Africa...Can we do anything? by Geezer

Ahh, Africa.......... Staggering beauty, enormous natural resources...... Staggering corruption and hideous brutality........ All too often existing in the exact same geographic location. Very, very complicated place, and a serious contender for poster child for the concept of "intractable geopolitical problem". IMHO, in terms of aggregate human suffering, no other region can touch it.

I've been there 5 times (all southern Africa, most of it in South Africa proper), and I've read and thought a lot about (and personally witnessed some of) the problems Geezer raises. Thanks, Geezer, for posting a thought-provoking thread that might get us thinking about how to solve some grievous human problems instead of promoting ideology. I wish I had easy answers, but I don't and neither does anyone else. I guess that's the definition of "intractable problem". But there's blame aplenty, and it's very widely shared.

The geographic and much of the political structure of Africa are largely results of colonialism, but more in the way colonialism was dismantled than how it was administered. I'm not condoning colonialism in Africa in any way - to call it shameful and a disgrace is to grossly abuse the concept of "understatement". But, the US gets a pass on this one - we may have abetted the structure in the last 50 or so years (in many ways, many of them also shameful), but Europe gets the fall here. They set it up, and so it makes sense that they should take the lead in ameliorating the damage.

The corruption and brutality are strictly an African responsibility, however. Nobody made political “leaders” steal at rates that make organized crime seem like a bunch of corner thieves, and nobody made them engage in torture and murder at rates that rival the worst that humanity has ever seen, and heaven only knows that’s an incredibly sorry record for comparison. Here, the developed world has abetted the thievery, at least, in shameful ways, mostly via predatory “lending” practices (this is too complicated to get into this late at night, but I have confidence that there will be replies to this post that will further the discussion!). One could also argue about the role of inaction in abetting murder (same parenthetical comment).

This post is already too long, so let me throw out a few suggestions, and I’ll wait for responses. So folks, what should we do?

First, stop predatory lending practices that result in net transfer of assets out of Africa (I’m not talking about theft here, but about debt structure and repayment, as well as how the non-stolen money is spent, often to benefit multinational corporations). Both the IMF and the World Bank have abetted this (more the former than the latter, but both have participated), as have some private lenders, though most private lenders know better than to throw money at Africa.

Second, cancel debt that cannot be repaid (and that the cynical would argue was never meant to be repaid). Some has recently been cancelled, but not all of it. It’s lost money folks; insisting that the destitute try to repay it is to participate in and condone their starvation.

Third, a big chunk of the “cannot be repaid” category can’t be repaid because it was stolen. Find it and recover it. Shouldn’t be that difficult in this electronic banking age. There wasn’t ever any cash involved; it was all paper or electronic transfers. Put the thieves in jail and publicize the bejeebers out of it. Make sure that the world recognizes what kind of thieving murdering scumbags they are (instead of giving them safe exile abroad when someone finally gets rid of them).

Fourth, put every kind of diplomatic and economic pressure on the monsters. Stop supporting them for any reason. Make their lives miserable. Publicize their monstrosity. Seize their assets (the assets sure as hell aren’t being held in their own countries!).

But in the end, Africans are going to have to solve the political problems; no outside force is going to be able to do that. South Africa has great credibility within the continent, and could be a shining light, but it’s current president (Thabo Mbeki) is not stepping up to the plate. Not on HIV/AIDS, and not on monstrous neighbors (Robert Mugabe, in Zimbabwe, is a prime example).

The “Africa Problem” has many, many roots, and it’s going to take a lot of players to solve it. In the meantime, if you haven’t been there, by all means go (though you should go informed and with the caution that any experienced international traveler would employ). It’s still a marvelous place.

perfessergee

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 21, 2005 1:20 AM

FANTASTICLAUGHINGFAIRY

I think that as long as there are such terrible regimes in Africa, run by people like Mugabe, there cannot be a long-term solution to the problems.
Unfortunately, there is really no viable way to ensure this without basically repeating Iraq - which is not only very risky, but is als very unlikely, considering how the Iraq war is going, and how little support there is likely to be from the general public (including myself).
I really can't see an end to it myself - maybe people have other suggestions, although I ceratinly think aid-work should continuewhilst these terrible things are happening to our fellow human beings.

...and we will call it...this land...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 21, 2005 1:20 AM

FANTASTICLAUGHINGFAIRY

Anyone with any other ideas?

...and we will call it...this land...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 21, 2005 4:47 AM

BARNSTORMER

Wow, very tough question. It seems to me that pretty much everything depends on the morality of the countries ruler or ruling body or said ruling bodies opposition.

From what I have read in the past, sending money is a futile effort in most cases. Sending food relief tends end up in the mouth of the countries military for the most part.

I'm not familiar with Gino's suggestion on non monetary relief efforts such as infrastructure.
Except for the efforts of the Peace Corps and such.

I'll have to see what I can find concerning what has been tried in the past versus what has actually had a true positive impact.

My knowledge is based on Headlines and blurbs (all of which have been woefully depressing).

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 21, 2005 5:51 AM

SIGMANUNKI

On the aid:

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,363663,00
.html

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 21, 2005 8:26 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
I think the big thing is you cannot deal with Africa as a whole. Some countrys can be helped today, and once the example of a successful rehab is established a role model is there to help lead the rest to rebuilding.

And not only this, but different countries need different things. Some may just need a bit of money, some - administrative assistance, some - medical or infrastructure, and some (dare I say it?) regime change. I always have wondered about the arrogance or lack of understanding that makes people think they can do a one-size-fits-all program for an entire continent.

Quote:
One example is Canadian aid to Tanzania.

Instead of pumping in cash, materials to supply the education system and the civil service are being sent in, amongst other efforts of course.

The idea is like this :

http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/cida_ind.nsf/0/39C326B1A8BC30B785256FBF006C
B6EB?OpenDocument

I would take this even farther, if the G8 changed the way they provided foreign aid. Say each of the G8 sponsered a particular area or country. Then a result could be measured, national pride on the line, etc.

I kind of like this, but have a feeling the rules for this "competition" would have to be pretty strict, or the improvements imposed on the local populace to win could be something other than they'd desire.

Quote:
Once you get one country on its feet, you not only have an example, you have a base. Perhaps a revitalized Tanzania, would be better positioned as a partner to assist its neighbors such as Rwanda, or Burundi.

And then the aid would be seen as coming from fellow Africans, who would be expected to know what really needed to be done. I like the boot-strapping concept.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 21, 2005 10:50 AM

You have to be careful with africa. The continent just like the middle east was actually quite stable until western powers began carving it up for their own ends, with the excuse that we were 'bring civilisation to the savages'.
Okay thats all the more reason to do all that we can, but for all our good intentions in many african nations our help has done nothing or even made things worse.
I saw in a BBC report that writing off african debt could actually be counterproductive in the long term. The countries that are starting to gain strong econimies and trade on the world market would be penalised while nations run by despots that used their money and aid to prop up their dictatorships could be rewarded.

I'm not saying we should do nothing but that its very hard to know what to do, as even our best intentions have ramifications.

Consider that the people with the real power to do anything about africa are the companies and corporations that trade on the open market, and its not in their best interests to break the status quo.

For an interesting article on africa and more specifically Botswana:
http://econ-www.mit.edu/faculty/acemoglu/files/papers/Botswanafinal.pd
f
Or from the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4318777.stm

A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her.
--W.C. Fields

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 21, 2005 4:29 PM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
I'm looking for positive suggestions here, not just the usual "it's all (fill in the blank's) fault."

I've always thought we should try a triage approach. Take all the aid. Billions of dollars and instead of spreading it to the winds of the entire continant we focus it on one or two countries at a time. Stand them up. Make them valuable trading partners, stable democracies, and positive regional influences, then move next door and do it again.

I'd start with Ghana.

Then with each success we create the means to allow for greater and more meaningful African influance in African development.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 21, 2005 5:41 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

On another thread (what would you do?) I said that the US should forgive all debt and dismantle the IMF and World Bank. I think that fits in well here.

Sometimes you do need to place blame in order to know enough not to do the same thing in the future.

I was talking with an African coworker who had many salient points to offer (including that African debt has already been paid off many times over).

One thing he said that struck me was that direct foreign monetary aid was the fuel of African corruption ... the international lenders knew all along that these loans were going directly into the Swiss bank accounts of corrupt dictators, but tolerated it for political and $$ corrupt reasons of their own.

He also said that the IMF and World Bank would only lend money if countries agreed to borrow even more money for large (generally useless) projects (many examples), usually contracted to multinational corporations, and under the condition of selling off national resources and privatizing public infrastructure.

For that reason Gino's comment about providing on-the-ground direct local physical aid (building schools, roads, drilling wells, providing medical aid and training) dovetails with what I've heard.

In places ravaged by war, something as simple as a road which cannot be used or a simple bridge that was destroyed keeps people from returning to the farms.

And then, there is the well known generic approach that if you direct your help toward women and children by providing care, food, schooling, training, local resources (bicycles), and small loans to women to start home businesses (which get paid directly to the next borrower in line) the standard of living rises. Whereas if you direct aid to men, gambling, prostitution, and addiction become rampant and the overall standard of living either stays the same or drops.

Jared Diamond makes the case that some African countries are simply unable to support the population (Rwanda - where many killings were not between Hutus and Tutsis, but within ethnic groups over land disputes). Now whether or not the cultures are amenable to birth control or I couldn't say. (I think of India where in some places there are only 75 marrying-age females for every 100 males, but that simple negative consequence of devaluing girls hasn't seemed to make female children any more valuable.) But aid organizations definitely need to provide birth control and condoms as part of the medical aid package.

Ands frankly, if African countries buy cheap anti-retrovirals from India, the US should look the other way.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 21, 2005 6:32 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

My reponse is similar to Rue's. One of the first things we need to do is stop corrupting African governments. I linked an article several threads ago that gave several specific examples. As I recall, one commercial "development bank" made a tidy arrangement with one leader to borrow well more than that nation could afford with the idea that that bank would then get a lock on the oil when the country couldn't repay it's debt. Another development bank actually helped the leader set up a Swiss bank account (or some such).

I also referenced "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" by John Perkins. Mr Perkins detailed how development loans are made SPECIFICALLY in order to bankrupt countries because then that nation's resources are forfeit. The loan money doesn't stay in the debtor nation very long because the development contracts all go to foreign countries. The nation must squeeze its population in order to pay back the debt, offering starvation wages to international corporations. And the only leaders who would take those loans under those conditions are necessarily corrupt. Ergo, many development banks (World Bank, IMF, private banks) actually want to work with corrupt dictators- it's so much easier to make money that way.

So... the first thing to do is actually the easiest. Rather than try and change "them", we should change our (developed world) practices.

The other thing is that embargoes and tariffs WORK. They tend to take a couple of decades but they provide steady pressure in one direction.

And...I gotta go.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 21, 2005 6:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
So, just to start with the most outre suggestion...maybe we should just leave them alone. Could it just be possible that the best thing is to do nothing? Let the Africans sort it out by themselves? Or limit support to stuff like HIV/AIDS drugs and other medicine, and then only as requested? I know that this sounds cold, but has all the aid we've provided so far actually done that much good?

I’m not 100% confident that AIDS is actually an epidemic, so if the policy is to limit support, I don’t see why HIV drugs should necessarily be an exception. But I think that in many cases the money we give Africa may make matters worse, not better. Stopping the aid, in the short run, may place considerable economic strain on some of the more corrupt regimes.

I like ideas that put boots on the ground to effect real change and offer real aid directly to the people, but the reality is that this won’t solve the problem either, because I don't think there is enough boots, and there’s probably not going to be, certainly given security issues.

Ideally, I also like the idea of militarily or covertly deposing some of these regimes or securing certain regions, but that is unpopular with the Western nations that have the needed military capability for a variety of reasons. Force and nation building is probably the only quick fix if one exists, but the price one pays for that quick fix is that the troubles of Africa are inherited by the Western nations, and that’s not likely to go over well. Nor is it at all certain that such actions could succeed given such a lack of home support.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 22, 2005 12:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I’m not 100% confident that AIDS is actually an epidemic, so if the policy is to limit support, I don’t see why HIV drugs should necessarily be an exception. But I think that in many cases the money we give Africa may make matters worse, not better. Stopping the aid, in the short run, may place considerable economic strain on some of the more corrupt regimes.

I like ideas that put boots on the ground to effect real change and offer real aid directly to the people, but the reality is that this won’t solve the problem either, because I don't think there is enough boots, and there’s probably not going to be, certainly given security issues.

Ideally, I also like the idea of militarily or covertly deposing some of these regimes or securing certain regions, but that is unpopular with the Western nations that have the needed military capability for a variety of reasons. Force and nation building is probably the only quick fix if one exists, but the price one pays for that quick fix is that the troubles of Africa are inherited by the Western nations, and that’s not likely to go over well. Nor is it at all certain that such actions could succeed given such a lack of home support.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

Ahh Finn,

I was about to flame you for this post, but then it occurred to me that perhaps I was over-reacting to an obvious provocation and that you must surely be familiar with and understand what's going on in Africa. Surely you were just indulging in some joking and trying to pull the chains of people who worry about such trivial things as poverty and disease and political corruption. You've been there and know human beings who live there and everything's hunky-dory, right? Right?

I really do try to avoid the ad hominem but sometimes its difficult.

the sarcasm is entirely deliberate

perfessergee

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 22, 2005 2:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by perfessergee:
the sarcasm is entirely deliberate

Sarcasm? More like conceit, but it is the depth of the intellect I have come to expect from you.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 22, 2005 7:51 AM

Quote:
Force and nation building is probably the only quick fix if one exists, but the price one pays for that quick fix is that the troubles of Africa are inherited by the Western nations, and that’s not likely to go over well. Nor is it at all certain that such actions could succeed given such a lack of home support.

Since when has forceably removing a goverment by a foriegn power and building a new system based on the invading nation been a fix at all, let alone a quick one. This is what happened to Africa in the first place. The continent was carved up by western powers and then left to fend for themselves.

I can think of NO examples where a foriegn power has overthrown a goverment and it has ended in anything but chaos.

A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her.
--W.C. Fields

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 22, 2005 8:58 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

For some, the only response is a military one. "When the only thing you have is a hammer. everything looks like a nail".

I have an issue with direct aid. A national government can do more harm in one hour (sending in the troops to supress dissent, bankrupting the nation, embezzeling the Treasury etc.) than local assistance can undo in one year. Corruption may be pervasive, but top-level corruption impacts harder. Where a centralized government is even partially functional, government reform may be more effective than the bottom-up approach.

So, as I was saying... money is a powerful motivator. Right now, money is one of the major driving forces towards poverty and corruption. What if international tariffs were imposed for failure to meet certain requirements? A 5% tariff for not holding regular, universal-franchise, multi-party, UN-recognized elections? A 5% tariff for not achieving at least an 80% literacy rate for both sexes? A 5% tariff for not meeting transparency and international accountancy rules? A 5% tarrif for not meeting minimum civil rights? I can think of a lot of basic requirements that could influence a nation to turn itself around. It would be fun to find the minimum set of requirements.

And it's not as if tariffs are a new idea. They've been in place for a long time, and just about every wrinkle in their applicaiton has been worked out already. www.usitc.gov/tata/index.htm

But- even when the "motivation" is in place, sometimes a situation is SO factured and so unstable that a nation has reverted to warlordism: Somalia, Ethiopia, Sierra Leone, etc. Ordinary people in these regions are robbed and raped over and over again by roving gangs whose only motivation is controlling turf. ANY form of production, trade, service or AID- farming, herding, handicraft, food vending, clinics, food deliveries etc.- is almost impossible. SOME internal order is required for a self-sustaining society. This is where Finn comes in. (TAAA DAA!!) An Ethiopian businesman-turned-warlord (Jawhar) shows that it IS possible to impose order: www.geeskaafrika.com/somalia_26june05.htm The secret is totally overwhelming force. A large, external military force might be useful in those cases... but it would have to be very, very large. No half-measure would be successful.

Here is another consideration- many African "nations" were created by colonial rule for the imperialists' convenience. Larger groups were broken up, smaller groups were set against each other. Is it possible to re-draw artifical divisions without setting off a massive land-grab?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 22, 2005 9:49 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Oh, and BTW- I think Perfessergee's ideas about finding and recovering looted money and trying the perps very publically is a fantastic idea.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 22, 2005 9:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I can think of NO examples where a foriegn power has overthrown a goverment and it has ended in anything but chaos.

This is something you need to explain to Germany, Japan, and a myriad of other states, not me.

But the argument is pointless, because the Westerns states are probably not going to be united enough, either internally or externally, to make a regime change a workable solution in Africa. Hell, I can't even bring the idea up without being ridiculed.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 22, 2005 10:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I can think of NO examples where a foriegn power has overthrown a goverment and it has ended in anything but chaos.
This is something you need to explain to Germany, Japan, and a myriad of other states, not me.

Probably should of worded that differently. Enforced regime change is what is being done in Iraq and Afghanistan, and see what has happened and is happening there.
The destruction of the Nazi regime in germany and the imperial goverment of Japan are very different situations.

Quote:
Hell, I can't even bring the idea up without being ridiculed.

Weren't ridiculing you, just the thought that seems to be pervading our society at the moment that believes sending in the troops is the best way to go.

A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her.
--W.C. Fields

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 22, 2005 10:54 AM

Quote:
The secret is totally overwhelming force. A large, external military force might be useful in those cases... but it would have to be very, very large. No half-measure would be successful.

ONLY if such a force was brought in and supported by the majority of the local population.
As an example the American war of idependence would have been unwinnable without the French, yet they were 'asked' to interfere, so that once the British had been defeated America could form a stable goverment of thier own creation.

The problem is regime change where a countries goverment is toppled and a new one is installed under the direction of the invading force.
Why? I think its becuase the invading force will be trying to 'buy' loyalty by only allowing goverments/systems that would be loyal.

Quote:
Here is another consideration- many African "nations" were created by colonial rule for the imperialists' convenience. Larger groups were broken up, smaller groups were set against each other. Is it possible to re-draw artifical divisions without setting off a massive land-grab?

I can't think of an example where this hasn't happened.

A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her.
--W.C. Fields

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 22, 2005 10:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Probably should of worded that differently. Enforced regime change is what is being done in Iraq and Afghanistan, and see what has happened and is happening there.
The destruction of the Nazi regime in germany and the imperial goverment of Japan are very different situations.

No, they weren’t. They were the same situation. The same problems were faced in Japan and Germany that are being dealt with in Iraq and Afghanistan, if not worse problems. Regime change is a not an easy or pretty thing, and it never has been. It needs to be weighed carefully against the status quo. But if the status quo is such that a genocide of 800,000 people and fifty years of oppression and starvation under corrupt regimes are real possibilities then one really shouldn’t dismiss regime change with all of its atrocities, especially if it can lead to a stable liberal government.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 22, 2005 11:50 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
ONLY if such a force was brought in and supported by the majority of the local population

You're right about that, although I'm not sure it takes a "majority" of the population. Without that support, the local population (whatever their disgreements) could agree on one thing- get the invaders out.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 22, 2005 11:53 AM

Quote:
No, they weren’t. They were the same situation.

Not exactly but i'm not making myself clear I think. Germany was occupied by the conquering powers from 1945 until at least the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989. In fact there is STILL a major foreign military presence in germany. Europe as a whole was actually a fairly stable enviroment in 1989 at the beginning of the withdrawl.
The same cannot be said of Africa. To enact military regime change it would have to be performed on MANY nations in the region, not one. The region is not even as stable as Europe after the second world war. Any military intevention in the region would be seen as an aggresive act, not one of defence.
The continent and nations are carved up by independent warlords, NOT a single dictator.
With Africa you are dealing with vast swaths of wilderness occupied by groups violently opposed to each other, not just a single fairly well developed country, with a relativly united population.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/

The situation in Japan was also different.
The Japanese goverement was not disposed in one military action. They were occupied by the US, and their military was demobolized, yes. The changes that occured to goverment in Japan were more gradual and the roots had been inplace BEFORE the 2nd World War.

Quote:
The new Constitution was a perfection of the British
parliamentary form of government that the Japanese had been moving
toward in the 1920s.

http://www.cyberessays.com/History/98.htm

A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her.
--W.C. Fields

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 22, 2005 12:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
ONLY if such a force was brought in and supported by the majority of the local population
You're right about that, although I'm not sure it takes a "majority" of the population. Without that support, the local population (whatever their disgreements) could agree on one thing- get the invaders out.

If a minority of the population were behind the invasion they could be seen as capitulators rather than part of a liberation force. With a sizeable minority, 35% to 45% say it may work as other groups may have their own agendas.

A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her.
--W.C. Fields

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 22, 2005 2:21 PM

This is probably going to shock Finn, but I agree with him that enforced regime change works. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that it's actually the norm in human history - it's been happening over and over since the dawn of recorded history, and probably a long time before that. I'm not saying that I like it or that it's right - usually it's just been the stronger nation conquering the weaker, until somebody stronger yet comes along. This latter point is why IMO it's not a great idea to go around invading other nations; you are implicitly agreeing that it's OK in principle for another nation to invade you, should they become the stronger one. Civilized nations don't invade others unless they have to, as the Allies did with Germany and Japan. We don't have to invade Africa; it's simply not a threat to us in any governmental or military sense.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't do what we can to help, but in the case of Africa, it's pretty hared to figure out what will help.

perfessergee

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 22, 2005 2:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by perfessergee:
the sarcasm is entirely deliberate
Sarcasm? More like conceit, but it is the depth of the intellect I have come to expect from you.

Well, if having been there, having witnesssed the AIDS epidemic personally and up close, and having some idea of what I'm talking about makes me conceited, then I guess I have to plead guilty.

Skepticism is an important quality for an inquiring mind, but expressing doubt that there's an AIDS epidemic in Africa isn't a display of skepticism, it's a display of lack of awareness. A visit to a South African cemetery would cure you of this - you wouldn't be able to alone because there will be multiple funerals occurring during all daylight hours. It's actually hard to schedule a funeral because there are so many of them. The health and social service agencies dealing with the problem have had to invent a neologism to fit a new category of homes: "child-headed household". A colleague at the University of Cape Town who works in the townships informs me that there are lots of them. Because so many parents with young children are dying. Of AIDS. If that doesn’t qualify as an epidemic, the word has no useful meaning.

perfessergee

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 22, 2005 2:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by perfessergee:
This is probably going to shock Finn, but I agree with him that enforced regime change works. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that it's actually the norm in human history - it's been happening over and over since the dawn of recorded history, and probably a long time before that. I'm not saying that I like it or that it's right - usually it's just been the stronger nation conquering the weaker, until somebody stronger yet comes along. This latter point is why IMO it's not a great idea to go around invading other nations; you are implicitly agreeing that it's OK in principle for another nation to invade you, should they become the stronger one. Civilized nations don't invade others unless they have to, as the Allies did with Germany and Japan. We don't have to invade Africa; it's simply not a threat to us in any governmental or military sense.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't do what we can to help, but in the case of Africa, it's pretty hared to figure out what will help.

perfessergee

It works in so much that it removes the goverment of the nation, and is often beneficial to the invading nation. The point is that it doesn't help the people being invaded.
Enforced regime change doesn't work if your goal is to stabalise a country or improve a peoples situation.
I really can't see how millitary action could work in Africa. In fact I can't see how its working or will work in the middle east.

A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her.
--W.C. Fields

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 22, 2005 4:21 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

A problem with monetary aid - even just local aid - is that besides driving corruption, the influx of money ALSO sparks local inflation. (Recent examples are the tsunami areas receiving aid.) And if no monetary aid is given corrupt governments will have no treasury to raid. Also while political excess ('slum clearing') can wreak havoc on material gains painfully made by people, greed per se will never make them a target of the national government if their wealth is in the form of a well, or school, or bridge, or a road they can drive their carts down without breaking the wheels.

I agree that 'boots-on-the-ground' effort will NOT work in an area that lacks basic security even from their own government. However, with security, direct non-monetary aid guarantees that people will benefit.

One variation of direct non-monetary aid could be requiring that locals (women too) decide on the local project out of a list of projects, and contribute either work, materials or a small amount of money. It would be genuine help for them to accomplish what they need.

As to whether or not there will ever be 'enough' help to go around, I don't believe so, if the US funds these projects as in the past. Which means continuing to depend on a few fantastically idealistic people to put their lives on hold for a year to two and go to work in Africa for nothing.

But if the billions spent in Africa were to go to people working on aid projects to turn it into a regular job with a regular wage, a lot would be accomplished for very little money. Ten thousand aid workers in a country at $50,000 US salary (it should probably be deposited to personal US accounts as that much cash in the local economy would be destructive) could provide a tremendous amount of aid for only $5,000,000 plus the cost of some materials.

I don't believe it is possible to pacify areas where the people are mobilized to fight each other country on country. (Look at the Balkans. Peace, understanding and harmony have not broken out all over, only the shooting has stopped.) My understanding is that peace happens only when all sides are convinced they cannot win. If one still thinks it can win, or could or should have won, that side will be an active or potential aggressor, and the other side(s) will HAVE to defend themselves sooner or later. (Germany after WW I)

To make conflict unwinnable, the US could STOP sending money, buying diamonds/oil/bauxite/etc and selling arms. UN embargoes might be given a chance to work.

A beneficent warlord. It really needs to be seen how it will work out. I remember when the Taliban took over Afghanistan many at first were relieved at the restoration of any kind of law. I find the problem of collapsed societies where the central government has imploded to be the most intractable. I haven't seen anything that provides a recipe for success. Embargos of course, they can't shoot w/out bullets, but what else?

When it comes to anti-retrovirals, letting independent countries come to their own business deals does NOT constitute aid.

And of course, aid to women and children, medical aid packages including condoms, and no strings attached debt cancellation.

I'm sure I missed something I meant to respond to.

I was idly thinking the other day about cultures, and which ones continue longest - with evolution of course - and which die out completely. All of the 'GREAT' cultures - the Romans, the ancient Egyptians etc are all gone. We don't worship Zeus or Ra, or deal with the Caesars or Pharos. And I wondered if it was because those cultures depended on military might to run. Once their military was defeated, the cultures faded from existence. And I wondered if we modern people might take a lesson from that. That that of our culture we want to transmit can't be imposed at the point of the sword for very long. And that we could historically deduce that by looking at the death of military cultures over time. Could the historians among you comment?

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 22, 2005 6:27 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

There are so many areas in Africa where attempts at local, direct help are bound to fail in a mileu of Janjaweed-style destruction. You can fix bridges and roads, set up self-help projects (fish farms, goats, fertilizer), provide clinics or traveling doctors, but if the roads are blocked by warlord checkpoints, the bridges are bombed (again), the government drops its support price for maize, or refuses to distribute medicine from the docks....

One of the West African countries (I think it was Gambia) banned imported iodized salt and fought the UN for years because they were in some sort of political snit with their major source, dooming a couple of generations to cretinism. Lovely.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 22, 2005 6:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Not exactly but i'm not making myself clear I think. Germany was occupied by the conquering powers from 1945 until at least the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989. In fact there is STILL a major foreign military presence in germany. Europe as a whole was actually a fairly stable enviroment in 1989 at the beginning of the withdrawl.

And you’re still not making any sense, because 1989 had nothing to do with the pacification of Germany by US and UK. West Germany was a prospering liberal democracy long before anyone was ever contemplating 1989.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
The same cannot be said of Africa. To enact military regime change it would have to be performed on MANY nations in the region, not one. The region is not even as stable as Europe after the second world war. Any military intevention in the region would be seen as an aggresive act, not one of defence.

Africa is a continent composed of many varied countries. And military intervention is almost always seen as an aggressive act by the country being intervened. You have a talent for stating the obvious.

Quote:
Originally posted by perfessergee:
This is probably going to shock Finn, but I agree with him that enforced regime change works. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that it's actually the norm in human history - it's been happening over and over since the dawn of recorded history, and probably a long time before that. I'm not saying that I like it or that it's right - usually it's just been the stronger nation conquering the weaker, until somebody stronger yet comes along. This latter point is why IMO it's not a great idea to go around invading other nations; you are implicitly agreeing that it's OK in principle for another nation to invade you, should they become the stronger one. Civilized nations don't invade others unless they have to, as the Allies did with Germany and Japan. We don't have to invade Africa; it's simply not a threat to us in any governmental or military sense.

It certainly is not a threat to us. That is true.

Quote:
Originally posted by perfessergee:
Well, if having been there, having witnesssed the AIDS epidemic personally and up close, and having some idea of what I'm talking about makes me conceited, then I guess I have to plead guilty.

How many people have died of AIDS in the world? Answer: none.

I don’t doubt that disease is rampant in Africa. Is there some reason to be surprised that disease is rampant in overpopulated, unsanitary third world countries? The issue is whether it is salient to throw money at a potentially invented or hyped diseases when we could use that money to treat diseases that we know exist and how to prevent. I don’t have to go to a South African cemetery to know that people are dieing of disease in Africa, and more importantly going to a South African cemetery will prove nothing about how those people died. Whatever you think we know about AIDS, the truth it seems is that we probably know much less. And that is something we need to consider before we start throwing around money that might be better used elsewhere.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I was idly thinking the other day about cultures, and which ones continue longest - with evolution of course - and which die out completely. All of the 'GREAT' cultures - the Romans, the ancient Egyptians etc are all gone. We don't worship Zeus or Ra, or deal with the Caesars or Pharos. And I wondered if it was because those cultures depended on military might to run. Once their military was defeated, the cultures faded from existence. And I wondered if we modern people might take a lesson from that. That that of our culture we want to transmit can't be imposed at the point of the sword for very long. And that we could historically deduce that by looking at the death of military cultures over time. Could the historians among you comment?

What about the Germans who replaced the Romans as the central power in Europe and continue to comprise the majority of Western European culture? Were they fuzzy peaceful people? What about the Muslims? They spent the first 500 years warring against themselves or the West, and continue to comprise the majorioty of North African and Middle Eastern culture? The Chinese weren’t exactly all friendly either. The truth is that there aren’t any cultures that weren’t warlike at some point. What about the Greeks who invented Western warfare? Some have even argued that the Western Culture is as influential as it is because of a superior ability to wage war.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 22, 2005 8:56 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
How many people have died of AIDS in the world? Answer: none.

I don’t doubt that disease is rampant in Africa. Is there some reason to be surprised that disease is rampant in overpopulated, unsanitary third world countries? The issue is whether it is salient to throw money at a potentially invented or hyped diseases when we could use that money to treat diseases that we know exist and how to prevent. I don’t have to go to a South African cemetery to know that people are dieing of disease in Africa, and more importantly going to a South African cemetery will prove nothing about how those people died. Whatever you think we know about AIDS, the truth it seems is that we probably know much less. And that is something we need to consider before we start throwing around money that might be better used elsewhere.

You provide NO support for your argument other than an attempt to mimic an authoritative tone. So, provide a basis, if you can.

Quote:
What about the Germans who replaced the Romans as the central power in Europe and continue to comprise the majority of Western European culture? Were they fuzzy peaceful people? What about the Muslims? They spent the first 500 years warring against themselves or the West, and continue to comprise the majorioty of North African and Middle Eastern culture? The Chinese weren’t exactly all friendly either. The truth is that there aren’t any cultures that weren’t warlike at some point. What about the Greeks who invented Western warfare? Some have even argued that the Western Culture is as influential as it is because of a superior ability to wage war

The Germans 'culture' was never based on a monolithic integrated military. That was the essential condition I posited. And, see Muslims.

The Muslims - how long did the Romans last? Or the Egyptians? Much longer than the Muslims to date. And despite their apparent stability, the cultures disappeared thoroughly. In contrast the Jews - who were Roman and Egyptian contemporaries - have maintained their culture to this day (albeit evolved). One survived, the others did not. With the Muslims, all of their historic contemporaries are extant to this day. The situation may not be sufficiently played out as there is no clear emergent from the same millieu. And clearly other cultures took longer to come to a conclusion.

I don't know much about Chinese history. Was the military basic to their culture? When I think of China, I think of Confuscian scholars vying for a place in the court, a hegemony of ideas, rather than a military one.

The Greeks - the ideas of Athens, a commercial powerhouse that based its culture in democracy (limited as it was) had selected ideas survive, but did not survive as an intact culture. The Spartans, who based their culture on military prowess, left little to the future and are even more thoroughly erased. So in some regards this is more a confirmation of my observation.

But I'm looking for cultures BASED on a seamless integration of superior military power into their religious, political, and social structures (like the the Aztecs, Maya, Inca, Romans, Egyptians etc) who have outlasted their contemporaries.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 23, 2005 12:59 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I was idly thinking the other day about cultures, and which ones continue longest - with evolution of course - and which die out completely. All of the 'GREAT' cultures - the Romans, the ancient Egyptians etc are all gone. We don't worship Zeus or Ra, or deal with the Caesars or Pharos. And I wondered if it was because those cultures depended on military might to run. Once their military was defeated, the cultures faded from existence. And I wondered if we modern people might take a lesson from that. That that of our culture we want to transmit can't be imposed at the point of the sword for very long. And that we could historically deduce that by looking at the death of military cultures over time.

Exploring around the logical edges of this proposal... non-militarized cultures that failed, non-militarized cultures that survived, militarized cultures that failed, militarized cultures that survived...

Cultures that did not depend on the military also did not survive. It's difficult to find major cultures that were not militarized, but I'm thinking specifically of the the cluster of five large cities in the Tigris-Euphrates area that existed for 500 years and showed no evidence of walls or other fortifications, no armories, and (BTW) no temples or large "government" buildings. What about non-militarized cultures that have survived to this day? China is an example of a large culture that has been in continuous existance for thousands of years. It doesn't depend on its military and has not been expansionist (up until now). Other non-military cultures have been allowed to continue in very isolated, marginal areas: the Bushmen of the Kalahari, the Fore of New Guinea etc. Not sure if that counts. However, some cultural fragments of militarized societies (the Sumerian 7-day week) have survived intact for thousands of years. Since I can find examples in all categories, I'm not sure the hypothesis holds.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 23, 2005 1:58 AM

Quote:
Africa is a continent composed of many varied countries. And military intervention is almost always seen as an aggressive act by the country being intervened. You have a talent for stating the obvious.

The overthrow of the Nazi party was a defencive act on the part of the Allies. The psychology of attacking and then being defeated is different for an occupied population than that of being defeated, with presedent in history.
You made the point that the situations of Germany and Africa were the same, I was giving examples as to why this wasn't so. Please refrain from insulting people unnecessarily, insult their argument by all means but not them.

Quote:
And you’re still not making any sense, because 1989 had nothing to do with the pacification of Germany by US and UK. West Germany was a prospering liberal democracy long before anyone was ever contemplating 1989.

Germany was still a fractured country occupied by foriegn millitaries. Look where the successful pacification took place. West Germany the area controlled by NATO, people who shared the culture and ideals of the West German people.

Quote:
The four occupying powers officially withdrew on March 15, 1991. The US, however, maintained military bases, such as Ramstein Air Base, Baumholder, Grafenwöhr. The UK also maintains a smaller military presence in the country (see BFG).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Germany

On the otherhand East Germany was not a liberal free democracy. This didn't happen until after the fall of the Berlin wall.

Quote:
From 1961 to 1989, when the borders were opened, hundreds died trying to escape from East Germany, including many who tried to cross the Berlin Wall.

Quote:
In the first and last free elections of East Germany in March 1990, the SED lost the majority, which was guaranteed in the previous elections, in the Volkskammer (the parliament of East Germany). At the August 23 the Volkskammer decided that the territory of East Germany will accede to ambit of the basic law of the Federal Republic of Germany on October 3, 1990. On that date, East Germany ceased to exist.

This is not true of Africa. No country in Africa, stable or not, is completely surrounded by stable neighbours, and this is another factor that will make military action unsuccessful for various reasons.
If an occupying force shares the ideals and basic culture of the people they're occupying its much easier to build a dialog and friendly relationship between them.
This was true of West Germany, but not of East. Perhaps military action in Africa would work, if it came from other African countries that shared ideals and culture with the occupied country.

A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her.
--W.C. Fields

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 23, 2005 3:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Germany was still a fractured country occupied by foriegn millitaries. Look where the successful pacification took place. West Germany the area controlled by NATO, people who shared the culture and ideals of the West German people.

East Germany was a separate country. The US and the UK never attempt to pacify that country. Your argument would seem to be based on a deception.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
You provide NO support for your argument other than an attempt to mimic an authoritative tone. So, provide a basis, if you can.

Let’s be honest. We both know you’re going to believe whatever you want to believe regardless of the conclusiveness of the evidence. It’s probably pointless to even go into it, but for people who are interested, I’ll simply suggest reading something by Dr. Duesberg. Other then that, it is probably a discussion that is outside the scope of this thread.
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/pdpnas89.htm

As for disease being rampant in Africa, I would think that should be obvious.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The Germans 'culture' was never based on a monolithic integrated military. That was the essential condition I posited.

Well first of all, I’m not sure that you have very successfully defined the condition that you have posited, and I’m also not certain that you are familiar with the extent to which the Germans prized and utilized warfare, in their culture. When they faced the Romans, they may not have been as advanced a military power, but they certainly were as culturally predisposed.

As for the Muslims, you didn’t specify a certain length of existence, not that I think that should even matter. The Roman culture lasted about a thousand years; by contrast the Muslim culture is already well over a thousand years old. Both the Muslim and the Germen cultures were warlike and expansionistic and both continue to exist today as a dominate culture. I’m not really sure what is meant by a “monolithic integrated military.”

And I’m also not exactly sure why the ancient Egyptians should meet your list, if the Greeks don’t. The Greeks were certainly as much a military culture as the ancient Egyptians. The Greek culture as a whole, including Athens, was a military culture, where warfare and the concept of the military “hero” was a religion. They warred constantly among themselves, and were capable of defending against foreign invasions much stronger. When they did go on the offensive they took their phalanges as far south as conquering Egypt and as far East as conquering parts of India in a matter of years. That is a military feat that is astonishing even today. And while the Greek nation was eventually conquered by the Romans, their culture and language persists to this day. In fact their culture was so strong that it eventually surpassed the culture of the conquering Romans and created an East Roman culture that was distinctly Greek.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 23, 2005 5:33 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Let’s be honest. We both know you’re going to believe whatever you want to believe regardless of the conclusiveness of the evidence. It’s probably pointless to even go into it, but for people who are interested, I’ll simply suggest reading something by Dr. Duesberg.

I'll save you all the bother. Dr. Duesberg posits that HIV is a "benign passenger" infection that occurs coincidentally with death from OTHER causes. In the USA, he posits that AZT and antiretroviral use causes AIDS. In Africa, it is the more-or-less standard set of diseases. He bases this statement on the "fact" that AIDS epidemic cannot be detected through unique symptomology or increased death rates that follow a bell-shaped (over time) curve typical of epidemics. But while he has an impressive pedigree, his logic and statistics are faulty.

(1) The bell shaped curve is apparent only with infections that produce symptoms quickly and are normally contagious. But in the array of infectious agents, there are some that are highly contagious -and some not and some that produce symptoms quickly -and some not. Other "slow" epidemics like kuru (with an incubation period of up to 50 years) follow the HIV pattern.

(2) Duesberg cites reported African "AIDS" death rate, not understanding that it is a cultural taboo to put "AIDS" on a death certificate. He bases much of his argument on the faulty apparent dsicrepancy in AIDS death-rates

(3) He does not address the course of HIV/AIDS in other nations. While he might be able to posit one "true" cause in the USA and another "true" cause in Africa, extending that argument to India, China, former Soviet countries and Southeast Asia... many of which require a different "true" cause than the two he originally postulated... strains coincidence and credulity.

(4) HIV/AIDS has several characteristic diseases that are rare (not unheard-of, but rare) outside of HIV infection, and you can see these with HIV/ AIDS on all continents. One of them is Kaposi's sarcoma and another is pneumocystis carinii.

Since this discussion is tangential to the main focus of the thread, I won't post any more on this topic.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 23, 2005 7:11 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Thanks SignyM.

It IS outside of the scope. I went and looked at the link, but didn't check out anything else.

The paper itself was from 1989, and AIDS research (including the ability to test for antibodies and viral load, the molecular biology of how the virus operates, that appx 10% of Caucasians lack the molecular attachment site for HIV and are biochemically protected while others have no such protection etc) has progressed phenomenally.

I do hope that those not familiar with biology and medicine are not mislead by the link.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 23, 2005 7:22 AM

Quote:
East Germany was a separate country. The US and the UK never attempt to pacify that country. Your argument would seem to be based on a deception.

East Germany was the part of Germany invaded and later controlled by the soviet union, West Germany was the part invaded and controlled by the western allies. Before the invasion of Germany by the allies Germany WAS one country, therefore the country can't be said to have been successfully 'rebuilt' until both East and West Germany was intergrated back into a single country again. I fail to see where the deception is in my argument to be honest.

A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her.
--W.C. Fields

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 23, 2005 7:42 AM

I imagine an intergrated monolithic military is one that is large full-time and professional.

A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her.
--W.C. Fields

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 23, 2005 7:46 AM

These are definitely the predictable stories of Signym and rue. And frankly, I don’t know whether they are right or wrong, but I do know that I trust Dr. Duesberg and his many publications on the issue more then I trust either Signym or rue. Of course there are noted scientists who disagree with Dr. Duesberg, and there are those who agree with him. I’m not in a position to refute either side. What is certain is that this is yet another example of the politics being far more certain of its assertions then the science it is supposedly based on will allow. Unfortunately, policy is made by the politics, not the science, so the potential exists that we may be wasting time, money and lives trying to solve a problem that may simply not exist in the way we have defined it. I don't know if that means we should change the direction we are going or not, but it does mean we shouldn't be so quick to lock ourselves into one narrow depiction of the solution.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I fail to see where the deception is in my argument to be honest.

I find that hard to believe.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 23, 2005 8:18 AM

Quote:
I find that hard to believe.

No really i don't please explain it to me. Its obviously backed by some damning evidence.

A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her.
--W.C. Fields

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 23, 2005 4:29 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

SignyM

Quote:
There are so many areas in Africa where attempts at local, direct help are bound to fail in a mileu of Janjaweed-style destruction. You can fix bridges and roads, set up self-help projects (fish farms, goats, fertilizer), provide clinics or traveling doctors, but if the roads are blocked by warlord checkpoints, the bridges are bombed (again), the government drops its support price for maize, or refuses to distribute medicine from the docks....

I believe I already addressed this. I said at length that local direct help is not appropriate for countries that lack security.

But if we are setting out a buffet of ideas to be chosen as appropriate, I think this has a definite place on the menu.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 23, 2005 5:06 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
Rue
I was idly thinking the other day about cultures, and which ones continue longest - with evolution of course - and which die completely. All of the 'GREAT' cultures - the Romans, the ancient Egyptians etc are all gone. We don't worship Zeus or Ra, or deal with the Caesars or Pharos. And I wondered if it was because those cultures depended on military might to run. Once their military was defeated, the cultures faded from existence. And I wondered if we modern people might take a lesson from that. That that of our culture we want to transmit can't be imposed at the point of the sword for very long. And that we could historically deduce that by looking at the death of military cultures over time.

SignyM
Exploring around the logical edges of this proposal... non-militarized cultures that failed, non-militarized cultures that survived, militarized cultures that failed, militarized cultures that survived...

Cultures that did not depend on the military also did not survive. It's difficult to find major cultures that were not militarized, but I'm thinking specifically of the the cluster of five large cities in the Tigris-Euphrates area that existed for 500 years and showed no evidence of walls or other fortifications, no armories, and (BTW) no temples or large "government" buildings. What about non-militarized cultures that have survived to this day? China is an example of a large culture that has been in continuous existance for thousands of years. It doesn't depend on its military and has not been expansionist (up until now). Other non-military cultures have been allowed to continue in very isolated, marginal areas: the Bushmen of the Kalahari, the Fore of New Guinea etc. Not sure if that counts. However, some cultural fragments of militarized societies (the Sumerian 7-day week) have survived intact for thousands of years. Since I can find examples in all categories, I'm not sure the hypothesis holds.

Any historians, anthropologists or others care to participate?

Anyway, I did think of the potential of a matrix: military/survive, military/notsurvive, nonmilitary/survive, nonmilitary/notsurvive. And it is true that many non-military cultures have also disappeared without a trace. BTW, if you have a reference for those civilizations I'd appreciate it. I've heard about them in the past but could never find a source. It would be absorbing reading.

Perhaps you could also help me find the single useful word to describe what I mean about the militarized cultures. Empire doesn't quite do it but it may be the closest. The religions were headed by the rulers, and religious tribute was garnered by military conquest. The militaries were professional standing armies dispatched at the behest of the rulers. And each culture was entirely under its religious/economic/military system.

I didn't want to consider the dynammic of non-military cultures that did NOT survive, just yet.

What caught my attention was what seemed to be a counter-intuitive notion that the largest, strongest cultures, dependent on the military as an essential part of their function, seemed to disappear as intact, identifiable entities. While cultures not dependent on the military could nevertheless survive as intact, indentifiable continuing cultures for long periods of time. And I wondered if the crucial factor was that without the military to keep their religious/political systems running, everthing fell apart for the 'empires'. (If that is the right word.)

But, not being a student of history, I wonder if that supposition is true. I can think of a few cultures that seem to have gone that route (Egyptian, Roman, Aztec, Inca, Maya), but I wonder if it is generally true.

Anyone care to join in?

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 23, 2005 5:16 PM

I've noticed a trend amongst nations. They seem to follow a similar 'life span' as individual people. A young though to adolecent phase, a young adult to middle age (expansionistic), and an old age/decline phase (decadents?). Dunno if theirs any truth to it but it seems to fit for me.

A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her.
--W.C. Fields

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 23, 2005 6:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I've noticed a trend amongst nations. They seem to follow a similar 'life span' as individual people. A young though to adolecent phase, a young adult to middle age (expansionistic), and an old age/decline phase (decadents?). Dunno if theirs any truth to it but it seems to fit for me.

I think it is kind of a post hoc analysis, but it is uncanny that way one can apply that analogy to some cultures. It’s an analogy that fits very well to the Roman culture, which did develop from humble beginnings into a mature and powerful Republic/Empire and then began to wane and eventually die. I don’t know how consistent that analogy is, but I think you could probably fit it to just about any state or political region, to one degree or another.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 24, 2005 2:32 AM

Quote:

The post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this therefore because of this) fallacy is based upon the mistaken notion that simply because one thing happens after another, the first event was a cause of the second event. Post hoc reasoning is the basis for many superstitions and erroneous beliefs.

Dunno if that quite fits. But:

The UK seems to fit. The UK started out as a poor relation to the other European powers during the dark to middle ages. Gradually, however Brition began to come to the forefront of world politics, founding colonies that still exist today (America, Australia) and at one point controlling a quarter of the worlds population. Now British world power is diminishing (along with the rest of Europe, in fact). This trend, I believe, is present in other nations (France, Spain).

The Mayan's seem to fit:
http://www.isourcecom.com/maya/themaya/timeline.htm

Ancient Greek seems to fit (admittedly in a more ad hoc sort of way as the end of Greek civilization was more abrupt).
http://www.usfca.edu/westciv/Greekchron.html
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/aegean/timeline.html

Egypt seems not to follow this so closely given that it had a more 'up and down' timeline:
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/EGYPT/TIMELINE.HTM

This seems due largly to outside pressures and natural disasters, so maybe egypt was just stricken by sickness (hows that for an ad hoc theory

).

A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her.
--W.C. Fields

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 24, 2005 7:30 AM

I’m starting to think this is a little too ad hoc. Greek power and culture waxed and waned for 4000 years. And finally never actually died, since Greek culture exists in a sovereign Greek state today. Growing from a collection of smaller cultures into a quasi-united power in the Aegean, collapsing into a dark age, growing again into a major Aegean power to face the Persians, then collapsing again only to grow into another major power that spread almost instantly from Greece to India, only to collapse again, eventually falling under Roman control, but rising above Roman culture to become another great power which eventually fell to Muslim invasions, and is now a weak Aegean power.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 24, 2005 1:56 PM