Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree that Africa is not portrayed in the most positive light. But imperialism is long over and it seems like Africans are Africa's most feared enemy. I mean, how long can the effect of imperialism be blamed on Africa's problems? For instance, Al-Bashir, of Sudan, is a violent dictator who has bombed his own citizens. Africans are enslaving other Africans right now. (BTW, Africans were involved in the Triangle Trade also.) If Africa is in African hands, shouldn't it be better by now?
I agree that Africa is not portrayed in the most positive light. But imperialism is long over and it seems like Africans are Africa's most feared enemy. I mean, how long can the effect of imperialism be blamed on Africa's problems? For instance, Al-Bashir, of Sudan, is a violent dictator who has bombed his own citizens. Africans are enslaving other Africans right now. (BTW, Africans were involved in the Triangle Trade also.) If Africa is in African hands, shouldn't it be better by now?
Seems like once one savors the sweet taste of blaming current troubles on the sins of the past, it's difficult to move on to the difficult job of putting your shoulder, sweat and blood to the wheel and start the journey forward.
Plus it would probably also help to have a least one honest leader. Those seem to be in short supply.
Seems to be way too much of tribal mentalties over there. That will keep them in the dark ages too.
Im just wondering why the media contiues to portray africa the way it does even in 2008. Alot of people including one's who claimed to be educated have the wrong impression about africa. I was talking to a older white gentelman in his 40's not to long ago. The man said when visting africa he thought he was going to be chased by lions and tigers. But stated he ended up staying in a five star hotel during his time there. He went to diffrent casinos and even went partying in a few clubs on some nights. What's sad is this man graduated from college and his opinion was tigers and lions. Imagine people who have never visited and only get their image from the media. South Africa has turned itself into a first world country.
You are making some pretty bold statements. Africa is NOT a first world country. It has a long way to go. Lots of third world countries have 5 star hotels. 5 Star Hotel does not equal First world country.
You also blame the media for the shallow observations of a very unprepared tourist who happened to go to college. I used to have a Japanese woman, BORN IN HAWAII, work for me who was a Harvard MBA. She used to tell me that a classmate of hers at Harvard asked if she grew up wearing grass skirts. There is plenty of jungle out in Africa and plenty of Tigers and Lions.
But to answer the original poster's question, the reason that most people don't realize that there are some very nice places in Africa is because most people don't realize that it's a continent and not a country (It is the second largest continent after Asia). While there are plenty of countries that are obviously struggling, there are also many countries in Nothern Africa that are doing quite well and have plenty of areas that can rival any upscale area here in the US. You just don't hear about them. That's why he was surprised, I know quite a few people who vacation there all the time.
You're right--we don't hear about them. What we DO hear is that the countries of Northern Africa are populated by Caucasians (Arabs and Berbers). And while there are a few TINY areas that "rival any upscale area in the US" these areas are tiny INDEED. And most of Northern Africa has massive social problems and Algeria, in particular, has had one of the "nastiest" little wars of insurgency in history.
Much of the little "luxury" in these lands is left over from the colonial days, and isn't shared by the average citizen. Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt....exactly which of these Northern African counties don't we "hear about"....I'm listening...(Hope you don't mean Chad, Mali, or Sudan?
This is a stupid and ignorant post, and simply shows that the poster has no knowledge whatsoever of African history or of African culture. The multitude of problems facing Africa today are a DIRECT result of European colonization, Europe did not develop Africa at all instead it underdeveloped it. This is not a controversial statement it has been studied and researched by MANY scholars who study Africa. Obviously the above poster isn't one of them, and should either do some research about Africa or cease giving uninformed opinions about it. The level of ignorance truly is embarrassing.
OK, educate me. The Europeans "marched" into Africa and "undveloped" it...I got that part. So thoroughly did they "undevelop" it that they not only stole all the books out of the libraries, they even stole the KNOWLEDGE, so that the people who wrote the books were unable to re-write them. They forgot all the knowledge they once had, and were never unable to 'develop' Africa again, once the Europeans had "undeveloped" it. So diabolical were these Europeans, in fact, that they introduced the concept of bloody tribal warfare, which the Africans WERE able to learn, and are using regularly to this day, much to the dismay of the world. Pretty darn clever, those Europeans!
You fail to address their duplicity, though. You'll remember, no doubt, that these Europeans also invaded India, and held it for centuries...yet, for some reason, they "allowed" the Indians to retain their ancient culture(s), which remain there today. The Europeans ALSO made serious inroads into China, but again, for some reason that isn't clear to me, they "allowed" the Chinese to retain their culture. They didn't "take away" the culture of the Indians or Chinese, they way they "stole" the Africans'. Is there any particular reason why, to your knowledge?
Perhaps these Europeans simply found the African culture to be too "threatening", and chose to make the Africans "forget it"....but the Indian and Chinese cultures were less advanced, and thus not a threat to Europe, so these cultures were allowed to remain as "harmless anachronisms".
How am I doing? Am I missing anything here, so far?...
I agree that Africa is not portrayed in the most positive light. But imperialism is long over and it seems like Africans are Africa's most feared enemy. I mean, how long can the effect of imperialism be blamed on Africa's problems? For instance, Al-Bashir, of Sudan, is a violent dictator who has bombed his own citizens. Africans are enslaving other Africans right now. (BTW, Africans were involved in the Triangle Trade also.) If Africa is in African hands, shouldn't it be better by now?
Here we go with the Imperalism guilt trip thing. Look Imperalism has little to nothing to do with African countries and why many remain in steep amounts of poverty. This argument is extremely short-sighted and should not even be entertained by anyone least of all African Governments.
The real reason that many African Countries did not progress when they were handed power, is because of choices the government made. For instance there were quite a few African countries that were actually equally and in some cases more well-off in 1960's than some European Countries, that were in a post war rebuilding phase. I cannot think of the countries, but when power was handed to them by the French and Dutch, they were very well off. Now, they are nothing more than third world hell holes.
However, once power was transferred many of the newly formed governments destroyed many of the political structures, that provided incentives for their people to 1. Work 2. Open New Businesses 3. Invest in their human captial (educaton). If you remember we allowed many African nations to be satalite countries for the Soviets, which is why many of these countries adopted Soviet style governments. This was the biggest problem and continues to hurt many African countries to this day.
Governments that
1. Do not repected individuals rights as citizens
2. Do not protect or enforce property rights
3. Do not provide and protect incentives to stimulate growth
4. Control most land, housing, and business via government
Eventually fail and that is what you're seeing. The other determinental policies that effect African Countries are Foreign Aid programs by other nations. These only enrich the current tyrannical governments and appease them in continuing ineffective practices, that will continue to dessimate their populations and leave the bulk of their people in poverty.
Anyway the point is Imperalism is a weak argument. Its a weak as saying black americans should stop complaining about slavery. In other words what i'm saying is the people of Africa are blaming the depostic governments. However, the centrally run governments are blaming Imperalism for thier failures. When only hear from the centrally run governments.
Africa remains in poverty not because of Imperalism, but because of poor inept government management, following Imperalism!
Are you saying cause and effect is a "liberal" concept??
No, but sitting around bitching about how bad colonialism was and how the people of Africa carry no personal responsibilty to advance their civilizations past throwing rocks at eachother for being members of a different tribe.
Cause and effect is learning a lesson. Lesson learned, we won't colonize land anymore. But its done and the liberal idea is to sit around kicking ourselves for something we had no control over, and giving people a free pass to futher violence and degrade their society. I really don't care about Africa, I think we should stay out their business if they want to kill each other that their problem. Not mine.
What that country needs--I assume you're talking about Zimbabwe--is land reform, but the whites are against it, because it basically amounts to a massive transfer of wealth into the hands of blacks, in which case the whites lose whatever power they had.
Communist wealth redistribution is what any country needs? History would say different. Should we do this in the US also, would that solve all of our problems?
Communist wealth redistribution is what any country needs?
HUH? What are you talking about? I've mentioned nothing whatsoever about "Communist wealth redistribution." I'm talking about land reform. How is that Communism?
HUH? What are you talking about? I've mentioned nothing whatsoever about "Communist wealth redistribution." I'm talking about land reform. How is that Communism?
You said wealth redistribution. Paint it however you want, taking from the rich and giving to the poor, taking their land and redistributing it, is communist by nature. What do you think communism is? Call it land reform or whatever you want. It doesn't change what it is. But I don't know what I'm talking about here either.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. But stated he ended up staying in a five star hotel during his time there. He went to diffrent casinos and even went partying in a few clubs on some nights. What's sad is this man graduated from college and his opinion was tigers and lions. Imagine people who have never visited and only get their image from the media. South Africa has turned itself into a first world country.
