I said it was non-racist. It was still an inelegant word choice. Look, your basic proposition leaves you open to charges of paternalism and racism. Not from me, I tend to agree with you. I’m not going to call you racist, but someone (probably Collounsbury) will. Using a phrase that is frequently misinterpreted as racist, and which in this context could easily be construed as having a deliberate racist double-meaning, isn’t going to make acceptance of your message any easier.
**
Inelegant? Perhaps. Indeed, I now wish I’d thought of Matt’s phrasing. 
We have come a long way from the original concept, haven’t we?
As I recall, we are invited to comment on Idi Amin, and the state of Africa…what’s up with all the the racist comments and razor blades flying through the air? State your point in a civilized manner, or move on.
Well, let’s look at what you said (by going by what you said you said, no less.
So I ask you, how on the blue moons of Uranus is that not a racial explanation? It explicitly mentions racism, fergodssake!
I didn’t state anything of the sort, and I explicitly disclaimed any statements of the sort.
Coll explained why it was stupid, not why it was hateful. There’s a difference.
No, you’re the person who accuses me of shit I never did.
Yeah, you’re also the knee-jerker. I’m sorry.
Not even close, podner. The regional misunderstanding was the statement that Idi Amin’s regime was merely one of a litany of sins Africa’s leaders have colletively committed, and that nowhere in Africa is anywhere someone would want to live. That is what we’re talking about.
Eh, what? You’re the one who’s posturing as someone who can carry on an intelligent conversation. I’m not posturing in any way.
Eh, do you not read your own posts?
Explain it, please.
How polite of you to say.
Contradictory on its very face, but polite.
And you just said that I wasn’t a racist.
Something I agree with you and Coll on.
Called a hijack, dude.
And that’s obviously not what’s going on now, is it?
There’s this thing called a hijack. You see, when a thread and a tangent love each other very much, they want to show that love in a special way. So they flirt for a bit, twist each other into odd contortions, and eventually give birth to a totally new thread.
Heh…
Heh heh…
HAW HAW!
:: snort ::
I rather believe that I am the best judge of that, (a) knowing what I am talking about (b) having my own sense of judgement rather superior to yours.
Give me a fucking break.
This pious idiocy is pure shit.
Anyone with something approaching a hint of honesty knows very well that when the word Africa comes up, unless otherwise qualified you get talk of ‘Black Africa’ - regardless of the reality as you note that is not the general level of knowledge nor even common usage.
As to generalizing about Africa, well again context and indeed what actually is said should - for those of use with joined up reading skills - allow some degree of discernment as to the thrust and meaning of the comment.
Ergo, we have this Monkey speaking to (a) cannibalism (b) pygmies © AIDS (d) raping virgins (e) man made famine the norm…
A litany of stereotypes - some well founded others, e.g. raping virgins, cannabilism rather less so - that all speak to the worst images of Black Africa.
Let’s not be illiterate morons and posturing fools in pretending otherwise.
Yes, my dear idiot, and anyone with a sparkling glimmer of an ability to read for context and understanding … I have helpful extracted key words and phrases above for you among the sub literate … should be able to discern the stereotypes of sub-Saharan Africa. That sub-Saharan Africa is taken to be the whole of Africa is indeed one of the many irritating over-generalizations (let me note my use of adjectives for the sub literate crowd, and add attacking “sweeping” and “over generalizations” is attacking a sub-set of the concept, generalization. Thus in replying, I ask the sub literates to consult their dictionaries as well as logic guides, perhaps draw themselves a helpful ven diagram) which characterize comment on Africa.
I added the precision as (a) insofar as rather clearly the comments on “Africa” really meant “Black” or sub-Saharan Africa (b) I thought it useful to highlight the overgeneralized usage.
Now you pretend to come back with some sub literate correction.
That may very well be the case, although in fact I never found life in West Africa “stygian” in its problems. Hard and impoverished, but largely peaceful and happy. One region.
Yes, let’s, I lived there.
Yes? Well, let’s break this apart.
(i) The unemployment is staggering but the figure is in many ways – actually this goes to looking at economic figures for the continent and the developing word generally – deceptive. Most economic activity occurs in the informal sector - probably 90%. People theoreticlaly unemployed often are not – although certianly they’re also generally under employed.
(ii) Illiteracy - serious issue, tied to the education system. Better to educate in wolof, the national language, and in which a surprising number are literate, but in Arabic script. However not yet happening.
The economy as a whole is something of a mess, but this is as much a question of present lack of resources as the result of stupid past policies. Getting better, but the resource base is not good, and frankly getting people interested in investing in Africa - that one huge undifferentiated place - is well nigh impossible. Unstable, etc. Of course the Senegalese have never had a coup and have a long record of peaceful elections, but its Africa.
So it’s perfectly valid to paint one poor, but stable little country (or even its much larger, somewhat poorer nieghbor Mali, or their cousins in Guinea Conakry) to be painted with the brush of cannabilism (the lurid reports from Congo), of warfare, of AIDS (despite the three named having single digit infection rates, stable for decades), etc. etc. etc.
Yes, this is somehow useful level of generalization.
And? Was I speaking to successes - let’s drop the straw man arguments if we can, if only for the novelty. No, I was speaking to the justice and accuracy of sweeping generalizations about an entire continent, of lumping places as far away removed as London is from Stalingrad/Volgograd with different histories, cultures and indeed socio-economic structures.
Twenty years. Get your history right.
In actual fact the 1960s and first part of the 1970s up to the oil shock were a decade and a half of excellent performance, when the World Bank was looking to sub-Saharan Africa to out perform South East Asia, and when leading and current indicators were in fact better.
Then the oil shock coupled with a wave of droughts, and the cracks in the post-colonial elites came along and we have the second half of the 1970s, the 1980s and 1990s as 25 lost years of regression for most of the sub-Saharan zone.
Move the time frame up roughly 5-10 years and you can say almost the same thing for North Africa, but not as bad.
So I get back to the main issue, the over-generalization and in general fairly ill-informed commentary on the Continent - and by this we almost always mean “Black Africa” - which leads to an exageratedly poor picture of countries that may very well be “basket cases” economically, but have been peaceful for decades. Painting with a too broad and rather ill informed brush is not useful.
Ah yes, Zenster my dear fellow, I am not a mentor and have no desire to be one for free either.
Shrug, I doubt it is meaningful in the end.
To get back to the point of the thread, I hope the fucker dies slowly and very very very painfully. My mother, and her family, were amongst those deemed “unsuitable” by him to live in Africa. Why? Because they were from the Indian sub-continent. He made my family’s life hell, forced them to flee for their lives, and even then, wouldn’t let my mother’s elder brother leave the country. The bastard. My family were a few of the lucky ones - my grandfather hadn’t renounced British citizenship when Uganda got its independance (mainly because he didn’t get round to it), which meant that my family were accepted into Britain, albeit as refugees.
Now, to put the kicker on it all, the goat felching son of a bitch announced that there would be one last flight out of Uganda, carrying the men of the families which had already left. Anyone left in Uganda (who wasn’t African) would not get out alive. Fast forward a few hours, to the British authorities (I think) getting a message along these lines “You know that plane we sent out with the menfolk on it? Well, we had some of our soldiers on it. When that plane lands, only the soldiers will step out alive, that plane will be full of corpses”.
Imagine, you’re 18 years old, and seeing as you’re the eldest child, and your parents speak limited English, having to tell your parents that yes, your elder brother was on a plane out of there, but he’s probably dead now. Which is what my mother had to do. Of course, he bluffed, but for a period of about a year, my maternal grandparents thought that their son was dead. Why? Because of Idi fucking Amin.
I hope his death is slow and painful, and that he roasts in hell for eternity.
Thank you for sharing a real life experience, Angua. Few of us can possibly appreciate the Hell on earth this one bastard wrought of whole cloth. I can only hope that Amin thinks his soul will wander forever if he is not laid to rest in Uganda. For it can only be hoped that Uganda will never, ever permit one atom of Amin’s body or corpse to touch their soil for the rest of time.
Its no problem. Like I said, my mother’s family were some of the lucky ones, they had British passports, they know many who didn’t, and the struggle that they faced to get out.
Idi Amin was evil, very evil, and whilst Yasmin Alibhai Brown makes a valid point here , it excuses nothing. It doesn’t excuse the pain and anguish he put people through, and on occasion he has been compared to a Hitler of Africa…
Not your best work, C, you’re just e-mailing it in. For one thing, some of your invective is getting a bit stale, for example,
The “just for the novelty” line in particular loses a lot of its impact after repetition. Now I know you are capable of much more creative flights of abuse so don’t let us down. Remember, its quality, not quantity that counts!
Now for the substance
quote:
Originally posted by Truth Seeker
Well, actually, no, you don’t.
Well, if you want to nail your colours to that particular sinking ship, I suppose it’s your lookout.
**
Probably so, but not in the sense you mean . . .
**
Editing out the invective, your argument boils down to
**There are a lot of gibbering idiots who say “Africa” when they mean “sub saharan” Africa.
Therefore, we should assume that everyone who refers to Africa must mean sub saharan Africa.**
If you can’t beat ‘em, join em. Eh, Collounsbury?
Speaking for myself, I assume that SDMB members have access to an atlas and The National Geographic channel and are aware that Africa has a variety of cultures and “races.” I find it bizarre to attribute racism to people who talk about “Africa” on the theory that we should necessarily assume that they are using the word incorrectly.
**
Perhaps, but “man made famine,” for example, applies to many areas in Africa, including Sudan, which is one of the most screwed-up places on earth.
quote:
The sad fact of the matter is that the “bright spots” in Africa are only bright in comparison to the stygian darkness of the rest of the continent.
**
Well, I guess you didn’t get out much. I’m not going to go through the entire list, but West Africa is not “largely peaceful and happy.” Sierra Leone? Liberia? Guinea Bissau? Even the Ivory Coast is now on its way over the cliff and “peaceful and happy” Senegal has had a low-level civil war on for something like twenty years.
But hey, you did say “largely peaceful and happy.” It’s not really a very big civil war so I guess that’s Good Enough For Africa, right?
quote:
This can only be counted a “success” in the sense that they don’t have a 48% unemployment rate and gangs of crazed thugs roaming the countryside lopping off people’s hands at random. On all objective measures (e.g. GDP per capita, literacy, unemployment) Bangladesh is doing better than Senegal.
**
Was I implying that Africa had a single history, culture or economic structure? I rather think that my point with respect to African diversity was exactly the opposite. My point was that Africa, despite its varied cultures, climates and “races,” is largely a mess from one end to the other, albeit for a variety of different reasons. If you agree that there are probably no countries in Africa that could be counted an unqualified success, then we agree on this point.
quote:
Unfortunately, conditions in Africa have, for the most part, deteriorated substantially over the last forty years.
**
You seem to be suggesting that Africa was flying high but then crashed. In fact, people hoped/projected that Africa would fly high in the post-colonial era. In the event, they were dead wrong. Africa has, indeed, for the most part been on a steady slide for the past 40 years or so.
**
Well, this is somewhat revisionist and certainly – your bete noire of the day – an “over generalization.”
For one thing, if you remove South Africa, Rhodesia as was and Botswana from the stats and I think you’ll see those numbers don’t look so good. For another thing, IIRC, those projections/performance numbers were also extremely sensitive to commodity prices.
Serious distress in Africa started well before the mid 1970s. In some places, it’s been going on since at least the 1670s.
For just a few examples, the Biafran civil war began in 1967 and caused at least one million casualties. Some places, like Mozambique, never got out of the blocks. Sudan’s civil war has been running since the 1960s. Ethiopia began a civil war in the early 1960s and Burundi suffered a civil war in the early 70s.
Also, you’ll recall that South East Asia had its own full-blown war going on in the 60s and 70s. No doubt these projections took that into account. The most telling point, however, is that these projections were wrong. Vietnam now has a life expectancy about 10% higher than Senegal, a per capita income about 30% higher and an infant mortality rate about half that of Senegal. But, hey, that’s Good Enough For Africa!
**
When you say “we,” you certainly don’t mean “me.” The funniest thing about this is that, rather than validating them, you are normally the one who would be expected to jump all over someone for such a sloppy use of language. I pity the fool who suggests, for example, that Iranians are Arabs, even though I’m quite sure that most people mean to include Iran when they speak of Arab countries.
**
Very well, how about, “Africa is not universally fucked up. On the contrary, Africa is fucked up in a whole variety of ways! Some countries in Africa — and by “Africa” we mean all of Africa which actually includes places like Algeria, Libya and Sudan rather than just half of Africa — have war, pestilence and famine. Other countries make do with simple pestilence on a scale that will cause serious social dislocation. A few lucky countries are “largely peaceful and happy.” Unfortunately, these countries mostly have Marxist economies — and by this we mean Groucho rather than Karl. And then there is Tunisia, which, apart from being a repressive one-party dictatorship, isn’t really much worse to live in than Thailand.”
Happy now?
The fact of the matter is that Africa — and by “Africa” we mean blah, blah, blah — has the reputation of being a screwed up place because it is a screwed up place even with all its diversity. War, famine, corruption, disease, mismanagement, repression — all of these afflict African countries to one degree or another. You may well decry “over generalization” when people don’t accurately catalogue a particular country’s ills, but observing that Mali doesn’t have an actual civil war and that its main problem is having a per capita GDP of 850 USD doesn’t do much to rebut the proposition.
What, like all those problems Africa has are simply lies perpetrated by the Klan to show how black people are inferior? :rolleyes:
I’m busy. You want creativity, send me a check.
Well, I would not be quite so ungenerous, I would rather rephrase, “The average unlearned fool means sub-Saharan Africa when he says Africa, and in fact even in educated usage we get this, e.g. read NYT reporting on Africa - they mean sub-Saharan usually. Ergo, one is safe 99% of the time presuming comments to ‘Africa’ without adjectival modifiers are about sub-Saharan AFrica. Pretending otherwise is simply a sad red herring.”
Clear enough for you? I further note neither Zenster nor this monkey person seem to have meant anything but sub-Saharan African in their tender regard for “Africa”'s reputation.
It’s a matter of reading comprehension and an ability to analyze in context.
Assume as you will, see above.
I do not assume the above at all, for all our myth out SDMB members.
Straw man, I found Monkey’s initial comments, which strung together a series of over-generalizations and a few myths/exagerations about “Black Africa” as coming close if not falling within. It is and was not the mere generalizing about Africa.
Well, if one goes by names, however, my dear fellow take a look at land area and population. Majority of territory in West Africa is peaceful. Sierre Leone, Liberia and Guinea Bissau are little fuckers all in one trouble spot. A trouble spot that needs to be lanced I might add since it is infecting its neighbors, e.g. Cote d’Ivoire, although that had as much to do with the last president once removed with pursuing ehtnic jingoism in place of Boigny’s wise policies.
As for the Senegalese ‘Civil War’ – please. One border region in the extreme south (The Casamance) has a handful of bandit-cranks, egged on by a loon Catholic Priest, who engaged in banditry and the odd demonstration. It in no way merits the term “civil war” and most of the area was perfectly peacable.
It wasn’t a civil war at all, and your attempt to use this merely reflects on your lack of knowledge.
As to economics
Try reading for comprehension.
In the 1960s and early 1970s the data very clearly show a well performing Africa, in the aggregate. Not flying high, but well performing for developing nations with solid growth rates and decent investment levels. As I said, the World Bank of the era foresaw better things for Africa than south east Asia.
Then, to use the title of the famous novel “Things Fell Apart.”
That is the reality. Makes things sadder, but also falsifies your posturing.
Again, factually incorrect, bubby. Get your fucking facts right.
Well, I don’t hve the relevant data sets in front of me, but the data to my recollection was in regards to “free Africa” at that time, which obviously excluded Rhodesia and South Africa. Botswana was not yet what it is, so you can leave that aside.
No, WB and related analyses were in regards to the very areas with problems.
But things fell apart.
Posturing and goal shifting, illiterate at that.
This grows boring. Come back to me with data and knowledge and maybe it will be worth my time.
**
You think?
Dozens killed in Senegal fighting
CLIMATE OF TERROR IN CASAMANCE
But, after all, you may be correct. By African standards, perhaps this isn’t a civil war, just the natives getting a bit restless. Not exactly peace, but Good Enough For Africa. Pity we can’t get them to keep it off the beaches so they don’t annoy the tourists!
**
The key word here is “foresaw.” Take, for example, Mozambique. Lots of potential but, having been in a state of war since before its independence, hardly a great performer. Or Uganda. Independent in 62 or 63 and left with an excellent economic infrastructure and civil service. However, Obote fairly quickly established one-party rule, started hollowing out the civil service and began nationalizing the economy by confiscation. In 72, Idi put a stake through the heart of what was left of the economy by booting out all the Asians and killing off 300,000 or so Ugandans. Once again, despite its potential we can see, especially in retrospect, that Uganda was on the skids from the mid to late 1960s.
So I disagree. What the data actually showed in the 1960s was some countries that should have performed well but did not. With hindsight, we can see that these countries did not perform well because they already had internal political and economic problems.
**
For the most part, this is a misperception. Things didn’t fall apart in the sense that everything was going great and then disaster struck. Rather, in many cases, they hit a point where growing problems spiralled out of control.
Look at Mozambique. Lots of fighting to force out the Portugese. Well, anti-colonial struggles weren’t that uncommon, everything will be OK once independence comes. Now if you looked at Mozambique in 1970, you might well have said, “Gee, nice country, good resources. They should really take off once they get the Portugese off their backs.” When the Portugese suddenly left in 1975, however, things went from bad to worse.
**
I assume by “free Africa” you mean “no longer a colony Africa.” Why wouldn’t that include South Africa? As for Botswana, it has maintained a stellar growth rate since the mid-60s so it would definitely up the average for that period.
quote:
Serious distress in Africa started well before the mid 1970s. In some places, it’s been going on since at least the 1670s.
**
Come now. The best you’ve been able to come up with so far is a bald assertion that Senegal is “largely peaceful and happy.” At least I’ve had a go at providing a few relevant numbers.
But if the only point of disagreement here is whether Africa definitively started its slide in the mid 1960s or the mid 1970s, it probably isn’t worth your time, or mine either.
Yes, indeed I do.
Spare me the idiotic natives references.
I quite simply disagree with Amnesty’s characterization, the people involved are more bandits than anything, as well as spill over from Guinea Bissau.
You will note, if you actually look at a map, that the area iin question is a sliver of a border region along the border with Bissau. The vast majority of the territory holding the vast majority of the population of Senegal is perfectly peaceable. Similar observations may be made for other neighbors, such as Mali, Guinea Conakry, Burkina, etc.
I observe one does not speak of India nor Bangladesh, to take similar examples being in “Civil War” because of minor border conflicts and small scale insurgencies, even if locally serious as in the case of Kashmir. See, one thing the brain is for is for actual analysis and an ability to judge the comparatives in a proper sense of risk. That’s my fucking speciality.
Yes it went wrong, moron boy. However your characterization was wrong.
Not just potential, real growth by the way, despite trouble spots.
Really, okay my dear analyst, show me the motherfucking analyses instead of your stupid fucking posturing. One thing I truly have contempt for is this kind of moronic, fact free posturing.
For your edificaiton, whatever dim hope there is off that:
First:
Sub-Saharan Africa - the Growth Disaster of the 1980s and 1990s
http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:3_n6KhBv93MJ:www.uow.edu.au/commerce/econ/courseoutlines/ECON205/Case%20Study%20Chapter4.pdf=en&ie=UTF-8
Can’t find the original, the cache copy should do.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN AFRICA:
PERFORMANCE, PROSPECTS
AND POLICY ISSUES (UN)
Contains discussion of 1960-1970 period, differs slightly in assessment from above.
Also
Growth and Poverty Reduction
http://www.he.cornell.edu/cfnpp/images/wp123.pdf
Sierre Leone Case Study in re Growth
http://www.gdnet.org/pdf/davies.pdf
Also a note on South Africa, growth analysis with some regional comment
http://www.gdnet.org/pdf/draft_country_studies/South%20Africa-Trudi%20RIR.pdf
Merely some analytical tidbits from the net, I refer you to the WB data sets for a correction of your misapprehension, however much it speaks volumes to your level of knowledge, that Africa was in continuous delcine, as an aggregate entity, since the 17th century.
Misperception my ass, economic growth was there, things did indeed fall apart, although one can say that they fell apart based on a number of bases, including growing political tensions, rapidly declining returns on development policies and disasterous turns towards quasi-socialist ‘tiers mondisme’ and the corruption that followed.
Mozambique is not part of the sample I refered to, now is it my dodger? Not independent until after 1975 and always in the midst of civil war. I am not refering to potential, however that serves your fact fee moron boy straw man.
Apartheid. You may recall a small to do regarding that institution.
I grow tired of conversations with someone who lacks the basic knowledge and comes back with nitpicks.
My points in this entire string of interventions, to clarify for those with comprehension problems, were the following:
(a) Africa is not the homegenous entity of facile conversation.
(b) Over generalizations and sweeping reductinism in re “cannibal child soldiers” and similar items are unbalanced and biased if we weight our observations in terms of area and population. Sub Saharan Africa is a place of problems, no need to exagerate them.
© Large sections of the continent, while economically in terrible shape, are fairly peaceful and relatively speaking, stable, but suffer from the quadruple insult of (i) idiotic governmental policy (ii) corruption (although speaking from experience, one finds that throughout the developing world) (iii) poor infrastructure & social investment (iv) terrible image drawn from extrapolating the worst cases unto the entire continent, in ignorance.
Having done business briefly in West Africa I can say that sure, even the Middle East is easier, however, the imagery gets blown out of proportion based on simple minded reductionism off of equally simpled minded misinformation (such as your own) and lack of an ability to differentiate between the worst cases and others.
In the end it is not simply a quibble in regards to when the decline began, rather your ignorant posturing is emblamatic of the systematic ignorance in re the continent.
HE CHEATED THE REAPER!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:
I wonder if he was sick at all. He might just have wanted a publicity fix!
Or maybe he thought he could con his way back to Uganda “to die”. :mad: :mad: :mad:
The swine!
umm…ahem…coughcough…Idi Amin.
I CALL A HIJACK!!!
Guys lets focus. If you want to rave about Africa and all, thats cool but start another thread. This is the thread for those who can think of the most inventive ways for Amin to die and vent their fury.
Your family has my sympathies. After Amin threw out the remaining British and purged all of the folks of Indian ancestry, he gave their properties to his fellow criminals. Economic ruin wasn’t far behind. After he was deposed, Indians began to return and had to fight in the courts to regain the lands they had lost. Many of those fights are still going on today. The Indian presence in Uganda is good for the economics of the country. They are industrious, and as a result are well off, which engenders some resentment (as is often the case with successful minorities in the U.S.). I enjoyed my year there and my associations with Ugandans of all stripe. I’m glad the bastard is apparently on his deathbed and truly wish all suffering upon him prior to his passing.
Do tell. You mean to say that Morocco, Tunisia, Libya and Egypt are all part of that same continent? Who’d have thunk it?
Coll, please find something entertaining to do with a fistful of that plentiful sand they have over there. Your casting about such unwarranted insults is more than a little tiresome. Africa’s reputation is being damaged all over the place. Whether it be Amin’s past slaughters, the Rwandan genocide, murdered tourists at Luxor or in Algeria, the blood diamond trade … all of it casts a long shadow over this beleaguered continent.
As to the ensuing debate, I could care less. There is information flowing here and I think that is always a good thing.
Finally, I am distressed that Uganda would even consider letting Amin’s body be buried on their soil. While it certainly is their own decision, were I their leader, I’d more likely be considering sending out a hit squad.
After reading the preceding posts, it’s apparent that you have extensive knowledge of Africa. I’m sure you are familiar with the Africa “Big Man” syndrome. At times this approaches cult proportions. Uganda, unfortunately, still subscribes to this to some extent. The “Big Man” is accorded respect and is envied by many. This is shown by the events surrounding the mayor of Kampala back in 1997 or 98, when he was arrested in the U.S. for trying to open bank accounts using stolen travelers’ checks, and for failing to declare the amount of money he was transporting through customs. After his expulsion from the U.S., he was given a hero’s welcome upon his return to Kampala (which I witnessed firsthand).
Given the strength of family and tribal ties in Africa, it does not surprise me in the least that he will be allowed to be buried in Uganda. Perhaps it will provide some sort of closure for those sad, haunted people, to be sure that he is truly, finally gone and can’t hurt them again.
Thanks, Chefguy. The “Big Man’s” roots in tribal chieftans run deep. There is a perception by such people that each and every asset of the nation they rule is their personal and private property. It’s sad they cannot find the moral fibre to uplift their country instead of loot it. Marcos did the same with the Philippines as have many Mexican presidents, so I know it’s not a site specific phenomenon. It’s just truly sad to see supposed leaders drink the blood of their own people.