The Rush for Africa's Land

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

http://video.nytimes.com/video/2010/12/22/world/africa/1248069453507/the-rush-for-africa-s-land.html?ref=world

NY Times video, be wary you have to watch a short ad, but I highly reccomend it anyways.

If you decide to watch it, the question I have is simple,

Is it preferable for Mali and other African countries to be exploited in the euro/chinese/indian method or american one? (on other forums the question would emerge, are they being exploited at all?)

Is it preferable for the land to be sold outright to foreign corporations who will develop it, or for it to be developed and the subsistence farmers offered a mortgage?

I think the american is smarter, as the spokeman said himself it leads these people into the capitalist system, moreso than forcing it on them. Though it's still forced, the people don't really seem to have a choice. I'm assuming, of course, there's not going to be a glorious revolution beforehand and that many more acres will be sold to transnational corporations and more west african farmers will be displaced.

[Pravda Soyuz]

One of the reasons for the extreme poverty in africa is imperialist exploitation.

[PigmerikanMao]

One of the reasons for the extreme poverty in africa is imperialist exploitation.

Thank you, captain obvious. :rolleyes:

Clearly, I'm against both forms, but the American approach seems to be better than just taking the land outright. The mortgage issue wasn't really expounded on, though. How would farmers pay off the mortgage? Would they give up a certain percent of their crop yield to pay off the investment? Or would it be cold hard cash? I think if they had to pay it back in currency, then there would be less protection for farmers because of market fluctuations and demand shifts.

:confused:

[danyboy27]

http://video.nytimes.com/video/2010/12/22/world/africa/1248069453507/the-rush-for-africa-s-land.html?ref=world

NY Times video, be wary you have to watch a short ad, but I highly reccomend it anyways.

If you decide to watch it, the question I have is simple,

Is it preferable for Mali and other African countries to be exploited in the euro/chinese/indian method or american one? (on other forums the question would emerge, are they being exploited at all?)

Is it preferable for the land to be sold outright to foreign corporations who will develop it, or for it to be developed and the subsistence farmers offered a mortgage?

I think the american is smarter, as the spokeman said himself it leads these people into the capitalist system, moreso than forcing it on them. Though it's still forced, the people don't really seem to have a choice. I'm assuming, of course, there's not going to be a glorious revolution beforehand and that many more acres will be sold to transnational corporations and more west african farmers will be displaced.

the way the chinese is making buisness in africa is more appealing than the way the us or europe procede.

Has we speak, angola is being rebuilt by chinese industries, part of a contract with the governement of angola. in exchange for a % of ressources, the chinese build up infrastructure. Its a verry smart move; Angola got the feeling that they get their fair share, but at the same time are dependent on the chinese to maintain the infrasctuctures.

Plus, China dosnt have this whole bullshit moral agenda that europe and america have.

You want cheap gun? give me some oil. You want some shiny attack chopper and special forces advisor? give me some copper. No need for fake excuses or cover-up, everything is done in plain sight.

Has we speak, Chinese language course are soaring in africa, particulary in liberia.

There is also all that diplomatic advantage of dealing with China. No doublespeak needed, you ask for something, they got something they want, its a done deal, no need to fear the diplomatic fallout if this information is exposed, and lets face it, if you do the math, the chinese dosnt have this bad habit of bombing to the stoneage the folks they dont agree with, unlike europe or the us.

[ComradeMan]

Why does Africa always got fucked over?:crying:

[Havet]

the way the chinese is making buisness in africa is more appealing than the way the us or europe procede.

Has we speak, angola is being rebuilt by chinese industries, part of a contract with the governement of angola. in exchange for a % of ressources, the chinese build up infrastructure. Its a verry smart move; Angola got the feeling that they get their fair share, but at the same time are dependent on the chinese to maintain the infrasctuctures.


I've been to angola 3 straight years (2001, 2002, 2003), and I can tell you its not as easy as that

first the government is extremely corrupt. whatever the reason chinese were allowed to invest there, the cost was not at a fair price, and that will ultimately be brought down on the consumer.

and secondly, there's practically no consumers in Angola (no buying power), and no producers too. I've seen kids drink from open sewer water in the asphalt road. Piles of garbage as tall as small buildings. Litter everywhere.


Subsistence agriculture provides the main livelihood for most of the people, but half of the country's food must still be imported. Since 2005, the government has used billions of dollars in credit lines from China, Brazil, Portugal, Germany, Spain, and the EU to rebuild Angola's public infrastructure. Although consumer inflation declined from 325% in 2000 to under 13% in 2008, the stabilization policy proved unsustainable and Angola abandoned its currency peg in 2009. Angola became a member of OPEC in late 2006 and in late 2007 was assigned a production quota of 1.9 million barrels a day (bbl), somewhat less than the 2-2.5 million bbl Angola's government had wanted. In November 2009 the IMF announced its approval of Luanda's request for a Stand-By Arrangement; the loan of $1.4 billion aims to rebuild Angola's international reserves. Corruption, especially in the extractive sectors, is a major challenge.

Link (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ao.html)

Granted, things have changed from when I was there, but people are still as miserable as ever. And, having lived quite some years in Portugal as well, many poor people still decide to come there to try a better life. You know who also comes to Portugal? The 'royal government family', to buy jewelry with the money they steal.

[Lt. Ferret]

One of the reasons for the extreme poverty in africa is imperialist exploitation.


Because Africa was rich and prosperous before the Europeans came sniffing around?

[Havet]

Because Africa was rich and prosperous before the Europeans came sniffing around?

In terms of natural resources, it was rich and prosperous and it is

[Lt. Ferret]

And those natural resources are gone now? Africa is still the richest continent in the world in terms of natural resources. They were not exploited during African rule, they were unequally exploited during European rule, and the only way the Africans can exploit them now is jointly with foreigners. There was not any industrial mining or harvesting of resources before Europeans came in.

[Havet]

And those natural resources are gone now?

No. But eventually, yes. The question is, where are the benefits of that 'natural resource exploitation' going to? Where do you think they are going to?

[Lt. Ferret]

companies that pay taxes to the government to exploit them.

the alternative being a corrupt government nationalizes them?

the "people" "owning" the resources themselves without the means to exploit them?

[Havet]

the alternative being a corrupt government nationalizes them?

I dunno. if you stick around the website long enough, you'll find everyone has their own little theory on how to deal with this. Some say: new elections. Others say: abolish the state. and so on and so on

[Lt. Ferret]

Well in theory the best course of action would be a non-corrupt social democratic (or more leftist, depending on your flavor) government with the capital means to exploit these resources, a la Norway and their oil reserves.

The alternate being to open up SOME of the resources to foreign exploitation with a decent taxation on it. use that taxation to build capital and buy the machines and skills needed to fully exploit the rest of the resources.

[Rafiq]

And those natural resources are gone now? Africa is still the richest continent in the world in terms of natural resources. They were not exploited during African rule, they were unequally exploited during European rule, and the only way the Africans can exploit them now is jointly with foreigners. There was not any industrial mining or harvesting of resources before Europeans came in.

The only people who had those things were the Europeans.


Keep in mind thousands of years before it was the Africans who dominated the world, with the Europeans being the uncivilized barbarians.

If they would have left Africa alone, or pretty much anyone alone, they would have been able to catch up .

They suppressed all advancement possible in those places.

Are you saying Africans are incapable of managing their own recourses?

Take a look at Burkina Faso, during the times of Thomas Sankara, and then talk.

[Rafiq]

And those natural resources are gone now? Africa is still the richest continent in the world in terms of natural resources. They were not exploited during African rule, they were unequally exploited during European rule, and the only way the Africans can exploit them now is jointly with foreigners. There was not any industrial mining or harvesting of resources before Europeans came in.

Company's STILL manage to exploit africa today.

Most of all the governments are puppets for corporations.


When people like Thomas Sankara actually made their nation prosperous without foriegn support, the french killed him.

Don't give me your shit.

[Fabrizio]

the way the chinese is making buisness in africa is more appealing than the way the us or europe procede.

Has we speak, angola is being rebuilt by chinese industries, part of a contract with the governement of angola. in exchange for a % of ressources, the chinese build up infrastructure. Its a verry smart move; Angola got the feeling that they get their fair share, but at the same time are dependent on the chinese to maintain the infrasctuctures.

Plus, China dosnt have this whole bullshit moral agenda that europe and america have.

You want cheap gun? give me some oil. You want some shiny attack chopper and special forces advisor? give me some copper. No need for fake excuses or cover-up, everything is done in plain sight.

Has we speak, Chinese language course are soaring in africa, particulary in liberia.

There is also all that diplomatic advantage of dealing with China. No doublespeak needed, you ask for something, they got something they want, its a done deal, no need to fear the diplomatic fallout if this information is exposed, and lets face it, if you do the math, the chinese dosnt have this bad habit of bombing to the stoneage the folks they dont agree with, unlike europe or the us.

100% agreed dude, well said.

[Lt. Ferret]

The only people who had those things were the Europeans.


Keep in mind thousands of years before it was the Africans who dominated the world, with the Europeans being the uncivilized barbarians.

If they would have left Africa alone, or pretty much anyone alone, they would have been able to catch up .

They suppressed all advancement possible in those places.

Are you saying Africans are incapable of managing their own recourses?

Take a look at Burkina Faso, during the times of Thomas Sankara, and then talk.


Africa was as good as it was going to get in the 1500's, if they hadn't been able to "catch up" (also, civilization doesn't move in a linear line towards progress, so they don't move in a straight line towards a goal, so it could have been 100 or 10,000 years before they caught up) they weren't going to do it anytime soon.

the europeans did not go into africa during the height of the roman republic, during the dark ages, durin the crusades. africa still wallowed in tribalism and cannibalism. this idea that pre-european colonialism africa was a bastion of civility, peace, or affluence is unfounded.


I AM saying that, unless they have a skilled labor force of engineers, bureaucrats, and administrators, as well as financially savvy accountants, yes, they are unable to manage their industrial resources properly.

[Rafiq]

Africa was as good as it was going to get in the 1500's, if they hadn't been able to "catch up" (also, civilization doesn't move in a linear line towards progress, so they don't move in a straight line towards a goal, so it could have been 100 or 10,000 years before they caught up) they weren't going to do it anytime soon.

the europeans did not go into africa during the height of the roman republic, during the dark ages, durin the crusades. africa still wallowed in tribalism and cannibalism. this idea that pre-european colonialism africa was a bastion of civility, peace, or affluence is unfounded.


I AM saying that, unless they have a skilled labor force of engineers, bureaucrats, and administrators, as well as financially savvy accountants, yes, they are unable to manage their industrial resources properly.



That's not true.

How would you know if they were cannibal's before the Europeans? how do you know they weren't advanced during the Roman republic?

I already know you're lieing, Ethiopia was more advanced than most European countries in the Middle Ages, West and north Africa were very advanced, some more advanced than European powers, And nobody knows what happened in Southern Africa during the time.

I would call that borderline racism, to be honest.

You assume they were always barbarians and savages, which is an obvious lie.

Throughout history (Past 20,000 years) it was the white man who was the barbarian and savage... Just sayin'.



It would be like me going to the Middle East after the collapse of the golden age and said "Wup, savages!", without analyzing the actual history.

For example, the Mayans were among the most advanced people in the world at one point, but when the spanish came, they thought they were savages, and burned all of their books and history.

Back to my point, Africa would have been far better off if the Europeans hadn't came. That's blatant Racist garbage if you think they were better off in the 1500's.

[Rafiq]

I AM saying that, unless they have a skilled labor force of engineers, bureaucrats, and administrators, as well as financially savvy accountants, yes, they are unable to manage their industrial resources properly.

Under Thomas Sankara, Burkina Faso was the most advanced African country in the region. They weren't dependent on anyone and refused foreign aid.

Almost everyone had food to eat, they mass produced and advanced the nation.

Did they not manage to take care of themselves?

Africans are capable of anything Europeans are capable of doing.

[Lt. Ferret]

No, you're the racist here. Being anti-white for the fun of it is still racist.

The West African Empires were little more than trading post cities and oases controlled by strongmen. Ethiopia rose and fell several times throughout it's history. North African civilizations were mostly influenced and spurred on by contact with the Mediterranean civilizations.

The only semblance of civilization in South Africa is the vanished civilization of Zimbabwe.

I'm certainly not a racist for knowing the difference between an empire and some city-states.

[Lt. Ferret]

Under Thomas Sankara, Burkina Faso was the most advanced African country in the region. They weren't dependent on anyone and refused foreign aid.

Almost everyone had food to eat, they mass produced and advanced the nation.

Did they not manage to take care of themselves?

Africans are capable of anything Europeans are capable of doing.


Not by any stretch of the imagination has Burkina Faso ever been considered advanced by any standard, Western or not.


I'm not saying Africans, by curse of birth are capable or incapable of anything, I said that without the proper technical skills and knowledge to do so, Africans cannot on any industrial scale exploit their natural resources.

[Rafiq]

Not by any stretch of the imagination has Burkina Faso ever been considered advanced by any standard, Western or not.


I'm not saying Africans, by curse of birth are capable or incapable of anything, I said that without the proper technical skills and knowledge to do so, Africans cannot on any industrial scale exploit their natural resources.

how did any other nation industrialize and exploit their natural resources?

How did Britian do it?

"They reached that point of advancement"

How do you expect the africans to do if they are constantly being stepped on?

And Burkina Faso was the greatest African economic model in history.

It was indeed more progressive and modernized than any of the countries around it.

The death rates and hunger rates were much lower.

He was killed by the French.

[Lt. Ferret]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burkina_Faso#Economy



Burkina Faso has one of the lowest GDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product) per capita (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_capita) figures in the world: $1,200.[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burkina_Faso#cite_note-13) Agriculture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture) represents 32% of its gross domestic product and occupies 80% of the working population. It consists mostly of livestock but also, especially in the south and southwest, of growing sorghum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorghum), pearl millet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_millet), maize (corn) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maize), peanuts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peanut), rice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice) and cotton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton).
A large part of the economic activity of the country is funded by international aid.
Remittances used to be an important source of income to Burkina Faso until the 1990s, when unrest in Côte d'Ivoire, the main destination for Burkinabe emigrants, forced many to return home. Remittances now account for less than 1 percent of GDP.

[Rafiq]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burkina_Faso#Economy



Burkina Faso has one of the lowest GDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product) per capita (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_capita) figures in the world: $1,200.[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burkina_Faso#cite_note-13) Agriculture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture) represents 32% of its gross domestic product and occupies 80% of the working population. It consists mostly of livestock but also, especially in the south and southwest, of growing sorghum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorghum), pearl millet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_millet), maize (corn) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maize), peanuts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peanut), rice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice) and cotton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton).
A large part of the economic activity of the country is funded by international aid.
Remittances used to be an important source of income to Burkina Faso until the 1990s, when unrest in Côte d'Ivoire, the main destination for Burkinabe emigrants, forced many to return home. Remittances now account for less than 1 percent of GDP.



Fail.

Burkina Faso is a different nation today than it was under Thomas Sankara.
:laugh:

I actually remember a speach by him saying 'we must refuse foreign aid'.


What, you think when the French killed him they only did it because they didn't like him personally?

[Lt. Ferret]

probably because he was another in a long line of shitty African dictators.

[Rafiq]

So the French killed him because he was a dictator?

That makes a lot of sense, considering Burkina Faso was a colony of France, until O'l Sankara took power.

So you don't think the fact he nationalized every thing motivated them to overthrow him?

No, the freedom and bringers of all glorious democracy wanted to spraed McFreedom!

The French Killed him, and installed a dictator.

Where is the freedom?

[Rafiq]

That's a very ignorant statement you made there.

Maybe you are watching too much movies like Blood Diamond.

Not every person with a black face who happens to be in power and is against Capitalism in Africa is a brutal Dictator.

Ask anyone who lived under his time.

The people loved him, everyone loved him, he was a people's person, an African Che.

VftR9vOn8xE

[Lt. Ferret]

dude, he wasn't an african che. he was an asshole dictator, who the french killed and helped install another asshole dictator. his country was poor as shit when he came to power, poor when he was in power, and poor after he was deposed. burkina faso is practically a failed state.

[Havet]

So the French killed him because he was a dictator?

That makes a lot of sense, considering Burkina Faso was a colony of France, until O'l Sankara took power.

So you don't think the fact he nationalized every thing motivated them to overthrow him?

No, the freedom and bringers of all glorious democracy wanted to spraed McFreedom!

The French Killed him, and installed a dictator.

Where is the freedom?

It would make more sense for you to at least link to every claim you do, instead of going in this back and forth between opinions

[Manic Impressive]

Africa is a rich continent made poor by imperial invasion and centuries of the extraction of labour and resources.
read this (http://www.scribd.com/doc/16447645/Parenti-Michael-Against-Empire-1995) or if you can't be bothered to read that watch this
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZTrY3TQpzw)

[danyboy27]

dude, he wasn't an african che. he was an asshole dictator, who the french killed and helped install another asshole dictator. his country was poor as shit when he came to power, poor when he was in power, and poor after he was deposed. burkina faso is practically a failed state.

what a simplistic view of reality you have.
Do you know how much time Sankara was in power? he didne have much time to do something, especially in a messed up place like this.

At least he tried to change the condition of his people.

My personnal opinion on him: he was too soft. Seriously being betrayed by one of your own men, his right hand.

It might sound horrible, but if he had been more coercive and repressive with his immediate surrounding, he would still be in power today.

that the price to pay when you decide to put everything on your shoulder for the general will.

[Rafiq]

dude, he wasn't an african che. he was an asshole dictator, who the french killed and helped install another asshole dictator. his country was poor as shit when he came to power, poor when he was in power, and poor after he was deposed. burkina faso is practically a failed state.

Well According to the people that lived there, that's not true.

[Lt. Ferret]

Now who's swallowing propaganda?

[Pretty Flaco]

Before European colonialism, Africa was mostly a collection of bankrupt city-states. They did not at any way have "control" over the world. Europeans were looked upon as barbarians up until their rise to power, but if any region was considered the most influential it would probably be the empires of the Middle East or perhaps the Ming, although I believe that by the 16th century they would have been in a state of decline, not to mention that by the time the Europeans actually get the ball rolling, they would be interacting with the Yuan and not the Ming.

I really am not very studied on how Africa is at the moment and I wouldn't be able to comment on how they would develop industry.

[Fabrizio]

how did any other nation industrialize and exploit their natural resources?

How did Britian do it?

"They reached that point of advancement"

How do you expect the africans to do if they are constantly being stepped on?

Exactly.

Hopefully as other people have said, the Chinese will level things up in Africa and a new balance of power can give the African countries more bargaining power, as was the case under the Soviets.

[Rafiq]

Now who's swallowing propaganda?

Are you delusional?


You're sounding like an Idiot.

Is everyone who has ever lived in Burkina Faso an agent of Propaganda? :laugh:

[Lt. Ferret]

:rolleyes: He was deposed for pissing off basically every social, economic, and political faction that wasn't his own personal small power base. I bet a good portion of the nation of Burkina Faso celebrated when he was killed. Dictatorships arent cool, kids.

[Bud Struggle]

:rolleyes: He was deposed for pissing off basically every social, economic, and political faction that wasn't his own personal small power base. I bet a good portion of the nation of Burkina Faso celebrated when he was killed. Dictatorships arent cool, kids.

Good point. No reson to worship dictators just because they oppose Imperialism. Most of these guys oppose Europeans because they weren't being paid enough by them--not because of any idealist beliefs.

They just made more money by setting up their own shop. They are the ultimate Capitalists.

[Revolution starts with U]

Well said Bud. Even the most benevolent of dictators has to give his power to somone when he dies/retires.... and there's no telling whether the benevolence continues. To be honest, it rarely does.

[Rafiq]

:rolleyes: He was deposed for pissing off basically every social, economic, and political faction that wasn't his own personal small power base. I bet a good portion of the nation of Burkina Faso celebrated when he was killed. Dictatorships arent cool, kids.

You're clearly talking out of your ass.

Everyone loved him.

He was a people's person.

You are looking at things way to simplistically.

As if the United States wasn't ruled by an even worse dictatorship.


"he was deposed"

No he wasn't, he was fucking assassinated by a French agent.


It is proven historically that almost everyone in Burkina Faso could eat, live, ect.

He was loved by all of the poor in his country.

The only people who hated him were the former landlords, warlords, rich people, corporations, and the French Government.

Fucking Idiot, as president, he really didn't have ALL that much power.

The United States is the biggest dictatorship on the planet.

Democracy my fucking ass, more like shitty fucked up polyarchy ruled by Banks and Corporations.







Accompanying his French-speaking[18] former fighter pilot charisma, Sankara had an array of original initiatives that contributed to his popularity and brought some international media attention to the Burkinabé revolution:
[edit]Solidarity
He sold off the government fleet of Mercedes cars and made the Renault 5 (the cheapest car sold in Burkina Faso at that time) the official service car of the ministers.
He reduced the salaries of all public servants, including his own, and forbade the use of government chauffeurs and 1st class airline tickets.
He redistributed land from the feudal landlords and gave it directly to the peasants. Wheat production rose in just three years from 1700 kg per hectare to 3800 kg per hectare, making the country food self-sufficient.[6]
He opposed foreign aid, saying that "he who feeds you, controls you."[6]
He spoke eloquently in forums like the Organization of African Unity against continued neo-colonialist penetration of Africa through Western trade and finance.[6]
He called for a united front of African nations to repudiate their foreign debt. He argued that the poor and exploited did not have an obligation to repay money to the rich and exploiting.[6]
"Thomas knew how to show his people that they could become dignified and proud through will power, courage, honesty and work. What remains above all of my husband is his integrity."
— Mariam Sankara, Thomas' widow [1]
In Ouagadougou, Sankara converted the army's provisioning store into a state-owned supermarket open to everyone (the first supermarket in the country).[1]
He forced civil servants to pay one month's salary to public projects.[1]
He refused to use the air conditioning in his office on the grounds that such luxury was not available to anyone but a handful of Burkinabes.[7]
As President, he lowered his salary to only $450 a month and limited his possessions to a car, four bikes, three guitars, a fridge and a broken freezer.[7]
[edit]Style
A motorcyclist himself, he formed an all-women motorcycle personal guard.
He required public servants to wear a traditional tunic, woven from Burkinabe cotton and sewn by Burkinabe craftsmen.[6]
He was known for jogging unaccompanied through Ouagadougou in his track suit and posing in his tailored military fatigues, with his mother-of-pearl pistol.[1]
When asked why he didn't want his portrait hung in public places, as was the norm for other African leaders, Sankara replied "There are seven million Thomas Sankaras."[7]
An accomplished guitarist, he wrote the new national anthem himself.[1]





Sankara's body was dismembered and he was quickly buried in an unmarked grave,[6] while his widow and two children fled the nation.[22] Compaoré immediately reversed the nationalizations, overturned nearly all of Sankara's policies, returned the country back under the IMF fold, and ultimately spurned most of Sankara's legacy. As of 2010, Compaoré is entering his 23rd year in power. He "has become immensely wealthy" and purchased a presidential plane to reflect his personal prestige, while landlocked Burkina Faso ranks as the third least developed country in the world.[1][6]
A week prior to his death Sankara gave what would become his own epitaph, remarking that "while revolutionaries as individuals can be murdered, you cannot kill ideas."[1]

[Lt. Ferret]

He banned unions, he banned free speech and a free press, and he put his political enemies, "lazy workers" and anyone he didn't like on trial for revolutionary crimes.

I'm not against charismatic leaders and I will take men like him over reactionary puppets of foreign capital, but this far leftist strong man approach doesnt really work, it doesn't work in any country it's tried in.

at BEST they continue along the tightrope they formed of ideological and moral purity. at worst you see some of the terrifying police states and genocides and wars that come from an authoritarian visionary eager to implement his ideas on a populace. I don't trust dictators, no matter what stripe they come in.

[RGacky3]

I just want to address this idiotic argument.

"Africa was bad before Europeans, and Europeans came and exploited their resources, but Africans wern't exploiting them, so Europeans actually made improvements, otherwise how would Africans mine those diamonds? Investment is good, Imperialism is good." and so on and so forth.

How has the average African benefited at all from their natural resources being exploited? Sure before they were unadvanced technologically, but that does'nt mean that they were worse off societally.

I've heard about the sustinance farming part, I don't know, but sustinance farming and getting your own, if not small, living would probably be considered better than mining diamonds for europeans and still living in extreme poverty.

Diamonds being mined in Angola don't benefit Angolans under imperialism, they are worse off by it because now Capitalists have a reason to take things over.

Its this Capitalist idea that a society is working if its producing a lot, no its not, a society is working if people are living well materially and economically.

The idea that Europeans made Africa better by taking their natural resources is rediculous.

[Rafiq]

He banned unions, he banned free speech and a free press, and he put his political enemies, "lazy workers" and anyone he didn't like on trial for revolutionary crimes.


He wasn't perfect, however I doubt he banned free speech.

That's a load of shit.

Well, bourgeois press is always right so that must mean he banned free speech :rolleyes:

[Lt. Ferret]

:laugh: hey its free as long as you tow the party line in these countries.

[Fabrizio]

Good point. No reson to worship dictators just because they oppose Imperialism. Most of these guys oppose Europeans because they weren't being paid enough by them--not because of any idealist beliefs.

They just made more money by setting up their own shop. They are the ultimate Capitalists.

But not all shops are the same. Better a capitalist who invests at home and sells to the domestic market, than one who only sells in dollars and keeps it all in an offshore bank account.