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