• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are we to blame for Africa's current state?

Are we to blame for Africa's current state?

  • Completely - it is entirely our fault

    Votes: 1 3.3%
  • Slightly - it's partially our fault

    Votes: 11 36.7%
  • Neutral

    Votes: 2 6.7%
  • Not our fault at all

    Votes: 16 53.3%

  • Total voters
    30

Voltaire X

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
551
Reaction score
206
Location
New York, New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Personally, I think it's ridiculous when people say that people in Africa starve because of us.

People say that the only way we can afford to live as well as we do is because of poor children in Africa. This is utter garbage. Barely anything, other than a bit of oil, is exported out of Africa. There are starving children in Africa mainly because the continent is a jumbled mess of civil wars and religious terrorism.

Sure there are children in India/China/etc. working to make our shoes, but that's not our fault.
 
Depends on who you mean by "we."

Africa largely could have succeeded but for political instability and violence. But the instability partially comes from drawing arbitrary lines on a map and imposing the political construct of a modern "state" in a place where it never existed.
 
europe. They drew the borders.
 
Bloomberg/Business week, May 14-20, page 8.....
Exxon Mobil vs. Dodd-Frank Wall St. Reform and Consumer Protection Act, section 1504.
Oil companies don't want to publish how much they pay for the oil they extract, so the locals don't know if their leaders are siphoning off a big chunk to secret bank accounts somewhere. Oil rich countries like Nigeria and Iraq get tons of money, but too little of it gets filtered down to the citizens.
If the citizens KNOW how much is being paid to their leaders, they can EXPECT some of it to be spent on better schools, roads, jobs, etc.
Supposedly, Exxon Mobil feels that they are being asked to play by a differrent set of rules than buyers from other countries, like china, Russia, Brazil, India.
That is true, but the oil revenue belongs to all of the citizens, not just the leaders....and if the other countries don't want to disclose, then it should be fair game to snitch to the Nigerians and Iraqis just how much those others are paying.

The Diamond industry is even worse...
 
Last edited:
Personally, I think it's ridiculous when people say that people in Africa starve because of us.

People say that the only way we can afford to live as well as we do is because of poor children in Africa. This is utter garbage. Barely anything, other than a bit of oil, is exported out of Africa. There are starving children in Africa mainly because the continent is a jumbled mess of civil wars and religious terrorism.

Sure there are children in India/China/etc. working to make our shoes, but that's not our fault.


We as in The USA?

I believe the US gave 8 Billion to Africa in 2009, 7 billion or so in 2010 and 2011

No telling how much non-government resources gave to them.
 
No, it's not our fault, except that we have tried to buy and manipulate it into success to a certain extent. As my friend from Botswana loves to say, as he shakes his head sadly, "Africa will always be Africa". The continent, and many of its countries have horrible problems with crime, corruption, and ignorance. It's very sad, but for the most part, Africa will have to fix Africa.
 
Partly, yes.

It's true we have given them a lot of money, but what the people who tout those numbers fail to mention is under what conditions we gave it to them.

For several African countries, we mandated austerity budgets so strict it was impossible for them to actually build anything to improve conditions. On top of that, the interest rates are so high than even though most have been good about paying on time, their level of debt never actually goes down. It's a treadmill with no end in sight.

On top of that, we have put a lot of local farmers out of business with influxes of cheap, subsidized grains (our own farmers haven't gotten off so well on that deal either), further weakening their ability to build their communities.

It is probably unfair to blame Africa's situation entirely or even mostly on the US, but we certainly have played a role.
 
Partly, yes.

It's true we have given them a lot of money, but what the people who tout those numbers fail to mention is under what conditions we gave it to them.

For several African countries, we mandated austerity budgets so strict it was impossible for them to actually build anything to improve conditions. On top of that, the interest rates are so high than even though most have been good about paying on time, their level of debt never actually goes down. It's a treadmill with no end in sight.

On top of that, we have put a lot of local farmers out of business with influxes of cheap, subsidized grains (our own farmers haven't gotten off so well on that deal either), further weakening their ability to build their communities.

It is probably unfair to blame Africa's situation entirely or even mostly on the US, but we certainly have played a role.

Yes, we played a role, perhaps we should have just kept the money and built a couple bridges.
The corruption and culture in the region does little to promote humanitarian activity, manipulation of resource rich areas, and politics make it unlikely any amount of $$$ will make a dent.
War is the norm under these circumstance, and we pay for it.

If we did not fund this crap, they would kill each other in tribal warfare by the dozens, we make it possible to graduate to the thousands.


GO US>>>
 
Partly, yes.

It's true we have given them a lot of money, but what the people who tout those numbers fail to mention is under what conditions we gave it to them.

For several African countries, we mandated austerity budgets so strict it was impossible for them to actually build anything to improve conditions. On top of that, the interest rates are so high than even though most have been good about paying on time, their level of debt never actually goes down. It's a treadmill with no end in sight.

On top of that, we have put a lot of local farmers out of business with influxes of cheap, subsidized grains (our own farmers haven't gotten off so well on that deal either), further weakening their ability to build their communities.

It is probably unfair to blame Africa's situation entirely or even mostly on the US, but we certainly have played a role.

I agree with this notion entirely. While Africa has its problems that only it can resolve, no doubt, the West has played a role that has mainly been negative, such as supporting dictators. (Brutal West African Dictators Get Plenty Of U.s. Support - Chicago Tribune) (African Dictatorships and Double Standards | FPIF)

In addition to this, the IMF and World Bank's 'structual adjustment programs,' have had negative effects all over the world. (Structural Adjustment Program) These programs essentially impose massive austerity on the people, thus hurting the potential for economic growth and put already bad economies into even worse conditions.
 
I think Europe is mostly to blame. They divvied up Africa in their mad quest for hegemony, in ways that highly disfavored the neighbors. The New Imperialists agreed amongst each other on how to carve up Africa (not a single African was present at the Berlin Conference, which set the borders for which regions each European country would control, and led to the creation of the hated Congo Free State), without regards to ethnicity. They ruled authoritarian-style, suppressing Africans and denying independence. The African colonies were little more than resource pools to the European nations, and they were treated accordingly.

The U.S. has hampered Africa economically (I'm no expert in that area), not to mention they supported dictators like Mobutu Sese Seko.
 
IIRC, we subsidized cotton growers here rather than buy cheaper cotton from some of those countries..
Iran used to be pistachio capital of the world, til we started growing them in CA.....
Capitalism should be practiced nicely, or at home only....
 
Depends on who you mean by "we."

Africa largely could have succeeded but for political instability and violence. But the instability partially comes from drawing arbitrary lines on a map and imposing the political construct of a modern "state" in a place where it never existed.

true-colonial powers created artificial borders (like Gambia which was based on how far the British navy could extend its might into the French colony of senegal) or divided tribal nations.

Chinua Achebe's books like No longer at ease and THings Fall Apart are edifying as to the influence-and problems caused-by British influence in Nigeria. Both excellent books, I recommend them highly
 
It's more complicated than just blaming Europe or Africa itself, and it depends on what we're talking about. Read something like "King Leopold's Ghost" to get an idea of how Congo is still weighed down by no bid contracts and downright theft going back decades. While most of that went to other colonizers, the US went so far as to set up the assassination of their first elected leader, who dared to suggest not only a politically but also economically independent Congo, so that the monopolies could continue. Culturally though yeah, much of Africa is stuck in the dark ages though. Even when they try to break away from oppression, for example in Egypt, their views are so ass backwards that it's hard for me to give a crap. Surely the US isn't to blame for how women are treated for example.
 
Depends on who you mean by "we."

Africa largely could have succeeded but for political instability and violence. But the instability partially comes from drawing arbitrary lines on a map and imposing the political construct of a modern "state" in a place where it never existed.

Africa has little responsible leadership... for what reason? I don't know.
 
No, Africa has been a jacked upnation of tribal fighting for thousands of years. Even the Egyptians considered those from "upstream" of the Nile to be savages.

And you can't blame the borders or anything else either. Long before the modern borders were ceated, you had tribal fighting and tribal savagery. It has gone on for thousands of years, and will likely continue for thousands more. Even the Slave Trade started because tribes would raid neighboring tribal enemies and sell them off for money. Now they just slaughter them as in Darfur. Lyberia was a nation created for freed slaves, but once back in Africa they simply made slaves of the tribes that lived in that area.

Until the people stop putting all their allegiance into tribes and start putting it to themselves as a nation, it will continue.

And before anybody thinks this is some racist rant, it is not. This is a rant against "Tribalism", be it the Tribe of Afrikaners, Iraq, Afghanistan, or Somalia and Uganda. When some group decides another group is not fit to live, or slaughters them for some imagined or real insult 300 years prior.
 
No it isn't our fault as Americans. I mean I guess we could have made sure money and food and whatnot went to the people rather than corrupt politicians that run the governments, but that does not make it our fault. Fault lies mainly with Imperial Europe and the terrorists and brutal dictators that are there now.
 
No it isn't our fault as Americans. I mean I guess we could have made sure money and food and whatnot went to the people rather than corrupt politicians that run the governments, but that does not make it our fault. Fault lies mainly with Imperial Europe and the terrorists and brutal dictators that are there now.

Unfortunately, feeding people doesn't fix their problems, and probably makes their problems worse, in reality.
 
Unfortunately, feeding people doesn't fix their problems, and probably makes their problems worse, in reality.

True. I was just saying from our end we could have made sure the stuff we sent over there was going to where it was suppose to go, not that anything would change because of it.
 
This is what I would like an answer too...Where the HELL is the rest of the industrialized world in feeding hungry nations...Where the hell are all the super oil rich arab nations, and where the hell is the UN who we give billions too...Where did this freakin attitude come from that everything that costs money or everyone who needs it...it has to be the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WHO PROVIDES IT...bs, ive had enough of that...Let china feed africa with OUR money
 
Personally, I think it's ridiculous when people say that people in Africa starve because of us.

People say that the only way we can afford to live as well as we do is because of poor children in Africa. This is utter garbage. Barely anything, other than a bit of oil, is exported out of Africa. There are starving children in Africa mainly because the continent is a jumbled mess of civil wars and religious terrorism.

Sure there are children in India/China/etc. working to make our shoes, but that's not our fault.
Assuming "we" means current Americans, the answer is yes and no. We are not directly responsible for it's current state. Africa, as it is now as a continent, is the product of hundreds of years of problems, most of which, I would say, stem from colonization. Therefore, we are not directly responsible for it in it's entirety. We are directly responsible for whatever we or our government has done to add to or prolong the disorder.

We are, however, indirectly responsible by inaction. We are not doing all that we can to help create order, increase education and take other actions that would propel Africa to stability. However, that's true about everything. We aren't doing everything we can to help a lot of people, including our own citizens.
 
We as in The USA?

I believe the US gave 8 Billion to Africa in 2009, 7 billion or so in 2010 and 2011

No telling how much non-government resources gave to them.
"Giving" money evidently does little to no good....Who recieves it ?
Their governments cannot be trusted, nor can the people....
I'd be prone to say - let them be - try to be respectful and tolerant...
Most of the oil money should goto the people, but in the form of, for instance, a good clean water system for the people.....schools...hospitals..
 
It isn't the American people's fault at all.

The problem is the aid we do give ends up going to the Elite class in those other countries. Your donations hardly reach the truly desperate people as their governments decide how to allocate food aid and what not.
 
Other than the size of the group, what's the difference?

A nation is composed of many peoples, who choose to bind together for the advancement of the greater good. And ideally they respect all others as well.

If you look at most nations, they as a general rule do not slaughter others smply because of what tribe or nation they belong to. They do not persecute others simpy because they are from another nation. Sure, it does still happen, but much less likely then in tribal groups.

If you want a good example of how a nation can be formed of essentially tribal groups then fall apart again, look at Yugoslavia. Or Iraq. Or Afghanistan. Or ante bellum United States. When peoples eventually put aside tribal differences (be it as a family tribe or a self-identified grouping) and put the needs of the nation as a whole first they generally go much futher then they did as seperate warring components.

Tribalism is not dependent on the size of the group, but on the mindest of that group.
 
No, it's not our fault, except that we have tried to buy and manipulate it into success to a certain extent. As my friend from Botswana loves to say, as he shakes his head sadly, "Africa will always be Africa". The continent, and many of its countries have horrible problems with crime, corruption, and ignorance. It's very sad, but for the most part, Africa will have to fix Africa.

If you call:

deliberately creating political instability
supporting the assassination of democratically elected leaders
extracting trillions in ressources at bargain prices
supporting rebel factions that murder leaders
etc

steering somebody towards success, you really do deserve the title of libertarian.
 
Back
Top Bottom