Dave wrote:
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 18:04:16 -0500, katy said:


How is it going to be cotrolled so it's not used on crops, etc when
someone gets the bright idea that it wo;; work outdooesa too? In most
of these places education ahsn't made a snip of difference in regards to
hygiene or birth control so how are they going to be responsible for a
controlled substance? Wouldn't it be better to find some ecologically
safe way to combat the problem? There are plants, the pyrethrums, thatt
can be planted. Get the stagnant water problems under control. Plant
plants that deter misquitos (mosquito plant, citronella, eucalyptus..)...


Yes, Katy, I guess those black Africans in charge of health in their
countries are just too dumb to trust.

My sister0in0kaw has been to Kenya, ine if the mire civilized countries
in Africa, twice with Operation Smile. On one of the trips a nurse died
of a heart attack becasue the ambulance never came to the hotel and they
could not get the police to clear traffic. Malaria medication,
antibiotics, etc. are on the black market and are used as trade items
rather than being distribbuted to where they're supposed to go. Has
nothing to do with black. I am not racially prefudiced. Why foist on
poor people the same ills we foisted on ourselves? Why poison them?
When I still worked at the retirement complex, I had 4 African students
working at the nursing home. 2 were studying to be nurese, one a
hospital administrator, and one a social worker. They are all going back
to their respective countries when they graduate to help their country.
We sat often and discussed the problems in Kenya, Ghana, and South
Afica. Believbe me, they would not accept your soluition for their people.

Pick up the white man's burden and
make sure it's done in a politically correct fashion, and never mind the
black bodies piling up in the meantime.

So kill them with pesticides instead. How civil of you. My personal
opinion about the majority of Africa is that the world has ignored it
and shame on the world. Great Britain, France and Italy all had colonies
and when they left they left for good. Shame on them. They assumed
stewardship, gave it up, and left a mess.

katy wrote:

[snip]

So kill them with pesticides instead. How civil of you. My personal
opinion about the majority of Africa is that the world has ignored it
and shame on the world. Great Britain, France and Italy all had colonies
and when they left they left for good. Shame on them. They assumed
stewardship, gave it up, and left a mess.

That isn't even close to correct. When Great Britain left what was then
Rhodesia, it had a sound economy, was a nett food exporter and had a
reasonable health, education and civic infrastructure. That is
established fact. Ditto Kenya.

Also, the European powers didn't just up & leave those colonies. They
were thrown out by the original inhabitants who knew they could do a
better job of running things for themselves. Aided & abetted by the USA
& the USSR, both of whom wanted to reduce the power & influence of the
European powers for their own ends.

After 30 years of one party rule in now Zimbabwe, they have none of
civil infrastructure, adequate food, security, medical treatment or
education. Kenya? Pffft. The ONLY remaining country in Africa that
comes even *close* to First World standards in *anything* is South
Africa and I'm not betting any money on them either.

It isn't the fault of Great Britain. Really Katy, if you want to argue
this one, you'd better bring some facts to the discussion, not just
your inner feelings, because you're going to get demolished. The major
problems bedevilling the peope in Africa are directly their own fault.

PDW

katysails wrote:
So kill them with pesticides instead. How civil of you. My personal
opinion about the majority of Africa is that the world has ignored it
and shame on the world.

I think somewhat worse than that, the better to exploit
Africa's resources, the rest of the world has encouraged
criminally stupid & short-sighted & corrupt gov'ts.

Great Britain, France and Italy all had colonies
and when they left they left for good. Shame on them. They assumed
stewardship, gave it up, and left a mess.


Oh I dunno, it was a mess when they got there too.

Peter wrote:
That isn't even close to correct. When Great Britain left what was then
Rhodesia, it had a sound economy, was a nett food exporter and had a
reasonable health, education and civic infrastructure. That is
established fact. Ditto Kenya.


I'd say that of the colonial powers, the British had about
the best (and most consistent, more to their credit)record
of building infrastructure, encouraging local economic
autonomy & development, and leaving the least mess behind
them. Certainly better than say Belgium.

It's an interesting contrast to think what the African
countries would be like today if there had never been any
colonization.


Also, the European powers didn't just up & leave those colonies. They
were thrown out by the original inhabitants who knew they could do a
better job of running things for themselves. Aided & abetted by the USA
& the USSR, both of whom wanted to reduce the power & influence of the
European powers for their own ends.


The U.S. interest was/is mostly for profit. Remember, the
reason those European countries went into the empire busines
was... well, business. To make money. Which they did, often
by means that were not entirely kinder & gentler to the locals.


After 30 years of one party rule in now Zimbabwe, they have none of
civil infrastructure, adequate food, security, medical treatment or
education. Kenya? Pffft.

A very interesting book, which BTW is mostly about sailing,
that talks a good bit about polititcal & social events at
the beginning of this downslide is "The Walkabouts."
http://www.goodoldboat.com/bookrevie...tml#walkabouts


The ONLY remaining country in Africa that
comes even *close* to First World standards in *anything* is South
Africa and I'm not betting any money on them either.


The funny thing is that it's not a question of overall
wealth. These countries are fabulously wealthy in resources
and often in cash flow. The problem (those of you who like
to use this as a libby-rull bashing catch-phrase take
notice) is the distribution of wealth.

South Africa tilted things in the somewhat-right direction
and of course is suffering a lot of unintended consequences,
while many parties are trying to tilt things other ways.


It isn't the fault of Great Britain.

Agreed. None of the colonial powers ever seriously undertook
to build a stable & sef-sustaining social & economic
infrastructure to leave behind. And how can you blame them,
when that wasn't even close to what they were there for in
the first place?

DSK

DSK wrote:
katysails wrote:
So kill them with pesticides instead. How civil of you. My personal
opinion about the majority of Africa is that the world has ignored it
and shame on the world.

I think somewhat worse than that, the better to exploit
Africa's resources, the rest of the world has encouraged
criminally stupid & short-sighted & corrupt gov'ts.

Great Britain, France and Italy all had colonies
and when they left they left for good. Shame on them. They assumed
stewardship, gave it up, and left a mess.


Oh I dunno, it was a mess when they got there too.

Peter wrote:
That isn't even close to correct. When Great Britain left what was then
Rhodesia, it had a sound economy, was a nett food exporter and had a
reasonable health, education and civic infrastructure. That is
established fact. Ditto Kenya.


I'd say that of the colonial powers, the British had about
the best (and most consistent, more to their credit)record
of building infrastructure, encouraging local economic
autonomy & development, and leaving the least mess behind
them. Certainly better than say Belgium.

Belgium was undoubtedly the worst. Have you read Stanley's biography?
Well worth a read. I'll dig up the ISBN if you like.

It's an interesting contrast to think what the African
countries would be like today if there had never been any
colonization.

Eggs - scrambled. What would the USA be like today without
colonisation? Australia?

Also, the European powers didn't just up & leave those colonies. They
were thrown out by the original inhabitants who knew they could do a
better job of running things for themselves. Aided & abetted by the USA
& the USSR, both of whom wanted to reduce the power & influence of the
European powers for their own ends.


The U.S. interest was/is mostly for profit. Remember, the
reason those European countries went into the empire busines
was... well, business. To make money. Which they did, often
by means that were not entirely kinder & gentler to the locals.

Quite true. It's fascinating reading the accounts of people who were
out & about during the period between WW1 and WW2, then up to the late
50's.


After 30 years of one party rule in now Zimbabwe, they have none of
civil infrastructure, adequate food, security, medical treatment or
education. Kenya? Pffft.

A very interesting book, which BTW is mostly about sailing,
that talks a good bit about polititcal & social events at
the beginning of this downslide is "The Walkabouts."
http://www.goodoldboat.com/bookrevie...tml#walkabouts

Funnily enough, I own a copy of that book. First edition :-)

The ONLY remaining country in Africa that
comes even *close* to First World standards in *anything* is South
Africa and I'm not betting any money on them either.


The funny thing is that it's not a question of overall
wealth. These countries are fabulously wealthy in resources
and often in cash flow. The problem (those of you who like
to use this as a libby-rull bashing catch-phrase take
notice) is the distribution of wealth.

The problem is outright corruption and theft by the leadership, coupled
with gross incompetence.

South Africa tilted things in the somewhat-right direction
and of course is suffering a lot of unintended consequences,
while many parties are trying to tilt things other ways.


It isn't the fault of Great Britain.

Agreed. None of the colonial powers ever seriously undertook
to build a stable & sef-sustaining social & economic
infrastructure to leave behind.

I disagree. They didn't set out to do it, but in fact they did. OK you
can argue that in fact they didn't because history shows the result. I
look at it in terms of infrastructure and economics. Taking Zimbabwe as
a classic example of a failed state. At independence they were nett
food exporters, raw materials exporters, had a good balance of trade,
fed the population, had a competent civil service, a good military, a
functional education system, medical system, legal system, roads and
rail services. They had all the material things needed to succeed as an
independent country. All they had to do was keep running things as they
had been, with a bias over time to better education funded by
affordable tax increases. Wouldn't have been a real problem as the then
Rhodesia had sky high taxes and suffered heavily from sanctions on both
imports and exports. Their economy should have *surged* and the std of
living gone up.

They're a basket case due to gross mismanagement, incompetence, triumph
of ideology over common sense and good management. That's their OWN
fault. They had everything necessary to succeed, and they ****ed it all
away. If there is a hell, Robert Mugabe will have a long stay in the
9th ring.

And how can you blame them,
when that wasn't even close to what they were there for in
the first place?

I blame the people in charge of those countries since independence for
their state in the world today. If they ran predictable regimes and
looked after their people, they would be modern rich countries. Instead
they're ********s. Until they get their act together, I don't spend
much time thinking about their plight and I certainly never give a
single cent to charities helping them stay as they are.

PDW

"DSK" wrote in message
...
I'd say that of the colonial powers, the British had about
the best (and most consistent, more to their credit)record
of building infrastructure, encouraging local economic
autonomy & development, and leaving the least mess behind
them. Certainly better than say Belgium.

Thanks-I think... :-)

big snip

It isn't the fault of Great Britain.

Agreed. None of the colonial powers ever seriously undertook
to build a stable & sef-sustaining social & economic
infrastructure to leave behind. And how can you blame them,
when that wasn't even close to what they were there for in
the first place?

Remember that Canada, Australia, New Zealand and India were once British
Colonies.

Edgar wrote:


Remember that Canada, Australia, New Zealand and India were once British
Colonies.

Indeed, and look at the sorry lot of their aborignal peoples.

Cheers
Marty

Well, they may well have grounds to feel that they are now ethnic minorities
in countries where there ancestors once had full possession, but they are
not starving to death in their thousands or killing each other in their
thousands like the Africans. Nor are their governments totally corrupt, nor
do they have to see their leaders feathering their own nests and riding
around in luxury while they starve, like the Africans.

"Martin Baxter" wrote in message
...
Edgar wrote:


Remember that Canada, Australia, New Zealand and India were once British
Colonies.

Indeed, and look at the sorry lot of their aborignal peoples.

Cheers
Marty

Edgar wrote:
"DSK" wrote in message
...
I'd say that of the colonial powers, the British had about
the best (and most consistent, more to their credit)record
of building infrastructure, encouraging local economic
autonomy & development, and leaving the least mess behind
them. Certainly better than say Belgium.

Thanks-I think... :-)

big snip

It isn't the fault of Great Britain.

Agreed. None of the colonial powers ever seriously undertook
to build a stable & sef-sustaining social & economic
infrastructure to leave behind. And how can you blame them,
when that wasn't even close to what they were there for in
the first place?

Remember that Canada, Australia, New Zealand and India were once British
Colonies.

So was the USA.

PDW

"Peter" wrote in message
ps.com...


Remember that Canada, Australia, New Zealand and India were once British
Colonies.

So was the USA.

PDW

I was listing only those countries we released voluntarily...

.... building infrastructure, encouraging local economic
autonomy & development, and leaving the least mess behind
them. Certainly better than say Belgium.


Edgar wrote:
Thanks-I think... :-)


I've had the experience of talking with a few Indonesians
about their colonial history... the Dutch left a big mess
and a legacy of truly bitter hatred... you can always find
somebody that's worse!



big snip

It isn't the fault of Great Britain.

Agreed. None of the colonial powers ever seriously undertook
to build a stable & sef-sustaining social & economic
infrastructure to leave behind. And how can you blame them,
when that wasn't even close to what they were there for in
the first place?


Edgar wrote:
Remember that Canada, Australia, New Zealand and India were once British
Colonies.


Canada was also a French colony, remember
Australia wasn't so much a colony as an open-air prison,
kind of a special case in many ways. There were some prison
colonies in the U.S. too. India might not feel they were
left in such great shape.

DSK