Fixing Africa

Lets consider less jingoistic possibilities. African nations are plagued by debt. Wouldn't forgiving a lot of that go a long way towards helping them?

Also, subsidise African education systems. Also, end a lot of the things which keep African goods uncompetitive; I've been ranting on about Europes Common Agricultural Policy and US food subsidies and making myself hoarse to anyone who will listen. Send over advisors to areas without expertise, without letting foreign corporations actually take over and exploit the people of those regions.

As for regions like Somalia, I think a peacekeeping mission is probably in order... and I mean actual peacekeepers who can go in and kick ass if a village is being razed or something. Not pretty boys (and girls) in blue jackets. Same goes for other wartorn areas which aren't about to end well without intervention. Hell, I'd go so far as to say that you either need to build a government in Somalia from scratch, complete with institutions, or you need to balkanise the place and be done.

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.

This sounds good. Well, better than killing everyone and replacing them with white people, anyway.

With regards to Somalia, though, perhaps it would be better to simply let the country solidify into the three different states that are basically in power now? The governments might be crappy, but it could be more helpful to allow the countries to build up some infrastructure, so that mass starvation isn't the #1 most likely way to die, and then progress from there.

edited 12th Jan '12 3:56:52 PM by stripesthezebra

Its not like I want them all to die, you know. Nobody likes AIDS, but AIDS won't stop existing if you decide to ignore the truth.

When it comes to Africa, idealism is moot, retarded and pointless. There's no logical way things will go for the better now.

A single phrase renders Christianity a delusional cult

Yes there is. It just involves bottomless purses and lots of determination.

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.

@Stripes: First, the Holocaust was not a result of colonialism, it was a result of social breakdown within a civilized country. It was indeed a result of racism, but that's a separate issue.

Second, let's do some honest comparisons. I'm asking for your opinion here.

Which society is better, Zululand or (post-1990) South Africa?

Which society is better, pre-British India or post-British India?

Which society is better, pre-WWII Japan or post-WWII Japan?

Murkier example, because the Spanish Empire was an example of how not to do colonialism: Which society is better, the Aztecs or modern Mexico?

@Gannetwhale: I think we can do better than outright wiping Africa completely clean.

@Amused Troper Guy: I think we pulled out of Africa before the job was done, and that's the difference between, for example, Africa and Mexico.

@Game Chainsaw: I like your idea on Somalia, but I think that it's essentially saying the same thing that I am: the first step to solving the region's problems is to go in and take over by force. I personally think that that will take more killing than you suggest, however.

I despise hypocrisy, unless of course it is my own.

Comparing hundreds of years old societies to the modern day = a supremely lopsided way to look at the world.

If you compare pre-emprial Britain to modern India (or Africa for that matter) it looks pretty horrible too, if not more horrible than the colonized societies.

edited 12th Jan '12 4:02:15 PM by stripesthezebra

Hmm... do not underestimate just how awful things were before the British Raj, when the East India company was in control. I don't know much after, or how much the Raj improved matters, but there are things you can read about British India before that event that would make your skin crawl. India was perfectly prosperous before we fouled things up; westernised does not mean better. Our own "western" citizens were slaving in the factories under some of the foulest individuals on the planet at that time.

Be very cautious of praising anything that is "modern".

On the subject of Somalia... if anyone has any better suggestions than outright force against the armed factions there, I am all ears.

edited 12th Jan '12 3:59:31 PM by GameChainsaw

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.

I gave a suggestion at 53.

@Ramidel

The Holocaust was the result of people getting up and declaring that the best way to solve perfectly solveable problems is to kill entire ethnic/religious groups, which is what you just did, seemingly because actually contemplating why the problems exist is just to hard.

Also:

"Which society is better, Zululand or (post-1990) South Africa?

Which society is better, pre-British India or post-British India?

Which society is better, pre-WWII Japan or post-WWII Japan? "

Post (it's actually 1994) South Africa, where white people stopped doing what you're suggesting?

Post British India, where white people stopped doing the things you're suggesting?

Post WWII Japan, where Japan stopped doing the things you're suggesting?

edited 12th Jan '12 4:09:29 PM by stripesthezebra

Hmm... optimal, if it could work. But it'll only work if the three states are willing to leave it at the agreed borders.

If thats the strategy, its time to start sending mediators. Also, Somaliland wants to go independent, so they should be allowed self-determination too.

I doubt the three factions will stop warring so easily.

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.

Well the biggest current conflict is between the Al-Shabaab, and the (basically dead) former government, there's not as much conflict between the others.

Problem is, what do you tell all the people who lose out when you cut the subsidiaries?

Of course, that's a question of practicality and politics, not a question of whether it's not a good idea in the most basic sense.

Also, yes, proper peacekeepers would be nice.

Edit: Oops. I should have refreshed the page after shoveling the driveway...

edited 12th Jan '12 4:17:52 PM by Flyboy

"Shit, our candidate is a psychopath. Better replace him with Newt Gingrich."

The other problem with calm suddenly befalling Somalia and the different factions dropping their flags and shaking hands is that you suddenly have a lot of unemployed, unprofitable groups of roaming mercenaries and hired goons wandering the land. And they're going to either go off to bother someone else or they're going to resort to banditry.

Its the same problem as befell pre-unification Italy; more mercenaries than standing armies.

edited 12th Jan '12 4:18:21 PM by GameChainsaw

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.

@Game Chainsaw: Colonization does need to be done for other motives than profit alone. I will not say that King Leopold improved the situation in the Congo, for example. But India was not "perfectly fine" on its own either, though I'll concede that it was far better than precolonial Africa.

@Stripes: And how did Japan come to stop doing something that superficially looks like (but is not) what I'm suggesting? We came in and reordered their society by threat of nuclear war.

How did the Zulus stop doing what I'm suggesting (starting from a very, very different set of values)? Britain came in and reordered their society by warfare. Frankly, I'm going to say that the apartheid regime was better than what the Zulus had ("you can't have sex until you've killed someone" is a cultural institution that was better off exterminated, for example), though it was most certainly an evil of its own.

---

Also, regarding Puntland and Somalia (the southern portion), neither of those is a properly solidified state. I agree that Somaliland could be allowed to separate and given aid, however, instead of being kicked over. Puntland, at a minimum, will need to agree to stop cooperating with the pirates.

Regarding the wild merc bands...well, that's why any peacekeeping or colonial mission would have to be a long-haul project. Some of the more sane mercenaries could be folded over into the local army (though I'll be up-front about disliking this idea, for reasons that should be obvious) and the rest can be squashed.

edited 12th Jan '12 4:22:10 PM by Ramidel

I despise hypocrisy, unless of course it is my own.

"Shit, our candidate is a psychopath. Better replace him with Newt Gingrich."

I think this comes under two wrongs do not make a right. The Zulus undoubtably did barbaric things during the Mcafene. But lets face it, there was nothing "noble" about what the British did, and anyway, we did it 60 years after the Mcafene.

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.

@Flyboy: No. :P

@Stripes: I'm suggesting that we went into Japan to stop their militarism through the mass murder of civilians (and yes, nuking Japan was the right thing to do. It was still Dirty Business). Japan was exterminating, on racial rather than cultural grounds, the population of China to fuel their society-wide madness.

What we did to Japan is an example of the imposition of our values on another culture by force of arms. How is it not?

I despise hypocrisy, unless of course it is my own.

EDIT: Guys, derail!

edited 12th Jan '12 4:43:32 PM by GameChainsaw

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.

EDIT: Not a derail, the Japan issue is relevant to the "Fixing Africa" question. As is "what has been done in the past, and what have the results of that been?"

edited 12th Jan '12 4:44:38 PM by Ramidel

I despise hypocrisy, unless of course it is my own.

Analogies are generally not helpful, and typically spin off into arguing about the analogy.

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.

Ram, I think the point they're arguing is that you're idea of making Africa better...won't. (Sorry if this isn't what you mean, Stripes and Flyboy!)

For example, you began by saying that genocide is a last resort. Let's look at that. Call me idealistic, or a bleeding heart liberal, but I believe that genocide shouldn't be part of a plan to end genocide (even as a last resort). What you argue won't make Africa better; it will simply eliminate the current population. Trying to end the many violent conflicts in Africa by bringing massive violence to Africa won't make it better. It will make the inhabitants resent us.

Fair enough.

So, regarding Somalia, the best proposals that have been put on the table so far are:

1. Provide humanitarian aid and infrastructural and economic investment to Somaliland.
2. Provide military oversight and a new government to Puntland and Somalia, then bring in the aid once we can be sure it won't be wrecked by warlords.

@Unicorn: There, I think we disagree on ideological grounds. While I freely admit that I take things to their logical extension far more readily than I should, I do think that eliminating those who are causing problems is a better solution than allowing them to continue making trouble, even if the root causes of the problem are deeply ingrained into the cultural structure of the people.

edited 12th Jan '12 4:54:25 PM by Ramidel

I despise hypocrisy, unless of course it is my own.

EDIT: Guys, sorry, but can we please keep this focussed on Africa?

edited 12th Jan '12 4:57:32 PM by GameChainsaw

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.