The White Man's Burden

[JerrySeinfeld]

Kimmy makes a thoughtful post on how this isn't a race issue, and then someone comes along and makes it a race issue.

Colonializing a barbaric society has less to do with race and more to do with human rights.

Only a multiculti apologist would read a comment about spearheading women's rights in barbaric societies as a racial comment.

[Charles Anthony]

Only a multiculti apologist would read a comment about spearheading women's rights in barbaric societies as a racial comment.

No. You singled out Arab and Islam.

You could have said:

"We make a list of all countries that allow gang-raping of women, or those that don't let women vote, or those that don't allow women to feel the sun shine on their face...ever."

and

"All people who treat women like beasts deserve the harshest form of colonization until they get it right."

but your racism got the best of you.

Colonializing a barbaric society has less to do with race and more to do with human rights.

Colonization has more to do with coersion which is a violation of human rights more than anything else.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Only a multiculti apologist would read a comment about spearheading women's rights in barbaric societies as a racial comment.

No. You singled out Arab and Islam.

You could have said:

"We make a list of all countries that allow gang-raping of women, or those that don't let women vote, or those that don't allow women to feel the sun shine on their face...ever."

and

"All people who treat women like beasts deserve the harshest form of colonization until they get it right."

but your racism got the best of you.

Colonializing a barbaric society has less to do with race and more to do with human rights.

Colonization has more to do with coersion which is a violation of human rights more than anything else.

Short term pain long term gain.

[geoffrey]

No. You singled out Arab and Islam.

You could have said:

"We make a list of all countries that allow gang-raping of women, or those that don't let women vote, or those that don't allow women to feel the sun shine on their face...ever."

and

"All people who treat women like beasts deserve the harshest form of colonization until they get it right."

but your racism got the best of you.

Is there any non-Islamic countries that promote those values?

[Argus]

Why is it still the White man's burden to bring civilization to the world?

Your title is misleading, if not completely racist. I think what you are trying to argue is that it's the rich man's burden to care for the poor, not that it's the white man's burden to help non-whites, at least that is what I gather from your examples. You do realize that there are people from other races (black, arab, asian etc.) that pay taxes in Canada, the U.S. and Europe, and that their tax money is also helping the less fortunate. You should also remember that there are white people on welfare here in Canada (and the U.S.), so the issue isn't really about race, it's about money.

Canada, the US and Europe are largely White. Get over it.

But why should we? Indonesia is a nation of well over two hundred million people. They can't take care of a few swamped islands? Do you think the people of Yemen or Zambia were so aghast they were stuffing pennies into envelopes? Were there massive supplies of military and civilian aid from China, Iran and Bolivia? Where were the Chinese, Japanese and Phillipine navies?

We also helped the U.S. (along with many other countries) after hurricane Katrina. They are a country of 300 million people who could easily have taken care of the aftermath (moreso than indonesia), yet we still helped anyways...and guess what, most of the U.S. is WHITE.

But the people we were helping were BLACK. Not that that's the point. Yes, some people felt charitable and wanted to help. Nothing wrong with that. I'm talking about feeling the "obligation" to help because we're the "civliized" world and they're ... not.

[Argus]

Not realistic. They have resources we need. Those resources bring wealth. Wealth brings power. And that leads to fighting and social upheaval. Such is the story of the third world. Here we have negotiations about how to spread the loot around. There they reach for the Ak-47s.

As for not sellling weapons - money will find a way. It always has.

Well, then the mess, and hatred for the West will continue no matter what do-goodies we turn up once in a while, and it's as simple as the second law of Newton. No reason to complain about uncivilized character of some and intolerant religions of others either. Just understand. They are the way they are. And they did not ask us there. So, either try to change your ways (and you're right, the prospects of that do not seem to be very promising even now) or continue to carry the burden of the white man without complain - till the hard truth finally dawns.

You misunderestand. First, yes, we need the resources. Second, if we said "no", every third world country would be demanding we reverse our decision. They want and need to sell us resources. Many of them would collapse without the money coming in. Besides, is it not patternalistic to tell third world countries "We won't trade with you because you're not mature enough to handle the money."?

[Argus]

Could it be though, that we actually do need something from them (i.e. resources, oil), as Argus has pointed out? And much of that "civilization", "democratization", etc activity is actually driven by plain and simple capital interest (aka greed)? Gold and spice in the middle ages, wood and furs 18-1900, oil more recently?

And all that do-good thing just an attempt to mask that (to ourselves more than to everybody else)?

There's some of that to it, but even in areas where we have nothing at stake - Somalia comes to mind - there has been a clamour for the West to "do something" to protect them from, well, themselves. You didn't see that clamour in China. In fact, the idea that China would send troops to a hole like Somalia purely to stop the locals from butchering and starving themselves is ludicrous. Yet the Americans did it, hell so did we. Why? Because the governments were responding to the clamour to "do something" as if it were our responsibility.

[Black Dog]

Colonializing a barbaric society has less to do with race and more to do with human rights.

Only a multiculti apologist would read a comment about spearheading women's rights in barbaric societies as a racial comment.

Gee, how could anyone get the idea that this was a racial comment?

We make a list of Arab countries...

Why don't you stick to web sites like Stormfront. That's more your speed.

Is there any non-Islamic countries that promote those values?

Yes. Lots.

[Argus]

Q

Why is it still the White man's burden to bring civilization to the world?

-Argus, August 26, 2006

A?

We are better, we do know what is best, and they should just do what we tell them until they learn how to be like us.

-Argus, June 27, 2005

Would you care to clarify where that came from so I can check the context?

You see, unlike you, I don't have every post I've ever made catalogued and sorted.

[Black Dog]

It's called the search function. I'm sure you can figure it out for yourself.

[Argus]

Is there any non-Islamic countries that promote those values?

Yes. Lots.

Like?

[gc1765]

Canada, the US and Europe are largely White. Get over it.

Of course they are largely white, but they are not 100% white. There are many races in those countries paying taxes which help out others. Why do they not deserve credit?

But the people we were helping were BLACK. Not that that's the point. Yes, some people felt charitable and wanted to help. Nothing wrong with that. I'm talking about feeling the "obligation" to help because we're the "civliized" world and they're ... not.

Do you think we wouldn't have helped if they weren't mostly black? Of course there are white people in Louisianna (and other states affected) as well, do you think we only helped out the black people and ignored the white people? Besides, the people we were helping were the United States. They are the ones responsible for the saftey of their citizens and, as you pointed out, the United States is mostly white.

You also ignored the other part of my post. Do you not have a response for this:

This is a list of countries who pledged help after hurricane Katrina. Notice all the non-white countries helping out the United States, a country of mostly whites?

Over seventy countries pledged monetary donations or other assistance. Kuwait made the largest single pledge, $500 million; other large donations were made by Qatar ($100 million), South Korea ($30 million), India, China (both $5 million), Pakistan ($1.5 million),[84] and Bangladesh ($1 million).[85]

Countries like Sri Lanka, which was still recovering from the Indian Ocean Tsunami, Cuba and Venezuela (despite their differences with the United States), also offered to help. Countries including Canada, Mexico, Singapore, and Germany sent supplies, relief personnel, troops, ships and water pumps to aid in the disaster recovery. Britain's donation of 350,000 emergency meals did not reach victims due to laws regarding mad cow disease[86]. Russia's initial offer of two jets was declined by the U.S. State Department but accepted later. The French offer was also declined and requested later.[87]

[myata]

There's some of that to it, but even in areas where we have nothing at stake - Somalia comes to mind - there has been a clamour for the West to "do something" to protect them from, well, themselves. You didn't see that clamour in China. In fact, the idea that China would send troops to a hole like Somalia purely to stop the locals from butchering and starving themselves is ludicrous. Yet the Americans did it, hell so did we. Why? Because the governments were responding to the clamour to "do something" as if it were our responsibility.

Of course there's no clamour in China because Chinese had nothing to do with Africa. Never imported slaves, installed colonial administrations, suppressed locals, cut arbitrary borders, created new states. For a change, white man wants to be seen as doing the good (and right) thing - only old habits die hard.

And contrary to the earlier misunderstanding, I'm all for the trade, as long as it doesn't serve as a mean to project power and influence. Leave your money at the border and pick up the goods, the old fashioned way. Eventually and over time trust may develop to expand the exchange if both parties so desire.

Actually, I must admit that it doesn't serve much good to paint all West in one colour. There're nuances and flavours. Maybe if the West (both old and new) only agreed with the rest of the world on a few very basic principles (responsible trade, non-interference and freedom of migration), it'd do a lot more good to the peace and stability. Unfortunately, the human rights and democracy agenda is so much tainted by (some of the) West's selective interpretations that they are probably viewed by too many now as simply another tool in the on-going struggle to continue domination.

[Rue]

I question Argus for two positions; i-his position of moral judgement and gross generalization that people die from AIDS because they are promiscuous (and thus by inference that they are not entitled to help because they caused their own problem due to a lifestyle choice) and ii-that the coruption in Africa is the responsibility of Africans. I also wish to clarify another point I made that Argus did not understand when I referred to a theoretical alliance between Muslims and Jews.

O.k. to start with, this arguement Argus makes that people who get AIDS got it because of a lifestyle choice, don't deserve anyone else's aid or help because they brought it on themselves is truly simplistic and raises one of the most common misconceptions and prejudices associated with the disease. In that respect it is no different then people who once used to argue mental illness was a personal choice and therefore no one else's responsibility to help and of course used to be said about leprosy, tuberculosis, rabies, epilepsy adn thousands of other diseases and to this day icancer, heart disease, liver disease, etc.

For starters with any disease even if it is caused by lifestyle choices, Argus does not have the moral right to judge people and condemn them to a lack of hhelp and suffering because they make bad lifestyle choices. why? Because as human beings we are supposed to have compassion and care-the moment we lose that compassion and care, the moment we lose part of our own inner selves, the part that helps us weigh decency over selfishness.

More to the point people whose lifestyle contributes to diseases often are ignorant of the cause and effect and/or have been vulnerable to socio-economic conditions beyond their control that contributed to the

disease.

So yes on one level a person who smokes and drinks and eats junk food has an individual responsibility for the choice to have smoked, drank and eaten high fat foods which contributed directly to his or her liver disease, cancer, heart disease, etc. No one would argue we all as individuals have a responsibility to

look after our bodies.

But the point is, how does Argus know these same people didn't get their disease also as a result of being exposed to the stress of unemployment, air pollution, exposure to lead paint, and as a result of being exposed to crime, violence, despair, and partly as a result of that exposure, turned to drugs, smokes, high fat food as a reaction or coping mechacnism or quite simply because in many inner cities or the third world

there is no access to fresh fruit and vegetables and water, education, work and clearn air, but there is exposure to cigarettes, booze and violence. Or would Argus turn a blind eye and choose to forget that alcohol and tobacco companies and junk food companies deliberately target and market the poor or third

world?

Maybe in theworld where Argus lives people have control over their choices, but in the real world this is not the case and precisely the point.

In the third world, lack of fresh water, fresh fruit and vegetables and a balanced diet, education, health services and exposure to war stunts peoples' [hysical, spiritual and yes even mental growth and health.

The fact is you can't develop insights to help yourself without a certain intellectual capacity, and that intellectual capacity is a moot point if your brain and body are robbed of basic vitamins and protein and so can't develop properly.

Putting that aside, Argus' generalization that Africans are promiscuous is odious. Its a coded racist conception that third world people, are sexual savages.

There are two facts Argus' own racial conceptions cause him to selectively ignore. First and foremost is that third world people most certainly try to have as many children as possible, not because they are promiscuous but because there is no social services net for them and so they try increase the chances of one or more of their children surviving to look after them by having as many as they can. That is a fact that anyone who has worked in the third world or developing nations understands and is something missed on people who live in the suburbs and take for granted their social services departments, education system and a social service system that might help them if they get sick or disabled. In the third world, if you can't find work or get sick, you die if there is no one in your own family to help.

Now this next prejudicial assumption that third world people or Africans are promiscuous is of course subjective judgemental b.s. In fact people who are starving and weak are not promiscuous they have no energy from calories from food to engage in sex and if they do its to survive not to enjoy themselves again something missed on Argus because if he travelled to third world zones of poverty he would see many of these people he thinks are out of control sex savages are tired, sick people procreating in a desperate attempt to survive through offspring.

As for the prostitution, Argus also seemed to skip over another inconvenient reality. The international sex trade that exports sexual slaves all over the world or uses third world children and women is financed and controlled not just by savage sexually crazed Africans but by Europeans and Americans who need their

sex with children or young girls.

More to the point AIDS is spread because millions of Africans haven't a clue what a contraceptive is and how to use it, and need access to it and education to understand how it works and how it can prevent the spread of aids before they are morally judged. Its easy to dismiss Africans as sexually promiscuous when even if they wanted to engage in safe sex they have no access to contraceptives. More to the point we still get back to the vicious socio-economic cycle Argus blocks out of his judgemental mind and that is, if you ask Africans or any third world person to stop reproducing and having as many children as possible to raise the odds of one them surviving to help the family, what do you do to assure these people there is an alternative social net to protect them when they get sick or are unemployed?

See its easy for Argus from the comfort of the suburbs to dismiss Africans as sex savages when Argus doesn't have the pressure to need to reproduce as many children as possible.

So sorry I do not buy into the odious racist misnomer that Africans or any other third world person is a sex savage. That dates back to Christian missionaries who went to Africa and the third world and dismissed these people as savages and yet these same missionaries spread venereal disease and were part of a society that used Christianity to justify apartheid, slavery and institutionalized racism.

And that brings us to the next point. Argus dismisses Africa's coruption as being its own problem. Well this is just utter ignorance. Of course there was a historic chain of events leading up to the present tense and to ignore the artificially imposed borders of Britain, France, Belgium, etc., that ignored natural tribal patterns and condemned countries to artificial cultural and economic zones is absurd.

There is a direct coorelation between the colonial borders and the political, social, cultural and economic problems now faced in the third world and to simply dismiss that as "nonsense" is the result of intellectual laziness and of course selectivity for to do that would relate it back to the same people who feel they aren't responsible.

More importantly Argus may stick his head in the sand and pretend it aint so, but for those of us who do breath the air and acccept reality, we are vividly aware of the organized crime and government and business interests in Europe and America that prop up and fuel corput third world regimes.

Where has Argus been. Does he think Chevron gas has shared its wealth with Chad? Does he think the multi-nationals in Nigeria share the wealth with Nigerians. Oh sure its because of these peoples' governments being corupt aint that convenient. The point is-the multi-nationals make sure that the governments are corupted and controlled and to pretend otherwise and blame it on the masses who have no say and can't change the government even if they wanted to, is absolute b.s. and is precisely why most third world people identify with charismatic figures like Castro, Guevera. Nasser, Hussein, etc., they of course will identify with

firey leaders who talk of resisting colonial influence and being their own masters.

Now that leads me to my last point. I raised the analogy of a Muslim-Jewish alliance as a concept which went over Argus' head. The point was to suggest this. When we look at present day conflicts, we dismiss them as tribal wars. And so like argus its convenient for us to say, ah let us just let these savages kill themselves it aint my problem. They deserve it because they are both savage.

Well the fact is and that was the point of my analogy, what fuels a tribal war between Jews and Arabs is what fuels tribal wars in the third world-it is military industrial complexes and specifically the military economies and weapons sales of the US, Britan, France, Belgium, Germany, China, Russia that fuel thesetribal wars for two reasons; i-so they can trade weapons for oil or other natural resources; ii-so they can divide and conquer these nations and keep them in a state of dysfunction so that they are dependent on the US, China, Russia, etc.

That is not nonsesne, that is cause and effect and to pretend there is no corelation the military-industrial interests of these countries to fuel tribal wars is absurd. One only need to trace where all the weapons come from, to see who financially benefits from having these tribes remain in a perpetual state of war.

That is precisely why I say to you, jews adn Arabs, are but two examples of ancient tribes who as a result of historical developments and the inextricable link to colonial empires that created artificial borders, now face off with each other.

Its precisely why fanatical nationalists and fundamentalist terrorists come about. Its precisely what causes terrorism to evolve and people like Jews to feel that the only way they can survive is to once and for all be their own masters of destiny just as Arabs or third world people crave the same for their people.

So yes of course there is individual responsibility for lifestyle and yes people who buy into terrorism and violence have to be criticized and not apologized for. No I am not making excuses. I also would argue that all people no matter how desperate their situations still can follow the lead of Ghandi as opposed to terrorism. But putting that aside, what I am saying is on the other-hand, it does not given any of us the right to feel we are superior to people in the third world and can morally judge them-not while we live in countries and with a lifestyle that necessarily needs cheap labour and captive economies in the third world, if we are to sustain our lifestyles.

The price for living the way we do is the propping up of captive economies. The price of our lifestyle is a European or North American economy that prevents third world countries from developing and being economically competitive. Of course perhaps in Argus' world he will also selectively ignore the policies of the World bank and how it has been used by the European Union and America to engage in predatory pricing and suck resources out of the third word. And I also blame the Chinese for the exact same economic reasons to contributing to world wide predatory pricing.

So before Argus writes off Africa perhaps he should travel there and speak to its people, and people who have chosen to work for development agencies there and get a different perspective on poverty. He might also want to pay particular attention to how multi-nationals target third world people with products such as

alcohol, tobacco, weapons, and dispose of toxic chemicals in many of these nations.

And lest Argus feels he can simply write of Africans as promiscuous perhaps he should try understand not all people who engage in sex are savages. Some people get aids, not because they are promiscuous but because their partners did not disclose the illness or did not know they had the illness and not for moral reasons of failure.

And no not all Africans or gays are depraved sex maniacs just as not all caucasians are evil because we

live in societities that exploit the third world. negative generalizations and assumptions only shut down

paths of healing and meaninful resolution to social problems.

[Black Dog]

Like?

India. China. Most of Africa (not just the Arab bits).

[yam]

Yes Rue.

The third world is literally 'maintained' for its peripheral status as 'the' resourse for exploitation by the core nations.

The world economy could not function the way it is now to benefit core nations if it were not set up this way. The whole economy would collapse if every nation was a winner. Third world =fuel/canon fodder to perpetuate the running of first world.

Disease, war, famine are the consequences to a 'rich' economy.

It is sick.

Argus is sick too.

[Argus]

It's called the search function. I'm sure you can figure it out for yourself.

Oh, sorry. I have a life. I'll just assume you dishonestly took it out of context, and that's why you didn't give a link or identify the topic or anything.

[Black Dog]

Oh, sorry. I have a life. I'll just assume you dishonestly took it out of context, and that's why you didn't give a link or identify the topic or anything.

What, you can spend as much time as you do on this forum, but can't spare 30 seconds for the search function? Here's your hint: the title was, IIRC, "Aid to Africa". Think you can manage the rest?

[Charles Anthony]

It did not take me long to find it either. An easy way to search is to select any text for example "we do know what is best" and do a search for that exact phrase.

I will spill the beans:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....ost&p=58397

What, you can spend as much time as you do on this forum,

Were you waiting all year for this?

In all fairness, you are being quite trollish.... but in a good way!

Considering who started this current thread, your troll-catch is priceless!

[Argus]

For starters with any disease even if it is caused by lifestyle choices, Argus does not have the moral right to judge people and condemn them to a lack of hhelp

I have the right to judge anyone I want for any reason I want. We conservatives have a tendency to say people are responsible for their own actions. This is, of course, different from you liberals, to whom the idea of personal responsibility is literally a foreign concept.

Putting that aside, Argus' generalization that Africans are promiscuous is odious. Its a coded racist conception that third world people, are sexual savages.

Your problem, and the problem of so many of you on the left, is your inability to seperate your gross emotionalism from the basic facts of an argument. Having no way of arguing fact, you resort to hysteria and preachy moralizing. Saying Africans are promiscuous is not odious. It is a statement which is either right or wrong. The proper response is to argue why it is or is not correct, not resort to inane whining because the statement offends you.

In this case, numerous authorities, including the W.H.O., have placed the blame for Africa's AIDs epidemic on their promiscuity - which you could easily have found if you'd bothered to look into it instead of going into your shrill knee-jerk moralizing mode.

There are two facts Argus' own racial conceptions cause him to selectively ignore. First and foremost is that third world people most certainly try to have as many children as possible,

Irrelevent. We're not talking about men having children with their wives, but men screwing around with numerous women.

More to the point AIDS is spread because millions of Africans haven't a clue what a contraceptive is and how to use it, and need access to it and education to understand how it works and how it can prevent the spread of aids before they are morally judged.

I'm not sure your attitude - re, Africans are poor, stupid savages who can't understand what a rubber does - is not considerably more racist than my quotes about their promiscuity.

See its easy for Argus from the comfort of the suburbs to dismiss Africans as sex savages when Argus doesn't have the pressure to need to reproduce as many children as possible.

Your snivelling about children is getting tiresome. Promiscuity is not about having children.

So sorry I do not buy into the odious racist misnomer that Africans or any other third world person is a sex savage.

Most experts believe that sexual contact is responsible for 90% of HIV transmissions in Africa.

There has been a long history of unsafe sex coupled with promiscuity in many countries. There has also been a well-documented lack of awareness about the disease across the continent, which experts say fuels the spread of HIV through unsafe sex.

AIDS in Africa

"I think we Swazis are naturally promiscuous people. Even after hearing that there is no cure for Aids and Aids is deadly, they remain promiscuous" he explained through an interpreter.

AIDS ravages Swazi Society

Global Health Council

Michael Coren on religion/sex in Africa

And that brings us to the next point. Argus dismisses Africa's coruption as being its own problem. Well this is just utter ignorance. Of course there was a historic chain of events leading up to the present tense and to ignore the artificially imposed borders of Britain, France, Belgium, etc., that ignored natural tribal patterns and condemned countries to artificial cultural and economic zones is absurd.

That was half a century ago. They've had plenty of time to change the borders if they wanted to, and plenty of time to get used to them. Colonialism was a world-wide phenomena, suffered by, among others, England, Ireland and Scotland - so you liberals should stop whining about it and blaming all the world's ills on western Europeans.

More importantly Argus may stick his head in the sand and pretend it aint so, but for those of us who do breath the air and acccept reality, we are vividly aware of the organized crime and government and business interests in Europe and America that prop up and fuel corput third world regimes.

This is just more of that racist doublethink which says the poor dumb darkie can't be held responsible for anything.

Where has Argus been. Does he think Chevron gas has shared its wealth with Chad? Does he think the multi-nationals in Nigeria share the wealth with Nigerians.

They damn sure give money to the governments there. If the governments steal it that's not our fault. All corporate interests everywhere will grease the wheels if government is corrupt enough to let them. We certainly have some of that here and in the US. The Africans just have fewer controls and less oversight - and massively corrupt, undemocratic governments which don't care about their people. But is it our fault? Is it up to us to change those governments?

Now that leads me to my last point. I raised the analogy of a Muslim-Jewish alliance as a concept which went over Argus' head. The point was to suggest this. When we look at present day conflicts, we dismiss them as tribal wars. And so like argus its convenient for us to say, ah let us just let these savages kill themselves it aint my problem. They deserve it because they are both savage.

Well the fact is and that was the point of my analogy, what fuels a tribal war between Jews and Arabs is what fuels tribal wars in the third world-it is military industrial complexes

You are going from gibbering, racist, patronizing nonsense to the deluded rantings of shrill anarchists. To suggest it is military corporations which fuel the enmity between Israel and the Arab world is so breathtakingly silly as to move me to pretty much dismiss anything you have to say about the middle east.

terrorism. But putting that aside, what I am saying is on the other-hand, it does not given any of us the right to feel we are superior to people in the third world and can morally judge them

I disagree. I am culturally and socially superior to them, better educated and considerally more sophisticated. I don't know what it is about you liberals which causes you such painful embarrassment to ever think anyone is inferior to us. Taking a look at our nation, and taking a look at theirs leaves little other logical answer.

[Argus]

Disease, war, famine are the consequences to a 'rich' economy.

It is sick.

Argus is sick too.

I dislike it when dull-witted people attribute moral failings to me simply because they lack the intelligence, education or sanity to engage in actual discussion, which is why I have a habit of trying to get them bounced from this site - with some success to date. So if you have any comments on my health again I'd suggest it be referenced to a proven medical condition.

[Argus]

Oh, sorry. I have a life. I'll just assume you dishonestly took it out of context, and that's why you didn't give a link or identify the topic or anything.

What, you can spend as much time as you do on this forum, but can't spare 30 seconds for the search function? Here's your hint: the title was, IIRC, "Aid to Africa". Think you can manage the rest?

It's quite simple. First, I haven't ever really bothered to learn how the search feature works. Second, and more importantly, if people want to confront me with words I've used in the past I feel it's incumbent on them to provide me with the cite. it's not like they don't already have it. And I don't feel I should have to go searching in order to respond.

The quote in question was Melanie's - albeit sarcastic. I simply agreed - albeit snidely. So? It in no way contradicts anything I've said in this thread. If all Africa's problems are to be laid at the doorstep of the mismatched borders we stuck them with, then let's redraw the borders. Hell, let's put in some capable administrators to kick start the economies and governmental structures, a few universities to educate people, teach them how to run their new countries, then leave them to it? What's so wrong about that? It certainly can't get any worse down there.

Should that be the White Man's Burden? You'll note I haven't said that we don't bear any responsibility. I haven't said that we should abandon the rest of the world. I have only asked - why is it our burden? Why is there this pressure for us to correct the world's wrongs, while other wealthy nations, ie, the Saudis, for example, do prescious little. Anyone ever ask why the Palestinians are so dirt poor even while all those filthy rich Arab nations champion them - but give them almost no money? Who provides most of the money to the Palestinian Authority - or did until Hamas was elected? The West.

One thing I really don't like, is responsibilty without authority. You want to say it's our responsibility to fix Africa. Then give us the authority to do so. I'm okay with that.

[myata]

Hi Argus,

you surely only listen to your own argument. Many, many conflicts in today's known world are either direct result, or side effect of earlier interference from the West. It's only natural to expect it to contribute to the solution. Not China or Saudi Arabia that had nothing to do with them whatsoever, no matter how rich they may be.

As to moral, etc superiority, one may think whatever they wish to themselves (it's philosophical question if/how it affects their "moral" or "ethical" side), but the moment this kind of thinking translates into real world actions - aggression, violence, meddling, etc, all the moral ethical etc posture is lost - what remains is a domineering power sick entity that imposes itself on others - I don't see how you can see much positive in that, unless you're one of those people who belive that somehow they have the right to drag others to salvation by force.

[Black Dog]

It's quite simple. First, I haven't ever really bothered to learn how the search feature works. Second, and more importantly, if people want to confront me with words I've used in the past I feel it's incumbent on them to provide me with the cite. it's not like they don't already have it. And I don't feel I should have to go searching in order to respond.

Well it seems you figured it out. Gold star!

The quote in question was Melanie's - albeit sarcastic. I simply agreed - albeit snidely. So? It in no way contradicts anything I've said in this thread. If all Africa's problems are to be laid at the doorstep of the mismatched borders we stuck them with, then let's redraw the borders. Hell, let's put in some capable administrators to kick start the economies and governmental structures, a few universities to educate people, teach them how to run their new countries, then leave them to it? What's so wrong about that? It certainly can't get any worse down there.

Should that be the White Man's Burden? You'll note I haven't said that we don't bear any responsibility. I haven't said that we should abandon the rest of the world. I have only asked - why is it our burden? Why is there this pressure for us to correct the world's wrongs, while other wealthy nations, ie, the Saudis, for example, do prescious little. Anyone ever ask why the Palestinians are so dirt poor even while all those filthy rich Arab nations champion them - but give them almost no money? Who provides most of the money to the Palestinian Authority - or did until Hamas was elected? The West.

Because:

a) as you said, we bear a measure of responsibility for many of the problems.

the west simply has a more highly tuned sense of alturism. Chalk it up to Chjristianity or chalk it up to Enlightenment ideals, but we're simply more conditioned to right wrongs we see.

Should others who are able step up? Sure. But they don't which means we have to use what uinfluence we have to get hem to help and continue to lead by example. Abandoning the rest of the world is not an option for anyone with any regard for humanity.

[Argus]

Hi Argus,

you surely only listen to your own argument. Many, many conflicts in today's known world are either direct result, or side effect of earlier interference from the West. It's only natural to expect it to contribute to the solution. Not China or Saudi Arabia that had nothing to do with them whatsoever, no matter how rich they may be.

No? Arabs were the primary slave traders. In fact, they have been raiding Black Africa for slaves for centuries. The first Black slaves in Europe and American were simply purchased from Arabs. The Arab world was deeply involved in every aspect of the slave trade, and hung onto it far longer than Europe. Slavery is still practiced, to some extent, in some Muslim nations. As to the Chinese, like the Russians, they have spent an awful lot of money in Africa during the cold war, backing this or that communist group, shipping arms and advisors, etc. All the cold war intercene struggles throughout Africa had either a Chinese or Russian backer trying to overthrow a pro-west government - or in some cases vice versa. What have the Chinese and Russians done to make amends for that?

As to moral, etc superiority, one may think whatever they wish to themselves (it's philosophical question if/how it affects their "moral" or "ethical" side), but the moment this kind of thinking translates into real world actions - aggression, violence, meddling, etc, all the moral ethical etc posture is lost

Are you going to state that the British Navy had no right to supress the slave trade, to impound slaves and slave boats wherever they found them on the high seas? It was merely their moral judgement, after all, and it was translated into violence and meddling to stop others, ie, Arabs, for example, from running slaves to America.

what remains is a domineering power sick entity that imposes itself on others - I don't see how you can see much positive in that, unless you're one of those people who belive that somehow they have the right to drag others to salvation by force.

All governmental entities rely on force. Without force, there is no order. Do you believe this to be imoral, that all governments are "domineering, power sick entities"?