. Yet the MSM fail to report this fact, I wonder why.
http://www.zasucks.com/?p=6151#comments
**Upsetting photos. Not for the squeamish.0 -
A case of evil whitey keeping the black man down, huh?:rolleyes:
The only racism in Africa, is aimed at the white population. Take South Africa for example, where thousands of white farmers were murdered. Why? For being white. Yet the MSM fail to report this fact, I wonder why.
http://www.zasucks.com/?p=6151#comments
**Upsetting photos. Not for the squeamish.
the British occupied and apertheided the Irish
and we killed a pile of them last few centuries
omg Racism!
dont confuse racism with sectarianism or age old blood feuds0 -
the British occupied and apertheided the Irish
and we killed a pile of them last few centuries
omg Racism!
dont confuse racism with sectarianism or age old blood feuds
The Irish Republic has been free from British rule since 1948. How many British citizens have Irish citizens raped, beaten and tortured to death for, well being British?0 -
The Irish Republic has been free from British rule since 1948. How many British citizens have Irish citizens raped, beaten and tortured to death for, well being British?
you confusing very bad crime situation (due to poverty caused by a racist apertheid) with racism
as for your question i dont know go ask the IRA
anyways why are you trying to hijack/derail a thread ?0 -
Advertisement
-
you confusing very bad crime situation (due to poverty caused by a racist apertheid) with racism
No, no I am not.
Once again, Myers makes some interesting point about Africa. Predictably enough, the lefties all condemn him for being racist. The only racism in Africa today, is being directed at caucasians. In South Africa thousands of whites have been murdered for being white. In South Africa 33% of all men admit to being a rapist. In less than 9 months, a world cup will be held in this hell hole.:mad:0
Advertisement