I have a question on Countries governed by Black governments.

[dre]

tag-line ? Don't know what you're talking about. The OP talks about 'Black governments', and I thought you were changing it to talk about colonies. Clarity is your friend.

So, I guess we're talking about Black countries that were colonies... Liberia has a current leader who looks pretty good, is striving to help her people and end corruption... but... why put those two factors together ?

If we find that those countries are in terrible shape, is it because of colonialism, race or some combination ? What do you think ?

If we find that those countries are in terrible shape, is it because of colonialism, race or some combination ? What do you think ?

Those are probably just small factors. Climate and geography are the biggest factors. Most of the rich areas of the world are in the middle of the northern hemisphere, a decent distance from the equator, and have a relatively modern climate with a fair ammount of moisture.

Tell me... Putting race aside completely, would you expect to see the same kind of society in sub saharan Africa as you would in North America or western Europe? Of course not.

Have a look at this Map that shows the world by affluence.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e7/World_countries_Standard_%26_Poor's_ratings.png/800px-World_countries_Standard_%26_Poor's_ratings.png

Now have a look at this map, that shows the world by the ammount of fresh water.

http://earth.rice.edu/mtpe/hydro/hydrosphere/hot/freshwater/DrinkingWater.jpg

Have a close look at South America on both maps. The part of South America on the upper right thats a nice healthy dark blue, is doing pretty well in terms of affluence and development. The lower left part with the green and light blue on the water map, is poorer.

Virtually all rich western nations exist a decent distance away from the equator and in areas where theres a decent ammount of fresh water.

And it makes sense if you think about it... Water and soil provides the basis for a strong agrarian economy, and that agrarian economy was the springboard for western human and economic developement.

Its not a perfect correlation, and you have some success stories in hot dry climates, and some failure stories in nice arable climates, but in general how well humans in the world do is dependant on how hospitable the land they live on is, and what resources it provides.

[Michael Hardner]

Its not a perfect correlation, and you have some success stories in hot dry climates, and some failure stories in nice arable climates, but in general how well humans in the world do is dependant on how hospitable the land they live on is, and what resources it provides.

Jared Diamond gave some geographic explanations in 'Guns Germs and Steel', and I have read other explanations about the way South America was settled vs. North America. These are more plausible explanations than race-based explanations - one of which I addressed above.

[Wild Bill]

The title of the thread is "Black governments", so the OP framed this in terms of race, not me. Are we not supposed to say anything about bigotry in a thread that asks about "Black governments" ?

Michael, I fear you are falling into the trap of picking apart someone's model and ignoring their point!

Perhaps indeed the OP was poorly worded but the intent was clear! Indeed, it sounds racist but the point underneath was valid.

Meanwhile, it seemed to take 2 pages of posts before you could get past that flawed model and truly start to address the point!

One might well ask "why?" but that again, would be ignoring the point in question. We should really do that in another thread.

[Michael Hardner]

Michael, I fear you are falling into the trap of picking apart someone's model and ignoring their point!

I know what point he's trying to make... and I don't care. The OP couldn't even frame the question properly... inventing something called 'Black governments'.

If people want to have a serious discussion, then they need to think a little more about what they write. I'm not going to give Peeves any help in thinking clearly - if he puts together a thread about 'Black governments' without defining what he means, then he deserves what he gets.

I'm surprised, because usually socialists would demand that we give intellectual failures an even break... let's all be "even" everyone !

Perhaps indeed the OP was poorly worded but the intent was clear! Indeed, it sounds racist but the point underneath was valid.

Yes, and indeed there's a good discussion to be had about the failures of the colonial system. The OP, though, is arrives at the party with his shirt buttoned incorrectly ... so we should do what comes naturally: laugh and point.

Meanwhile, it seemed to take 2 pages of posts before you could get past that flawed model and truly start to address the point!

If you want me to jump ahead to the point, then surely you're ok with me just coming out and calling somebody racist too right ? After all, maybe I can could see that that is "the point" too ? Or should I look the other way about that too ?

[bush_cheney2004]

Perhaps indeed the OP was poorly worded but the intent was clear! Indeed, it sounds racist but the point underneath was valid.

I'm not so sure it is. Based on what criteria? Who has benefited and suffered the most from the excesses of "white" governments? The OP starts from the same silly place as the term "visible minority".

[WWWTT]

If somebody starts a thread about "Yellow governments", for example, asking why Asian countries such as Indonesia or Vietnam have such bad economies then we can come back with examples such as China or Japan which weren't ever colonized/run into the ground.

This is a false statement.

Many attempts were made by Britain,France,Portugal and Japan to start colonization in China(Macau,Hong Kong).

In fact millions of Chinese died at the hands of the Japanese invaders!

WWWTT

[Moonlight Graham]

Those are probably just small factors. Climate and geography are the biggest factors. Most of the rich areas of the world are in the middle of the northern hemisphere, a decent distance from the equator, and have a relatively modern climate with a fair ammount of moisture.

Colonialism and race being small factors? You've got to be kidding me! Climate and geography are obvious factors, especially in extreme cases where deserts exist, but c'mon. It's no coincidence whatsoever that every white-majority country on the planet, from Canada to Europe to Australia, is also highly developed. The most economically developed countries (GDP per capita), minus very small population states, are almost all white-majority countries. Is that because they're situated in the best climates/geography? Heck no. Is New Zealand doing so much better than Indonesia or the Philippines because of geography? Or North vs South Korea? Haiti vs Dominican Republic?

Now have a look at this map, that shows the world by the ammount of fresh water.

http://earth.rice.edu/mtpe/hydro/hydrosphere/hot/freshwater/DrinkingWater.jpg

That's a not a map showing fresh water, it's showing % of pop with access to safe drinking water. (The data is also 25 years old). If you live in an economically developed country, you're going to have better access to safe drinking water, even if you live in a desert ie: Las Vegas.

And it makes sense if you think about it... Water and soil provides the basis for a strong agrarian economy, and that agrarian economy was the springboard for western human and economic developement.

Its not a perfect correlation, and you have some success stories in hot dry climates, and some failure stories in nice arable climates, but in general how well humans in the world do is dependant on how hospitable the land they live on is, and what resources it provides.

South America and Sub-Saharan Africa has some of the most lush vegetation on the face of the planet. If the US/Canada was located in South America they would be doing just fine. Canada would likely be doing even better because much of our land is virtually uninhabitable desert/permafrost. Africa has many natural resources like gold, oil, diamonds, rare earth's etc.

Because of a myriad of reasons, from technology to culture (which are themselves interrelated), Europe won the race to colonize much of the world and assert its dominance, which is absolutely still in effect to this day. Think about in Canada with native reserves being so poor, and white suburbs being rich, and if that has much to do with geography/climate, and then you'll see there are many factors that go into development & economic dominance.

[Guest Peeves]

I'm not scared of it... I just asked why we're not allowed to talk about bigotry when somebody specifically starts a thread about "Black governments". I didn't make this thread about race, the OP did ...

I'll gladly debate race, multicultuism [sic] or whatever you like, and I have.

If people bring up race, though, then they can't be afraid of being called bigots if they show bigotry. I'm not trying to control the debate here - the ones who want to talk about race with a get-out-of-jail free card to be bigoted without comment are.

I see that you continue your history (with my posts at least), in refusing to see what you don't want to respond to on point. You added nothing to the OP except to label 'it' 'me' bigoted.

So while I would have responded to anything you said on point, a country like Somalia perhaps ?, all I can respond to is your response. Calling me a bigot.

I may be a bigot, and the post maybe bigoted in your estimation, on the other hand why did you ignore "the billions in aid and the reference to Mugabe?

A strain on your leetle grey cells, or just another opportunity to avoid dialog, pontificate and simply be judgmental?

Never seem to come at anything straight on if it can be avoided or muddied do you.

I added enough qualifiers for the average Joe or Joan to address a point if they wanted to do so, such as the example of: " but many Black countries get millions or billions over the years and end up like Haiti or dictators like Robert Mugabe the President of Zimbabwe."

I did not use Black as a pejorative, but as a reasonable to me, choice in the countries I was alluding to as those in Africa, Somalia, Haiti, Zimbabwe et al.

"The Sub-Saharan region is also known as Black Africa,[12] in reference to its many black populations and governments."

Here's one person's opinion of the 10 failing nations to consider in context of my question, IF THEY FIT.

"This list looks at 10 of the poorest, most impoverished nations on earth. There is not likely to be much dispute about the countries listed here being suited to this list, but do feel free to add any others you may think should be here to the comments."

http://listverse.com/2011/07/10/top-10-failing-nations/

[Michael Hardner]

I see that you continue your history (with my posts at least), in refusing to see what you don't want to respond to on point. You added nothing to the OP except to label 'it' 'me' bigoted.

Where did I do this ?

I asked you a question in my first post because you used a term that needs more clarity. Your thinking is so sloppy.

So while I would have responded to anything you said on point, a country like Somalia perhaps ?, all I can respond to is your response. Calling me a bigot.

Where did I do this ?

I may be a bigot, and the post maybe bigoted in your estimation, on the other hand why did you ignore "the billions in aid and the reference to Mugabe?

It's your job to frame things clearly so that the conversation can start on a good foundation, not mine. Why do you expect me to cut you a break when you use ambiguous terms ?

A strain on your leetle grey cells, or just another opportunity to avoid dialog, pontificate and simply be judgmental?

You're the one who used the term "Black governments" then ridiculously added: " NO it's not a bigoted position, but probably not PC" Do you want me to just ignore this ? Why should I ?

I did not use Black as a pejorative, but as a reasonable to me, choice in the countries I was alluding to as those in Africa, Somalia, Haiti, Zimbabwe et al.

In case you missed it, we moved the argument along without you and started talking about colonialism.

What happened?

Colonialism, maybe. Do you have an alternative opinion ?

[Guest Peeves]

It's your job to frame things clearly so that the conversation can start on a good foundation, not mine. Why do you expect me to cut you a break when you use ambiguous terms ?

Black is ambiguous? Should I have rather used African, or Non -Caucasian? I'm sure you would still find away to be beguiling.

You're the one who used the term "Black governments" then ridiculously added: " NO it's not a bigoted position, but probably not PC" Do you want me to just ignore this ? Why should I ?

I rather expect not too much from your attention, but I just might have expected some response on the Black governments as in Somalia, Haiti, Zimbabwe over the last 50 years or so and there current status..broke, aids, unrest, violence, starving, etc. rather tan taking an opportunity to label me to little end.

In case you missed it, we moved the argument along without you and started talking about colonialism.

Colonialism, maybe. Do you have an alternative opinion ?

"You're the one who used the term "Black governments" then ridiculously added: " NO it's not a bigoted position, but probably not PC" Do you want me to just ignore this ? Why should I ?

As I recall Zimbabwe was a country with a *White governing body *qualifier), (would you prefer Caucasian?,that has now become a Black governing dictatorship, (Would you prefer the term 'African" or what as a qualifier that would be un PC or bruise your senses?)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14113249

[Michael Hardner]

As I recall Zimbabwe was a country with a *White governing body *qualifier), (would you prefer Caucasian?,that has now become a Black governing dictatorship, (Would you prefer the term 'African" or what as a qualifier that would be un PC or bruise your senses?)

Sorry, you ignored my questions from the last post. Where did I call you a bigot again ? Are you going to retract the question then ?

I don't really have to answer your questions, you see, if you don't answer mine.

[Guest Peeves]

Those are probably just small factors. Climate and geography are the biggest factors. Most of the rich areas of the world are in the middle of the northern hemisphere, a decent distance from the equator, and have a relatively modern climate with a fair ammount of moisture.

Tell me... Putting race aside completely, would you expect to see the same kind of society in sub saharan Africa as you would in North America or western Europe? Of course not.

Have a look at this Map that shows the world by affluence.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e7/World_countries_Standard_%26_Poor's_ratings.png/800px-World_countries_Standard_%26_Poor's_ratings.png

Now have a look at this map, that shows the world by the ammount of fresh water.

http://earth.rice.edu/mtpe/hydro/hydrosphere/hot/freshwater/DrinkingWater.jpg

Have a close look at South America on both maps. The part of South America on the upper right thats a nice healthy dark blue, is doing pretty well in terms of affluence and development. The lower left part with the green and light blue on the water map, is poorer.

Virtually all rich western nations exist a decent distance away from the equator and in areas where theres a decent ammount of fresh water.

And it makes sense if you think about it... Water and soil provides the basis for a strong agrarian economy, and that agrarian economy was the springboard for western human and economic developement.

Its not a perfect correlation, and you have some success stories in hot dry climates, and some failure stories in nice arable climates, but in general how well humans in the world do is dependant on how hospitable the land they live on is, and what resources it provides.

Interesting view. Lot's makes sense. But, that doesn't explain Zimbabwe where there was a surplus for export at one time.

[Guest Peeves]

Certainly colonialism played a part in their political evolution or devaluation, but the tribal Hutu-Tutsi, aids, Somali pirates, Haiti's difference from the Dominican Republic on the same island?

Surely colonialism doesn't explain some of these things?

The Republic of Haiti (République d'Haïti; Repiblik Ayiti), is a Caribbean country. It occupies the western, smaller portion of the island of Hispaniola, in the Greater Antillean archipelago, which it shares with the Dominican Republic.

[Wild Bill]

Colonialism, maybe. Do you have an alternative opinion ?

Actually, I think some folks are too quick to blame colonialism for all the troubles. Societies in those old colonial countries may not have been fair, in that the native populations often had no upward mobility but as far as things like roads, utilities and the basic infrastructure of a country were concerned, colonialism wasn't the problem! Things DID work under colonial rule and did NOT after independance!

The problem usually was that the native people were simply not sufficiently educated and advanced to cope, but they wanted their independence NOW! The colonizing power, whether Britain, France, Holland or whoever would come under such pressure that they finally would just up and pull out. Without them, things would fall into shambles.

If a tech had have been in charge, long before independence the native people would have been encouraged and assisted to become sufficiently educated to so as to actually be ABLE to run their own country! As things advanced the colonial rulers could slowly hand over power until this was accomplished and then completely pull out painlessly.

Except for our own country of Canada, this never seems to have happened. Instead, as I said the colonizing power comes under more and more political and perhaps violent revolutionary pressures until they finally just up and quit. Its like having someone in the back of your car drive you crazy with their back seat driving, claiming they could do better, until finally in frustration you pull over, hand them the keys and walk away. The person in the back has never driven but feels he is able to do so. You can imagine the rest and see the point of the model in countries like Zimbabwe.

It's an offshoot of that old saying "Democracy is a system where the little guy knows what he wants and deserves to get it good and hard!"

[The_Squid]

Things DID work under colonial rule and did NOT after independance!

You conveniently ignore that things only worked for a very few whites who held all the political power and all the money, living off the labour of the majority of the population and the resources of their ill-gotten lands.

Things did NOT work for the vast majority. And how is that supposed to change when there is majority rule? The majority doesn't suddenly become wealthy like the whites were!

[Wild Bill]

You conveniently ignore that things only worked for a very few whites who held all the political power and all the money, living off the labour of the majority of the population and the resources of their ill-gotten lands.

Things did NOT work for the vast majority. And how is that supposed to change when there is majority rule? The majority doesn't suddenly become wealthy like the whites were!

If you had read my post you would have noticed that I specifically said that things were unfair with no upward mobility for the natives.

Somethings were only for whites, or whatever race was the colonizing power. Historically, racism in China over the centuries often made the Confederate States of America look like Doctor King's Rainbow Coalition!

However, that was only a few. I'm talking about telephones, mail systems, sewers, trains, buses.government departments, water and electricity grids and so on. I hardly think a sewage system could be "whites only".

LOOK at all those African countries that won independence and became shitholes! Try naming those that were successful! If we think long enough could we come up with more than 2 or 3? I can't think of one!

This all has nothing to do with race and evil white men. Sure colonialism often involved racism but more often it was simply a case of the native population being nowhere advanced enough to run things. I would agree that perhaps countries like Britain should have been more progressive in educating the native people of India to run their own country but that's a separate issue, describing a long ago time when NOBODY was progressive by today's standards!

You can either run a railroad or you can't, no matter what your colour. Period and end of story.

[The_Squid]

You can either run a railroad or you can't, no matter what your colour. Period and end of story.

And if you couldn't runaway railroad then your country should be taken over by those who can? Is they your contention?

LOOK at all those African countries that won independence and became shitholes!

They were shitholes already!! Just not for the whites. The colonialists made out like the bandits that they were!

[bush_cheney2004]

They were shitholes already!! Just not for the whites. The colonialists made out like the bandits that they were!

Oh my...this is very culturally insensitive. To the ancient Egyptians (Africa), Europe was a "shithole" for thousands of years.

[The_Squid]

Oh my...this is very culturally insensitive. To the ancient Egyptians (Africa), Europe was a "shithole" for thousands of years.

Culturally insensitive to the Dutch? Portuguese? British? French? They were the bandits that had a large hand in creating these issues.

[Scotty]

One upon a time about half a millennium ago, Europe became the most powerful region in the world. They were violent wretched beasts, and they decided to use this power, technological might, and douchebaggery to colonize most of the world.

This is politically correct nonsense. The fact is that every powerful nation or culture in the history of the world up until the present era has used that wealth and power to expand and conquer all around them. The Europeans were no worse, and in many instances, a hell of a lot better than those who came before them. Have a look at some of the eastern empires from Asia, India or the Mid-east, and how they treated their weaker neighbors, sometime. They weren't exactly kind. For that matter, within Africa, nations which were more powerful preyed on their neighbors, conquering them, slaughtering them, taking their land for themselves. And no, the Europeans didn't invent the concept of slavery. It was in wide use long before their ascendance. And they, at least, were the first ones to develop a social conscience to the extent they eliminated slavery and then freed the subjugated nations.

The rest of your odious, self righteous nonsense I'll leave to others.

[Scotty]

I don't think race has anything to do with the failure of Black countries, despite the fact that Blacks, in general, have failed countries.

If you want the reason, you can look to history. First, as to why Blacks didn't develop in the same way Whites did, you can look to the fact that Africa, as lush as it was, was not friendly to the idea of large scale human development. Why wasn't it? What did Europe have that Africa lacked? Africa, and this is going back a ways so my memory might be a bit foggy, lacked one thing for sure, and possibly the second.

It lacked animal power. Now you might think there are lots of animals in Africa, sure. But what it lacked was an animal they could domesticate to use for power in the way oxen and cattle and horses and camels were domesticated in other areas. Without that domestic animal, which other parts of the world also lacked, notably the Americas, they could rely only on their own muscles, and only their own feet. Areas of the world without these animals didn't develop very far.

A second thing needed, which I think most of Africa also lacked, was a type of food which could be easily grown and could feed a lot of people. I don't believe the kinds of crops which sustained early Europeans and Asians were available to them, ie wheat, rice, corn, etc. Without that you couldn't build a nation very large because there wouldn't be enough food in a given area to sustain them, and without animal power you couldn't move food from outlying areas.

I think they also lacked a food beast, an animal which could be domesticated and held on farms in the way cows, pigs, chickens, sheep, etc. were held, grown and butchered for food. Not entirely sure of that.

So, then came colonialism. The big problem colonialism caused was not that it destroyed their self-esteem or anything. The big problem was that the Europeans drew borders which had little or nothing to do with the actual tribes and nations which lived there. As long as the Europeans were in charge that didn't matter. When they left, you found 'nations' which were artificial creations, that were shared by several tribes (nations) which were historic enemies. Civil war was the norm, not the exception, and there was little in the way of compromise and accommodation. And, of course, there was little in the way of education either. There was no one left who had any experience in how to run a nation. So of course, everything fell to pieces.

Why is Africa still a crap hole? Because they never developed the cultural idea of democracy there, still have mutually hostile populations within the same borders, and still (no money) lack the infrastructure for a modern economy. Plus, of course, the shaky governmental structures are invariably corrupt, which means multinational corporations or foreign governments (notably France and China) can buy them off so they let their resources be raped away.

Edited February 5, 2012 by Scotty

[Guest Peeves]

I don't think race has anything to do with the failure of Black countries, despite the fact that Blacks, in general, have failed countries.

If you want the reason, you can look to history. First, as to why Blacks didn't develop in the same way Whites did, you can look to the fact that Africa, as lush as it was, was not friendly to the idea of large scale human development. Why wasn't it? What did Europe have that Africa lacked? Africa, and this is going back a ways so my memory might be a bit foggy, lacked one thing for sure, and possibly the second.

It lacked animal power. Now you might think there are lots of animals in Africa, sure. But what it lacked was an animal they could domesticate to use for power in the way oxen and cattle and horses and camels were domesticated in other areas. Without that domestic animal, which other parts of the world also lacked, notably the Americas, they could rely only on their own muscles, and only their own feet. Areas of the world without these animals didn't develop very far.

A second thing needed, which I think most of Africa also lacked, was a type of food which could be easily grown and could feed a lot of people. I don't believe the kinds of crops which sustained early Europeans and Asians were available to them, ie wheat, rice, corn, etc. Without that you couldn't build a nation very large because there wouldn't be enough food in a given area to sustain them, and without animal power you couldn't move food from outlying areas.

I think they also lacked a food beast, an animal which could be domesticated and held on farms in the way cows, pigs, chickens, sheep, etc. were held, grown and butchered for food. Not entirely sure of that.

So, then came colonialism. The big problem colonialism caused was not that it destroyed their self-esteem or anything. The big problem was that the Europeans drew borders which had little or nothing to do with the actual tribes and nations which lived there. As long as the Europeans were in charge that didn't matter. When they left, you found 'nations' which were artificial creations, that were shared by several tribes (nations) which were historic enemies. Civil war was the norm, not the exception, and there was little in the way of compromise and accommodation. And, of course, there was little in the way of education either. There was no one left who had any experience in how to run a nation. So of course, everything fell to pieces.

Why is Africa still a crap hole? Because they never developed the cultural idea of democracy there, still have mutually hostile populations within the same borders, and still (no money) lack the infrastructure for a modern economy. Plus, of course, the shaky governmental structures are invariably corrupt, which means multinational corporations or foreign governments (notably France and China) can buy them off so they let their resources be raped away.

Interesting observations. I faulted some of your rational until I read the concluding paragraph.

Certainly the aid and advisors over the past generation should have had some impact but it seems not. Also, the availability of hybrid crops and agricultural improvements should have made crops more feasible.

Other countries have been successful in developing in hostile environments have they not. Zimbabwe as an example was pretty much a successful agricultural country in South Africa.

And, on the same Island as Haiti the much more prosperous Dominican Republic,(as the second largest economy in the Caribbean and Central American region.)

I question the policies of continued financial aid to countries with seemingly FEW CONDITIONS ATTACHED.

Shouldn't there be stipulated conditions for aid?

[Guest Peeves]

[quote name='Wild Bill'

LOOK at all those African countries that won independence and became shitholes! Try naming those that were successful! If we think long enough could we come up with more than 2 or 3? I can't think of one!

That's a digest view of my OP.

That's what bothers me. Some times I think, (golly moses is that bigoted?) that African Americans are lucky now to be where they are.

[Wild Bill]

That's a digest view of my OP.

That's what bothers me. Some times I think, (golly moses is that bigoted?) that African Americans are lucky now to be where they are.

Of course they are lucky! They are modern human beings instead of next door to cave people!

My ancestors used to strip down and paint their asses blue before going into battle. I do like my single malt today but I have no desire to live like my Scottish ancestors.

Besides, I think I would make too big of a blue target!

[Guest Peeves]

Of course they are lucky! They are modern human beings instead of next door to cave people!

My ancestors used to strip down and paint their asses blue before going into battle. I do like my single malt today but I have no desire to live like my Scottish ancestors.

Besides, I think I would make too big of a blue target!

Well, you're still fair game if you're playin the pipes.