Preoperative biopsy is recommended so that the surgery can be planned to be curative. Studies in both dogs and cats have shown that degree of differentiation and mitotic index (number of mitoses per 10 high power fields) may be prognostic. Cats with mitotic indices <5 had a median survival of 128 weeks, whereas those with an index >5 survived a median of 16 weeks. A pre-surgical CT scan can help to determine the true extent of the tumor. Treatment is wide and deep surgical excision, but in the case of large masses, treatment should be coordinated between the surgeon and radiation oncologist. Radiation can significantly prolong the time to recurrence. Cats are less likely than dogs to suffer from acute skin reactions from radiation. For this reason, larger doses can be given to cats. In one study of cats with residual microscopic tumor after surgery, the median time to tumor recurrence after radiation was 18 months.
No, fact. Collounsbury’s analysis is dead on. Perhaps you should try re-reading it, because this…
…is an irrelevant strawman. Sure - Tribal and non-tribal people have been killing each other since time immemorial in every other part of the globe as well. Which doesn’t have anything to do with anything - No one said they weren’t.
Who said that? Nobody, far as I can tell. You are projecting your own knee-jerk analysis on to someone else.
Yes. and…? How does this relate to Collounsbury’s statement?
So your contention is that the political stability sufficient to produce food for the people of the region was never present before colonialism? That is blatantly ahistorical, as DDG’s links in part point out.
Again, blatantly ahistorical.
Any your evidence of this is what? Certainly not history, which you seem to have a very weak grasp of vis-a-vis Africa.
An example of the rural half of a highly functional two-sector economy in late pre-colonial/early colonial sub-Saharan Africa:
*Despite its lively production and trade, the village sector of Kongo struck visitors from Europe as being poor - indeed the term “miserable poverty” peppers their reports of rural regions…To a certain extent, however, this appearance of poverty was an illusion. Their homes were made from palm leaves and a few poles and were furnished with only a single bed and a few pots and household utensils. Yet they were sturdy and dry and certainly provided adequate shelter. By the same token the villagers’ diet was not poor. Kongo women grew a variety of grains - not only maize and cassava ( American imports ), but also many grew the three types of African millets and sorghums favored by the rich, as well as a host of garden vegetables, legumes, and fruits. Although the diet was relatively meat-poor, protein was provided by chickens ( abundant in even dry and inhospitable Mbamba province ) and fish, and the balance of legumes and grains. This varied diet probably provided them with sufficient nutrition, and indeed their infant mortality rate and average life expactancy show them to have been at least as healthy as contemporary Europeans.
What was lacking in the rural regions was a visible surplus, outside of the small amount that was rendered to the nkluntu and the kitomi, or the that went into the market network and generated some money which was often quickly consumed either by bridewealth or taxes. Production everywhere in the rural region was for immediate use, and everything seem to be consumed without regard for the future or more extensive commercial activity…Thus, what was lacking in the rural regions was not so much an adequate productive base for the survival of the inhabitants as visible signs of a more luxurious life for its rulers. Kongo peasants were rational within the limits allowed by their technology and opportunities, as has been observed of peasants over the world when they control production. It was, in short, the rural rulers who really lived in “miserable poverty”.
There was, no doubt, the possibility of a potential surplus far greater than the one produced by the village sector’s rulers. Kongo peasant were far from overworked…This light labor, which conserved work and used much land, was capable of producing harvets which by all accounts were “exceedingly abundant.”…The Kongo were skilled agriculturalists. The women who planned and planted the fields were well aware of the potential yields of their crops when they set aside seed for the next year, and made good use of local patterns of drainage to obtain the maximum yield from the land they did use.
It was Kongo’s social structure, rather than irrationality or ( as some missionaries thought ) laziness, that kept the rural regions from producing a larger surplus. The dominant sector of Kongo’s society, the town sector, was the center of a single economy in which the villages were expected to produce only a certain quantity of specific products. While these products were vital to the life-style of the towns, other economic activities of the villages were considered inessential. Thus those at the highest levels of Kongo’s political and economic elite, as long as they obtained a certain portion of the of the village sector’s production, remained essentially unconcerned with what happened in the villages. The persistence of rent in kind , and the permitting of direct control of the production process by the producers themselves, reflected this unconcern. Such a system did not require Kongo’s rulers to organize or supervise production, to be concerned with the subsistence economy of the villagers, or to involve themselves in any other aspects of social control in rural areas.
The end result was the continued economic dominance od Sao Salvador fostered the economic independance of the villages, or rather their apparent independance and poverty. *
From The Kingdom of Kongo, Civil War and Transition, 1641-1718 by John K. Thornton ( 1983, University of Wisconsin Press ), pgs.35-37.
I thought you were just getting this thread back to the OP, which was, after all, about animal health.
Incidentally the world’s puny reaction to Mugabe’s misrule was to sanction his ministers by banning them from international confrences. They’re not even managing to do that, according to Zimbabwe -- Mugabe's minister avoids ban
I am not sure when I will be able to dig up my notes, so an intervening commentary.
An apt description of your analysis.
“Tribal Leaders”?
From time immemorial human groups have gone to war. In Africa, in Asia, in Europe, in America.
Human condition.
That’s really not a terribly enlightening statement.
As to the “tribal” part, well this simply goes to uninformed prejudice – pre-colonial sub-Saharan Africa has seen a full range of polities, from tribes to city states, republics (in a more ancient Greek sense) to empires. A review of the stodgy but reliable Cambridge History of Africa would be helpful in alleviating a severe case of rotting ignorance behind the above statement.
The entities called tribes in colonial and uninformed post-colonial parlance are anything but. Shona, Yorubu etc. are all languages. To call them a tribe was a 19th century bit of prejudice, taken in part from 19th century ideas of language based “volk” – peoples. The Yoruba, for example, are no more a tribe than the Germans. There were, to be sure, Yoruba tribes (the plural) as well as organized city states and a highly developed, non-language based political system in pre-colonial times (e.g. as evidenced by the famous bronze works from the region, oft attributed in more racist times to “Portuguese” or other Europeans since those Nigs, they just couldn’t have had anything but primitive tribal cultures – hmm that resembles whose comments?).
The “Tribes” as ref’d in popular accounts are actually emerging ethno-nationalities based on the language model: Yoruba speakers, previously divided up into tribes, kingdoms (headed perhaps by Yoruba, perhaps by Ewe, etc.) etc. now have a new identity, in no small part created by the colonial experience, directly through administrative measures, indirectly through education and conscious or unconscious modeling on the Euro model. Not inherently bad, but a real problem for multinationality post-colonial states.
No such pretensions, you simply, although unsurprisingly, have not understood my statements and placed them in some old hoary “tribal” context.
The “whole history” of the continent, of which you evidently are entirely ignorant is rather more complex than the ‘primitive tribal’ image you’re dredged up, rather like the nasty bastids who sold the old Apartheid elixir.
A short summary: colonial rule aborted the possibility of positive evolution of indigenous polities, actual rule set up – rather like Soviet rule – terrible precedents, and underlying indigenous political habits were severely maladapted to the new post-colonial states, which in the end grouped indigenous political forces which were enemies and had unresolved conflicts that colonial rule merely suppressed in an unhealthy manner, rather than resolved. Indeed colonial administrations had frequent recourse to “divide and conquer” policies
I would point to states such as Senegal and Mali, both fairly successful democracies for all their poverty, where a fair degree of correspondence to pre-colonial ‘realms’ or political spheres has helped, in conjunction with of course wise leadership.
There is, in the end, no excusing the idiocy of post-Colonial rule and those who have raped their countries deserve full censure, as Mugabe, but it is to be willfully blind not to see where the origins of much of the problem lies.
Richburg’s book, a whiney little journalistic tantrum is of little interest to me, but what is the point of the above?
The problem faced is attracting capital. To the extent ‘white flight’ undermines that for good and bad reasons, there is the issue.
Ah, the good massa argument. There is of course a rather severe logical fallacy here: that development could only come from “The Whites” rather from self-generated advancement. A racist, if often unconsciously so, argument.
The underlying facts. Southern Africa bantu peoples were not terribly advanced on the technological spectrum c. mid to late 19th century. In many respects the situation rather resembled that of the American frontier at the same time in re white Americans and the Native Americans. The thread on the Cherokee is particularly relevant. If one reads some solid historical literature on Southern Africa, one finds that the parallels were indeed specifically drawn at the time. Common features included gold rush driven expropriation of lands, generalized contempt for the “native” – as well as violent reaction when the same began to adopt urbane civilized economic patterns and compete with Whites. A direct parallel to the Catch 22 that Libertarian so eloquently expressed in re the Cherokee, the inescapability of the label savage. It appears in some quarters that has not changed.
I will state clearly, the above statement is racist to the core. Racist without qualifying features.
It makes the explicit presumption that internally driven development would not happen. Again, a review of respected sources such as the Cambridge History of Africa puts lie to this concept of the static, unresponsive Africa. Regrettably, native reaction and development (e.g. in the case of the Angola kingdoms) were aborted by European imperial ambitions.
[I see Tamerlane intervened with a direct cite to Thorton on the Kongo kingdoms, which is what I refer to above.]
That is not to abuse the Europeans – mere human condition, and were the situations reversed, the same thing would have happened (that is were Europeans at the disadvantage).
Save your regards when they are rather less contaminated by commentary infected with ignorance.
