My rant on Africa - Issue 9

[ukyp]

http://www.ukyouthparliament.org.uk/ukypdebatable/issue9/africa.pdf

Four years ago an African country made an announcement that shocked the economic and political world. This announcement was not greeted with pride or happiness, instead it was greeted with fear and panic, and what followed was extensive interference from the West in this country’s affairs to stop other African countries following suit. This announcement was made by then President of Nigeria, Olusegun Obasanjo. He said, “Nigeria is no longer in debt to the West, we have paid off all our debts.”

The main problem with Africa is not corrupt leaders, nor tribalism, it isn’t even poverty. The main problem with Africa is that Western people think they are helping, and Western governments and multinationals pretend they are helping. When we give all our aid, what are we building, a strong continent or a dependant one? Africa has over a third of the world’s natural resources, so it certainly is not money these people need.

Africa has corrupt leaders, who preside over dictatorships. Sounds very much like Europe a few centuries back, and if Europe has become the perfect continent it so obviously is, shouldn’t Africa be given the chance?

I am not condoning the dictators, but I am saying that Africa is a product of the landscape that was raped and pillaged by the West. That landscape, as barren as it is now, can develop, if given the opportunity, but not with the patronising help (gifts) of the hand that brought it to its knees.

In another lifetime the West supported Mugabe. In this lifetime they don’t. He is a truly evil man, I agree, but let me tell you the other side. Here is a man who on coming to power, saw a country in debt to the West, who saw a country that though independent was also subservient. Here is a man who saw a country of 99% blacks, yet it was estimated that 80% of the wealth was with the minority whites. Here is a desperate man.

Then look at Nigeria where all the Western multinationals hire foreigners to do work, and it is not due to a lack of skills. Find a head of the African arm of a multinational company that is black, and I will find you twenty that are white.

Then you have the aid charities who do such a brilliant job of creating a dependence culture. They feed the hungry today, and then feed them again tomorrow. Why don’t we all just sponsor an African child for LIFE? Governments will never take responsibility for their people while they have do gooders to do it for them.

Then we have the EU’s protectionist laws on farmed goods. The EU will happily sell to Africa, but if it is not oil or diamonds, it becomes pedantic in terms of buying, impoverishing many African farmers, who have turned to dealing with the Chinese, who offer missiles and guns in return for food out of their abundant kindness.

This sums up for me the West’s dealings in Africa. It is neither fair, and rarely is it trade. It is more like highway robbery, then giving the victim some of the money back as a gift. If many African nations had not become so dependent on the west, they would reply as Obasanjo replied, and they too would spurn such an offer. So as someone told me a few months ago, and I say now, let Africa be Africa.

[Hamsterwaffle]

So we should be ashamed that we put our own interests first? Because I am sure the Africans think about how their government's actions will impact upon us.........

[Austin Sheridan]

I think thats a little unfair Hamsterwaffle.

I think that we should try and help Africa as much as we can (without invading). We should be trying to help set up the the African union (AU) so that we can try and get other African nations to put pressure on other African nations like Zimbabwe and other dictatorships to hold democratic elections. This would be an improvement in my view if the AU started to work towards things like this.

[orcprocess]

Why?

They chose to become indpendent from the British empire so they should sort their own problems out.

[Marcus89]

Why?

They chose to become indpendent from the British empire so they should sort their own problems out.

I'm not sure if the British Empire is the right line to go down. Although in priniciple I agree with you, and HamsterWaffle too. This isn't because we're cold hearted and xyenphobes. It's simple the reasoning of why should we use our resources to help other nations, when we need to help ourselves? Granted we have an impact on the rest of the international community as a result of some decisions, and we try to balance that. However, in my eyes my country comes first.

[Hamsterwaffle]

I think thats a little unfair Hamsterwaffle.

Austin, just something I would like to point out. You see that bit in your signature, the bit that says "The first priority of the Scottish Government are the People of Scotland", aside from the grammar error, do you realise that I created the phrase, albeit applying it to the whole UK, in order to use it to argue for the very thing you are arguing against.

[EmmaGallen]

If Britain was able to rape the resources from Africa for so long, they can payt the price for helping it get back on its feet.

[Fred]

If Britain was able to rape the resources from Africa for so long, they can payt the price for helping it get back on its feet.

But we raped the resources from parts of Africa because it was part of the British Empire!! When they decided to leave the British Empire, why should we pay the price when they were the ones who wanted indepence!!

[Paul]

But we raped the resources from parts of Africa because it was part of the British Empire!! When they decided to leave the British Empire, why should we pay the price when they were the ones who wanted independence!!

That doesn't sound too logical - "We invaded them and brought all the profit from their land back to London and kept it in the hands of Englishmen, they wanted fairness and independence - so we excluded them from our markets and it's all their fault for not wanting to be governed according to the best interests of residents of the United Kingdom".

[Fred]

But we raped there resources while we were there, there are still some of those resources left. Also parts of Africa make money back from us with there tourist trade, safari's etc.

Also our counrty is in enough dept already (£669,647,800,000) wouldn't be a better idea to get our country out of dept THEN help the Africain countries out of dept?

[Paul]

But we raped there resources while we were there, there are still some of those resources left. Also parts of Africa make money back from us with there tourist trade, safari's etc.

Also our counrty is in enough dept already (£669,647,800,000) wouldn't be a better idea to get our country out of dept THEN help the Africain countries out of debt?

We continue to rape Africa through the Commonwealth Development Corporation (CDC Group).

PS - it's debt not dept!

[CharlieB_90]

WTF-They left the British Empire so we should just let them suffer?
Let me remind you that it is not the government who are starving here, it is the innocent civilians that we have an obligation to help. It's not about getting them back for wanting independence, it's about our morals. They are obviously unable to help themselves, after the opression they experienced under British rule I think it's the least we can do.
We've got international aid to be handing out, why not to countries we screwed up? or perhaps even the ones we exploit now, perhaps if we gave them an education they'd probably be less exploitable...

[Daniel Frost]

It isn't necessarily about sending over money, but rather about modifying our trade policies (etc) so that African countries are not damaged too much, and if possible gain.

[EmmaGallen]

But we raped there resources while we were there, there are still some of those resources left. Also parts of Africa make money back from us with there tourist trade, safari's etc.

Also our counrty is in enough dept already (£669,647,800,000) wouldn't be a better idea to get our country out of dept THEN help the Africain countries out of dept?

Well we caused their debt. It's necessary to take some responsibility for the actions done before.

The British Empire wasn't this brilliant thing for non-Britains. If you left the places you took over as you found them then I could understand your arguments but destroying their way of life to pay for your own economy isn't really the best foe the other countries.

It isn't necessarily about sending over money, but rather about modifying our trade policies (etc) so that African countries are not damaged too much, and if possible gain.

Like Fair Trade. Dairy Milk and Starbucks are both becoming Fair Tarde this year :)

[Hamsterwaffle]

If Britain was able to rape the resources from Africa for so long, they can payt the price for helping it get back on its feet.
But consider it another way, if Britain hadn't taken over some of Africa, another country would have, possibly Belgium which would have made the Africans worse off.
But more on the point, if people want to give their money to Africa, then they can, but British taxpayers shouldn't be made to foot the bill for something done before any of them were born.

[CharlieB_90]

Like Fair Trade. Dairy Milk and Starbucks are both becoming Fair Tarde this year :)

Srsly?

I love Dairy Milk and for them to become fair trade would be awesome! :D:D

[EmmaGallen]

But consider it another way, if Britain hadn't taken over some of Africa, another country would have, possibly Belgium which would have made the Africans worse off.
But more on the point, if people want to give their money to Africa, then they can, but British taxpayers shouldn't be made to foot the bill for something done before any of them were born.

Well yes, the Belgiums were worse, but that doesn't mean Britain should be let off. I feel the same way about how terrible the Belgians dealt with Rwanda.
Srsly?

I love Dairy Milk and for them to become fair trade would be awesome! :D:D

Was announced during Fair Trade fortnight which has just ended.

[Fozzy]

£1 trillion debt apparently next year, sort our debts first then aid/help africa.

[Fred]

£1 trillion debt apparently next year, sort our debts first then aid/help africa.

Yep i think the same, why help other countries when we could help ourselves first, then help them?

[Jamest]

£1 trillion debt apparently next year, sort our debts first then aid/help africa.

Not just us however. You must remember the French, the Germans and the dutch also had empires in Africa?

But I guess the decision is between another Iraq or just giving them some money.

[Hamsterwaffle]

Well yes, the Belgiums were worse, but that doesn't mean Britain should be let off.
Let off? We had nothing to do with it. I wasn't responsible for it, neither were you and neither were the rest of the country, so why should we be the ones to pay? The principle that one suffers because of ones ancestors actions is a principle more at home in Ancient Egypt than Modern Day Britain.

[xlil_miss_politicalx]

[QUOTE=Hamsterwaffle;120693]Let off? We had nothing to do with it. I wasn't responsible for it, neither were you and neither were the rest of the country, so why should we be the ones to pay? The principle that one suffers because of ones ancestors actions is a principle more at home in Ancient Egypt than Modern Day Britain.[/QUOTE

why just in ancient Egypt?

I find it remarkable how the west make these conquests and what nots...go and invade, bomb and destroy 'weaker' areas then when they get 'bored' they don't feel the need to restore the damage they caused...afterall especially with regards to Africa) I doubt any of the reasons why the british and the west decided to colonise it were to help the Africa.

This is a shortened version of all I have to say. I might reply with an equally long passage as your post later.

[Hamsterwaffle]

I doubt any of the reasons why the british and the west decided to colonise it were to help the Africa.
Actually colonisation of Africa was to help them, at least in the opinion of the colonisers. It was seen as the white mans burden to civilise the "savages" in Africa and India.

[xlil_miss_politicalx]

Actually colonisation of Africa was to help them, at least in the opinion of the colonisers. It was seen as the white mans burden to civilise the "savages" in Africa and India.

Uh huh...and you can spot the charity in such a reason?

[Dirk/DSF]

Actually colonisation of Africa was to help them, at least in the opinion of the colonisers. It was seen as the white mans burden to civilise the "savages" in Africa and India.

I believe the phrase you're looking for is "force African and Indian peoples to conform to their idea of civilisation".

Realistically, this resulted in them being racially subjugated to their new "White Masters".

[xlil_miss_politicalx]

I believe the phrase you're looking for is "force African and Indian peoples to conform to their idea of civilisation".

Realistically, this resulted in them being racially subjugated to their new "White Masters".

I was hoping he'd figure that out for himself but THANK YOU. Theres a big difference between helping and enforcing your values and ways on others, a difference which even today not many of us are aware of.

[Hamsterwaffle]

I was hoping he'd figure that out for himself but THANK YOU. Theres a big difference between helping and enforcing your values and ways on others, a difference which even today not many of us are aware of.
Does noone even read what I say anymore, I was not saying that they were right to, in their words, "enforce civilisation" upon the natives, but rather that some of those involved in New Imperialism were motivated by the belief that they were helping "civilise savages" rather than purely by greed.

[Dirk/DSF]

Does noone even read what I say anymore, I was not saying that they were right to, in their words, "enforce civilisation" upon the natives, but rather that some of those involved in New Imperialism were motivated by the belief that they were helping "civilise savages" rather than purely by greed.

Was it a reason or an excuse?

[Hamsterwaffle]

Was it a reason or an excuse?
I don't know, some were probably motivated by greed, although there were those who thought what they were doing was in the best interests of humanity and the world, although through very twisted logic.

[mizzy]

Actually colonisation of Africa was to help them, at least in the opinion of the colonisers. It was seen as the white mans burden to civilise the "savages" in Africa and India.

I always thought the colonisation of Africa was to see wich European countrie had the most power...

[Hamsterwaffle]

I always thought the colonisation of Africa was to see wich European countrie had the most power...
No, everyone already knew who the most powerful country in Europe, and the world, was.

[mizzy]

No, everyone already knew who the most powerful country in Europe, and the world, was.

But surely other countries would have wanted to fight for the position of the most powerful

[xlil_miss_politicalx]

Does noone even read what I say anymore, I was not saying that they were right to, in their words, "enforce civilisation" upon the natives, but rather that some of those involved in New Imperialism were motivated by the belief that they were helping "civilise savages" rather than purely by greed.

Sorry, I made an assumption. You're right you didn't by any means suggest you thought it was ok.

[xlil_miss_politicalx]

I don't know, some were probably motivated by greed, although there were those who thought what they were doing was in the best interests of humanity and the world, although through very twisted logic.

I disagree with your use of "some", I think/it's clear that all the motivations have the same source greed. It was a contest of power amongst the European countries and nothing more.

[Hamsterwaffle]

But surely other countries would have wanted to fight for the position of the most powerful
There was no country that even thought it could compete until the 1900s.

[Hamsterwaffle]

I disagree with your use of "some", I think/it's clear that all the motivations have the same source greed. It was a contest of power amongst the European countries and nothing more.
Actually that's incorrect, at least one person was at least partially motivated by something other than greed. That was Cecil Rhodes, who believed that it was in the best interests of humanity and the world that Anglo-Saxons were to rule as much of the world as possible.

[xlil_miss_politicalx]

Actually that's incorrect, at least one person was at least partially motivated by something other than greed. That was Cecil Rhodes, who believed that it was in the best interests of humanity and the world that Anglo-Saxons were to rule as much of the world as possible.

Yeah, it was naive of me to make a generalisation but hopefully you can agree that with hindsight we are able to see just how unfair and in many ways greedy colonialism and imperialism (the two things that Mr Rhodes believed in greatly) are. I mean the man wanted the whole of Africa to be under British Rule...no doubt one of his motivation was for the British to control the resources in Africa, this can be inferred from the fact that in 1890 when he was appointed Prime Minister of the Cape Colony one of the first things he did was to pass laws that would benefit mine and industry owners.

I guess you're right (in a way), he himself saw nothing wrong with imperialism and colonialism just as Hitler alo believed that what he was doing was for the benefit of humanity (or rather the German nation) but could it not be said that when someone/anyone does something to further themselves/their nation/their race at the cost of others it is greed, it is selfish...no matter whether they believe it's for the good of humanity or not?? I guess it's a question of morals and which ones should be held superior to others.

xxxx