Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And who is responsible for providing that infrastructure? Me? No...if they don't have the roads, seaports and airports, organization, etc, the blame lies with them.
Do you blame the average American for everything Bush does? And, even if so, don't we have a form of government that's at least somewhat more democratic and representative of the people than the average one in Africa? Is it therefore "their fault" for not taking up arms in violent revolution? Are the people in Darfur "responsible" for the Islamist Sudanese government that slaughters them? Conservatives set such ridiculously high standards for people! (unless they run corporations)
Quote:
Especially more so in many cases in Africa because colonialism (whatever evil might be attributed to it) actually provided many African nations with these things, but they were quickly destroyed after the colonial powers left.
Well... when you place people in a subjugated, artificially-held back state for decades or centuries and then "high tail it out" to leave them to fend for themselves before they've caught up in terms of wealth & education, that tends to happen. See white flight from inner cities at the dawn of integration for a smaller-scale parallel.
Do you blame the average American for everything Bush does? And, even if so, don't we have a form of government that's at least somewhat more democratic and representative of the people than the average one in Africa? Is it therefore "their fault" for not taking up arms in violent revolution? Are the people in Darfur "responsible" for the Islamist Sudanese government that slaughters them? Conservatives set such ridiculously high standards for people! (unless they run corporations)
I think he is saying that it's not our responsibility to build their infrastructure If we did wouldn't that be the same as "Nation Building" the left is so fond of decrying???
Well... when you place people in a subjugated, artificially-held back state for decades or centuries and then "high tail it out" to leave them to fend for themselves before they've caught up in terms of wealth & education, that tends to happen. See white flight from inner cities at the dawn of integration for a smaller-scale parallel.
I don't think the Farmers/leaders in Rhodesia "high tailed out" They were driven out and the result was utter chaos.................
I don't think the Farmers/leaders in Rhodesia "high tailed out" They were driven out and the result was utter chaos.................
While the situation in every country is different, to this I would respond that the concentration of 70% of arable land in the hands of 1% of the population + minority rule tends to encourage the emergence of such revolutionary, populist, personality-cult leaders as Mugabe, Khomeini in Iran, and (although to a lesser extent in terms of human rights violations) Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, or even the French Revolutionaries back in the day with their reign of terror and the eventual ascension of Napoleon. (And look how France is now! Give them time.) Typically these kinds of people are not result-oriented policy experts or productive leaders, but rather charismatic demagogues whose primary ability/goal is taking and maintaining power. However, in order to politically control and manipulate the oppressed poor you first have to have a large population of oppressed poor. Thank the colonialists for that. As the income inequality in our own country steadily grows to near pre-Depression levels, we might eventually be looking at such a scenario here... hopefully not, though.
In other countries, large numbers of white Africans packed their bags and left the continent (taking their wealth with them) as the progression to majority rule occurred, without such "provocation."
Last edited by fishmonger; 01-25-2008 at 09:49 AM..
While the situation in every country is different, to this I would respond that the concentration of 70% of arable land in the hands of 1% of the population + minority rule tends to encourage the emergence of such revolutionary
Roughly 18.1% of the land is the US is Arable. I submit that 100% of that land is farmed and owned by 1% of the popualtion. Does that mean we better start the Revolution?
Do you blame the average American for everything Bush does? And, even if so, don't we have a form of government that's at least somewhat more democratic and representative of the people than the average one in Africa? Is it therefore "their fault" for not taking up arms in violent revolution? Are the people in Darfur "responsible" for the Islamist Sudanese government that slaughters them? Conservatives set such ridiculously high standards for people! (unless they run corporations)
Who else should we hold responsible? Me and you?
Yes, people need to take responsibility for the state of affairs in their countries. It's no my job to fix things over there, and I don't want my money stolen from me to go for that purpose, either.
Quote:
Well... when you place people in a subjugated, artificially-held back state for decades or centuries and then "high tail it out" to leave them to fend for themselves before they've caught up in terms of wealth & education, that tends to happen. See white flight from inner cities at the dawn of integration for a smaller-scale parallel.
The colonial powers were driven out, and the attention of the "liberators" was soon turned on the "liberated". They had everything just sitting there, waiting for them to take it over and they destroyed it instead. So yes, I blame them.
dunkel: """Yes, people need to take responsibility for the state of affairs in their countries. It's no my job to fix things over there, and I don't want my money stolen from me to go for that purpose, either."""
I take you're against the war in Iraq...me, too, for the same reason.
dunkel: """Yes, people need to take responsibility for the state of affairs in their countries. It's no my job to fix things over there, and I don't want my money stolen from me to go for that purpose, either."""
I take you're against the war in Iraq...me, too, for the same reason.
If our purpose of the war was to help Iraqis, then yes, I would be against it. The lives of 25 million Iraqis are not worth one dead American soldier or Marine.
I was in Mogudishu in 1985, all the people in town were eating pretty good but I personally saw TONS of grain in bags marked CARE and UNICEF rotting on the dock. All the time the people out in the bonnies were starving to death.. The USAF was doing low speed flybys and kicking pallet loads out the back of C130's but I don't think it helped much............
That's where the Bellmon Amendment came from. Logistics are the most difficult aspect of food aid...
If all the CC's would like to see African farmers better support themselves and their communities, maybe they should put pressure on the US government to end the ag subsidies that are helping to make that effort impossible. Maybe we should also think about not dumping commodities such as cotton, powdered milk, and second-hand clothes into their economies. All this does is make local production unprofitable...
Conservatives, by our nature, do not let emotion rule our decision making. This might make us look cold or detached. It might make us look compassionless. We would rather make decisions based on logic and reason.
For instance, take the starving children in Africa. How can you watch those commercials and not feel sorry for those kids and want to save them? I have a little girl and the thought of her starving to death makes me sick to my stomach, so by extension, the thought of ANY child going through that tugs at my heartstrings. However, I have not, and will not, donate any money to provide food for those children. Why? Is it because I lack compassion? No...it's because I know it's only going to make the situation worse in the long run. Until those people figure out their own food supply problem, they are going to have famine and starvation and Save the Children commercials are going to stay on the air. I want them to take responsibility for their own situations and feed themselves.
You know, I have to wonder if President Bush might not have felt this same way when Hurricane Katrina was heading towards New Orleans... He was not without compassion (because, after all, he is the original "Compassionate Conservative") but he was thinking that he would only make the situation worse if he tried to help them. It was better for them to help themselves and take responsibility for their own situation.
Is this a form of compassion you learn from the Bible? I'm no expert on the Bible, but I thought it had stories about feeding the poor? Teaching them to fish? I've never read anything that says it's better to just walk by them and not do anything... ??? Is that in a section I've missed?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
