Post: #26

(01-23-2012 03:33 PM)ElJefe Wrote:  Dude, your examples are... strange.

You'd think differently if you knew more about them.

I can list many more if you'd like.

Quote:Greece a super-power? What? Cultural super-power, yes... but they fell apart as soon as they got big.

This isn't debatable. Alexander's Greece was the most powerful military force of its day-this was proven after it simply laid waste to the only other polities at the time that could quite conceivable lay claim to that title (most notably, Persia) before building one of the largest empires Earth has ever seen and laying the foundation for an entirely new, widespread, and long lasting (the influence persists heavily to this very day) cultural age.

Greece was only a cultural super power because of its status as a military superpower-it was conquest that brought about the Hellenistic Age, however short (roughly two centuries) that was.

This was obviously the zenith of Greek power-its modern equivalent is a shadow of this.

Quote:Those Native American civlizations were wiped out by European powers and small-pox. They never had a chance.

You don't know anything about Native American history-I can already tell.

Your conclusion is inaccurate for all of the examples I listed. American Indian history is VASTLY more complicated than this, and it includes many diplomatic, political, economic and social shifts in power between Native American groups and European powers, as well as between different Native American groups themselves.
There is much more to it all than "Smallpox ---> Indians had no chance!". Anyone with a background in this subject would know that.

Books:

Colin Calloway, First Peoples: A Documentary Survey of American Indian History (Boston-New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2012).

Timothy Shannon, Iroquois Diplomacy on the Early American Frontier (New York: Penguin , 2008).

Pekka Hemalainen, The Apache Empire.

These three books should do for a start-read them, and get back to me. While you're at it, read up on Cahokia as well.

If you insist on calling me out as you've done and getting into a debate such as this, then make sure you have an intellectual leg to stand on.

Quote:Seriously, anybody could go on TV and say Empires rise and fall.. it's the one thing ANYONE can say with absolute certainty. This back and forth thing you indicate by writing "balancing" doesn't fit. Big general statements are hopelessly inaccurate like that... you'd want to take a look at each situation.

You read into it a lot more than I did.

Quote:As for the blog - I'm not so sure. If Chinese intentions are pure, why do they keep supporting bloody-minded dictators in the UN or North Korea?

They aren't pure-they're economically expedient. China's model is designed to benefit itself economically.

It just so happens that China's way of things benefits Africans more than the Western way. This isn't because the Chinese love Africans and hold a moral supremacy over Westerners. It is because the interests of the two sides just happen to align quite closely (at least, relatively more so than other relationships have in the past).

Quote:I think Chinese foreign police is malignant, as far as the West is concerned, and has a long-term goal of securing Chinese hegemony and world domination - political and economic.

For the west, perhaps.

For much of the developing world, maybe not.

Post: #27

(01-01-2012 06:29 PM)jariel Wrote:  

(01-01-2012 02:56 PM)scotian Wrote:  Don't forget one cool thing that is happening with the Chinese in Africa, mixed race babies!

Since China has so many dudes, many of those who end up in Africa are breeding with the locals, nice mix black and chinese: blasians!

Old military strategy...I'll leave it at that.

I thought the same thing too.

Post: #28

(01-23-2012 02:26 PM)Giovonny Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 09:35 AM)P Dog Wrote:  Hell, in thirty years as Africa's population bulges in the economically active middle aged, it would be hilarious to see say: the Congo bailing out Belgium. Or South Africa bailing out Britain. The tragedies in the Congo and the concentration camps during the Boer wars aren't funny at all, but the whole idea of the "dark continent" being Europe's boss amuses me in many sick ways. I have a dark sense of humour (no pun intended).

Doesn't Africa has a long way to go if it is going to surpass or even get close to Europe. I know alot of Africa was colonized, the resources were taken to other countries, and the people were used as slaves. This is precisely why I believe their development was stunted in the first place.

Isn't a little far fetched to say that Africa is going to be "bailing out" or ruling over a Europen country. I realize that you said "in 30 years". Maybe its possible, I'm thinking more like 300 years.

I'm asking this from a purely intellectual standpoint. Its a very romantic idea to think that the former slaves would one day "save" or "bail out" the former slave owners, but I think we are a few centuries away from that.

You underestimate Africa's rapid economic development. On a per capita basis, Africa won't reach Western GDP levels this century, but you forget their huge population increase. Africa has the fastest growing population in the world. It will hit 2 billion people by 2050. Their living standards will be lower, but collectively it is entirely plausible to see the larger African countries bailing Western European countries. Whose population's are much smaller, and a lot older. Europe, NA and Asia's population is currently bulging in the middle aged. By 2050, the only continent which will have such an advantageous bulge is Africa.

Post: #29

(01-23-2012 10:14 PM)P Dog Wrote:  You underestimate Africa's rapid economic development. On a per capita basis, Africa won't reach Western GDP levels this century, but you forget their huge population increase. Africa has the fastest growing population in the world. It will hit 2 billion people by 2050. Their living standards will be lower, but collectively it is entirely plausible to see the larger African countries bailing Western European countries. Whose population's are much smaller, and a lot older. Europe, NA and Asia's population is currently bulging in the middle aged. By 2050, the only continent which will have such an advantageous bulge is Africa.

This man knows whats up.

People underestimate Africa at their own peril. The continent has more tools than people give it credit for, and its people are much savvier than Westerners think.

Post: #30

(01-23-2012 12:52 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 09:35 AM)P Dog Wrote:  This kinda stuff makes me laugh. My surname happens to be Portuguese on both sides of my family (remnants of their colonization).

Hell, in thirty years as Africa's population bulges in the economically active middle aged, it would be hilarious to see say: the Congo bailing out Belgium. Or South Africa bailing out Britain. The tragedies in the Congo and the concentration camps during the Boer wars aren't funny at all, but the whole idea of the "dark continent" being Europe's boss amuses me in many sick ways. I have a dark sense of humour (no pun intended).

Trust me, I know exactly where you're coming from. You're not alone in that feeling.
Honestly, I don't even think the feeling is that dark, it is simply karmic. The world has a funny way of balancing things out over time.

True. Love the way you said that bro. Long lost brothers
PS: I liked your post about the top MBA/ I Banking/ HF/ PE / Consulting stuff. You into one of these? I come from the Consulting world.

Post: #31

This was in the FT today.

http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2012/01...z1kOoA8okr

"Even before the financial crisis caused havoc in most of the developed world, investors have long talked up Africa’s potential for growth.
Now, finds a survey by the Abu Dhabi Government, they’re set to follow with their wallets. Of 158 institutional investors, more than half believe Africa will be the most attractive region for investment growth in the next decade. What’s more, all respondents expect to have some exposure to the continent by 2016."

Post: #32

(01-23-2012 06:14 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  This isn't debatable. Alexander's Greece was the most powerful military force of its day-this was proven after it simply laid waste to the only other polities at the time that could quite conceivable lay claim to that title (most notably, Persia) before building one of the largest empires Earth has ever seen and laying the foundation for an entirely new, widespread, and long lasting (the influence persists heavily to this very day) cultural age.

Greece was only a cultural super power because of its status as a military superpower-it was conquest that brought about the Hellenistic Age, however short (roughly two centuries) that was.

This was obviously the zenith of Greek power-its modern equivalent is a shadow of this.

I can't say I totally disagree. Using Greece as an example is strange, though. It was such an ephemeral phenomenon.

The Roman Empire would've suited your point far better. I won't explain in detail, because long-winded explanations are dull to read. But if we think of super-powers as institutions, Greece does not seem to me as impressive example as the Roman Empire.

(01-23-2012 06:14 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  You don't know anything about Native American history-I can already tell. Your conclusion is inaccurate for all of the examples I listed. American Indian history is VASTLY more complicated than this, and it includes many diplomatic, political, economic and social shifts in power between Native American groups and European powers, as well as between different Native American groups themselves.
There is much more to it all than "Smallpox ---> Indians had no chance!". Anyone with a background in this subject would know that.

Books:

Colin Calloway, First Peoples: A Documentary Survey of American Indian History (Boston-New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2012).

Timothy Shannon, Iroquois Diplomacy on the Early American Frontier (New York: Penguin , 2008).

Pekka Hemalainen, The Apache Empire.

These three books should do for a start-read them, and get back to me. While you're at it, read up on Cahokia as well.

If you insist on calling me out as you've done and getting into a debate such as this, then make sure you have an intellectual leg to stand on..

The "calling" out was quite mild. I said your examples were strange, and argued back with statements, you can agree or disagree.

I didn't throw out three books for you to read and then arrogantly tell you to "read them, and get back to me". I'm sure you've got a huge dick, and whatnot... We can go ahead and discuss without keyboard jockeying our way to alphadom. I'm 25, you're what... 20? This is dumb.

I will have a look at those books sometime, I promise.

But I will say one thing: I have a general tendancy to mistrust any reference to a single work as a final answer. While a single book might be good, I find people who eagerly cite one work as having all the answers are off the mark. A book on the Apaches will necessarily make them out to be a bigger deal than they were in the grand scheme of things.

I'd prefer several references which puts things in their proper perspective. I'm not saying Native American nations are uninteresting, but seriously: in the grand scheme of things, they never had a chance. Too few people, too weak, against too many, too strong. Sooner or later they would've been beaten. The Duke of Wellington (while he was just Wellesley) conquered India with very few Europeans. Cortes conquered Mexico with very little as well. The defining characteristic of the colonial period was how just a small detachment of disciplined, well-led European soldiers could subjugate what you might've thought were mighty empires.

I've read a lot of great books too, you know...

(01-23-2012 06:14 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  They aren't pure-they're economically expedient. China's model is designed to benefit itself economically.

It just so happens that China's way of things benefits Africans more than the Western way. This isn't because the Chinese love Africans and hold a moral supremacy over Westerners. It is because the interests of the two sides just happen to align quite closely (at least, relatively more so than other relationships have in the past).

For the west, perhaps.

For much of the developing world, maybe not.

Now this is an interesting discussion about which I know little. However, the legacy of the West in Africa included a great deal more than just economic plundering.

I happen to think the West screwed Africa over, but for reasons different than most people.

Africa was a jungle before, it's a jungle now, except now they have modern medicine and weaponry without any of the organization of institutional discipline of the West (funnily enough... a legacy of antiquity). No fault of their own, mind you. I place the blame squarely on the shoulders of unperceptive missionaries and docteurs sans frontieres.... Now you have billions of people in economies designed to feed far fewer and it's taken hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars of Western aid to keep things afloat.

In a world without Western aid, how many millions would've died, given how many did die in a world with aid? Do you see the Chinese doing for Somalia or Ethiopia what the West did?

Only if it's economically expedient.

They will also sanction the slaughter and enslavement of millions of Christians in the Sudan (Darfur) if it suits them.

To say that China is good for the Africa is... short-sighted.

As far as karma is concerned, I think Athlone would agree - all Empires carry the seeds of their own destruction within them. In that way, you might say karma manifests itself. But from a dealing out destruction then receiving it from former victims, well... I don't know. By the time it happens populations have moved and it's no longer the same people doing it anymore. Take Britain, for example:

Picts wipe out whoever's there first, then Celts bash the Picts, then the Romans bash the Celts, then the Angles and Saxons bash the Celts until they've only got Wales and Scotland left. Then the Vikings bash the Saxons, but for some reason the Saxons end up conquering the whole frigging world. Who would've thought the descendants from an obscure tribe from Northern Germany would go on to dominate the entire world?

Post: #33

(01-24-2012 01:07 PM)ElJefe Wrote:  I can't say I totally disagree. Using Greece as an example is strange, though. It was such an ephemeral phenomenon.

The Roman Empire would've suited your point far better. I won't explain in detail, because long-winded explanations are dull to read. But if we think of super-powers as institutions, Greece does not seem to me as impressive example as the Roman Empire.

This isn't a zero sum game-I did not preclude Rome from being used in this discussion.

Quote:I didn't throw out three books for you to read

No, you threw out an ignorant generalization about a people and a history that is vastly more complicated than you (and most others) give it credit for.
Some would take offense to this.

Quote:But I will say one thing: I have a general tendancy to mistrust any reference to a single work as a final answer. While a single book might be good, I find people who eagerly cite one work as having all the answers are off the mark. A book on the Apaches will necessarily make them out to be a bigger deal than they were in the grand scheme of things.

That is why there are several-overlap exists between the three, and there are plenty more scholarly takes you can find online.

Quote:I'd prefer several references which puts things in their proper perspective. I'm not saying Native American nations are uninteresting, but seriously: in the grand scheme of things, they never had a chance. Too few people, too weak, against too many, too strong.

You don't know enough about the subject to make this claim.

Quote:Cortes conquered Mexico with very little as well.

Cortes conquered Mexico with the aid of thousands of Indians from polities surrounding Tenochtitlan, many of whom were quite dissatisfied with and/or fearful of Moctezuma's continued reign. This was the army, with Cortes at the head and Indians constituting the vast majority of its manpower, that brought down the Aztec empire. Had it truly been just Cortes and "very little" Europeans at his side, you'd have seen a different story. The political plays made all the difference.

This is just one example of the history being much more complex than you realize.

Quote:The defining characteristic of the colonial period was how just a small detachment of disciplined, well-led European soldiers could subjugate what you might've thought were mighty empires.

And in Native America, this "defining characteristic" was a much smaller portion of the overall story than you make it out to be.

Quote:I've read a lot of great books too, you know...

If you actually want to speak credibly about Native America, then you ought to read more.

Quote:In a world without Western aid, how many millions would've died, given how many did die in a world with aid? Do you see the Chinese doing for Somalia or Ethiopia what the West did?

Only if it's economically expedient.

Which, to many, is superior.

Many Africans, believe it or not, are not fond of Western aid programs, nor of the idea of their perpetual "neediness". They feel a system based on more tangible economic expediency (which would, in theory, force more African self reliance and perhaps dovetail into the "teach a man how to fish, feed him forever" school of though) would be better for Africa's long term development.

That, and western aid comes with strings attached that not everybody is on board with.

Quote:They will also sanction the slaughter and enslavement of millions of Christians in the Sudan (Darfur) if it suits them.

Europe was different how, exactly?

Quote:To say that China is good for the Africa is... short-sighted.

To say that they're no worse and potentially better in the long term is perfectly justifiable.

Quote:As far as karma is concerned, I think Athlone would agree - all Empires carry the seeds of their own destruction within them. In that way, you might say karma manifests itself.

Close enough.

Post: #34

(01-24-2012 12:36 PM)xmlenigma Wrote:  True. Love the way you said that bro. Long lost brothers
PS: I liked your post about the top MBA/ I Banking/ HF/ PE / Consulting stuff. You into one of these? I come from the Consulting world.

No, I'm still an undergrad. I'll probably end up in Law School. Not a finance type myself-closest I'm likely to potentially get is corporate law, and that's a big "maybe" down the road.

We'll see.

Post: #35

(01-22-2012 06:02 AM)ao85 Wrote:  

(01-22-2012 04:19 AM)misterstir Wrote:  ^From what I've seen in places like Angola this is simply not the case. The Chinese do not use the European model of trade where a bunch of foreigners come with skills and keep those skills to themselves and take all the profit and pay a small royalty. From what I've seen the majority of money goes to african governments who do business with china, which is also why all the iraq and afghan contracts went to China. They will build all the oil infrastructure and hand over most the money to these governements because they have an incentive for cheap oil. The oil money they forgo is nothing compared to the benefits they get from cheap transportation cost by exporting everything to the west. Ironically Portugal is trying to borrow money from Angola now, so I'd say they seem to be getting a fair deal.

That's why I also said locals too. Obviously they have to buy off the local government to keep the commodities flowing. The question, though, is whether the government redistributes enough of it to the population to stave off resentment of the foreigners.

"Buy off the local government". I think you have a misguided view. They do not buy off the local government anymore in Angola than they do elsewhere in Europe and America. Anyhow it is not really possible to use a population who has no oil drilling experience to drill for oil. When you look at Dubai 98% of the actual Dubai citiens are working in government cushy jobs with high pay for doing nothing. The foreigners are doing all the hard and tough work. They bring in foreigners to drill all the oil but they are mostly western not chinese.

Anyhow Luanda is a big time boom town.

(01-23-2012 09:35 AM)P Dog Wrote:  This kinda stuff makes me laugh. My surname happens to be Portuguese on both sides of my family (remnants of their colonization).

Hell, in thirty years as Africa's population bulges in the economically active middle aged, it would be hilarious to see say: the Congo bailing out Belgium. Or South Africa bailing out Britain. The tragedies in the Congo and the concentration camps during the Boer wars aren't funny at all, but the whole idea of the "dark continent" being Europe's boss amuses me in many sick ways. I have a dark sense of humour (no pun intended).

Yes it is funny in a sense, a dark sense, but it is justifying in a way, perhaps a sick sense of justification.

(01-23-2012 02:26 PM)Giovonny Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 09:35 AM)P Dog Wrote:  Hell, in thirty years as Africa's population bulges in the economically active middle aged, it would be hilarious to see say: the Congo bailing out Belgium. Or South Africa bailing out Britain. The tragedies in the Congo and the concentration camps during the Boer wars aren't funny at all, but the whole idea of the "dark continent" being Europe's boss amuses me in many sick ways. I have a dark sense of humour (no pun intended).

Doesn't Africa has a long way to go if it is going to surpass or even get close to Europe. I know alot of Africa was colonized, the resources were taken to other countries, and the people were used as slaves. This is precisely why I believe their development was stunted in the first place.
Isn't a little far fetched to say that Africa is going to be "bailing out" or ruling over a Europen country. I realize that you said "in 30 years". Maybe its possible, I'm thinking more like 300 years.
I'm asking this from a purely intellectual standpoint. Its a very romantic idea to think that the former slaves would one day "save" or "bail out" the former slave owners, but I think we are a few centuries away from that.

It really depends where we are talking about in Europe and Africa. Most of East Europe is no more rich or poor, some parts like slovenia are richer than most of africa, but even Luanda is more expensive than Slovenia and there are more rich in Luanda than Slovenia.
Many parts of Europe outside or North and West Europe just never fully developed or fully industrialized. I've met many Germans and Dutch who told me they consider Portugal to be a 3rd world country and same goes for most of east Europe. Of course Russia and Moscow have plenty of rich and development though. Portugal, Greece, Spain, south and south east europe outside of Northern and central Italy.

In the case of Portugal they became very good at slave trading and extracting resources by kidnapping and enslaving people, but they never really evolved from beyond that. Their economy had been stagnant for a long time and they tried to hold onto colonies for a long time because they never bothered to try to build cars, computers, tvs, trains, etc. like the rest of north europe. Angola is an African country already bailing out a European country (Portugal). They still haven't done it much yet and some African countries are starting to so they will pass the European countries who have just become dependent on their neighbours production and have no industry

Post: #36

(01-23-2012 03:33 PM)ElJefe Wrote:  Dude, your examples are... strange.

Greece a super-power? What? Cultural super-power, yes... but they fell apart as soon as they got big.

Those Native American civlizations were wiped out by European powers and small-pox. They never had a chance.

Seriously, anybody could go on TV and say Empires rise and fall.. it's the one thing ANYONE can say with absolute certainty. This back and forth thing you indicate by writing "balancing" doesn't fit. Big general statements are hopelessly inaccurate like that... you'd want to take a look at each situation.

By the way... the episode about medicine relates to Africa:

/thread-5348.h...l+ferguson

As for the blog - I'm not so sure. If Chinese intentions are pure, why do they keep supporting bloody-minded dictators in the UN or North Korea? I think Chinese foreign police is malignant, as far as the West is concerned, and has a long-term goal of securing Chinese hegemony and world domination - political and economic.

Yeah because the so called "Democracies" never support bloody dictators. Both the Capitalist and the Communist fight their proxy wars in the 3rd world. When most of the 3rd world started to get liberated after WW2, most of them had communist leanings or socialist leanings because they wanted equality and liberation from oppression. And the US, went around invading every communist country in the Western Hemisphere either directly or with proxy dictators/puppets.

The Chiense are not trying to push Chinese culture onto anyone, they are not saying the whole world or even the countries they operate in should learn Chinese, or act this way or do this or don't do that as a condition of trade. I'd put China's embrace of North Korea on the level of USA embrace of Israel.

The "West" is just a shitty trading partner. Here is just a shortlist of dumb shit they demand from africans
-accept their dumped agricultural products that are the result of high farm subsidies bought up by national governments, under the guise of aid
-accept "Western" values, which are always radically changing. Although Christianity is considered a "Western"religion (as opposed to asian eastern religions) if a country where to pass a law that does as the bible say where it says homosexuals :
"If a man lies with a male, as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them"
Leviticus 20:13
-Accept everything they say even when it contradicts the other things they say.
-Give up your own culture system, values, and religion and replace it with secular middle class western yuppy culture, values, and religion
-Be prepared to accept biased deals that favour your trading partner at your expense.
-Recognize America, Britain and France as some kind of "moral" superior even though they are by far the biggest danger to the world, the most tyrannical only slightly morally superior to the North \Koreans who are more publicly tyrannical.

Or Deal with China who will just trade with you as a fair trade partner and not try to screw you over.

Post: #37

Quite a few of your points I agree with. But you have to do better with your argumentation than just "You don't know anything" - that's a weak argument. You still haven't said anything to convince me that the Iroquis could've permanently held off the European powers. Or that the Apaches could've won the Indian Wars.

Anyways, in all instances, the Conquistadors were catalysts for the events we're discussing. That they had native allies does not change that a few thousand Europeans, in the end, conquered an entire continent. Whether they did it with local allies is beside the point. The point is, they did it. You're talking about the method by which they went about it, I'm talking about the end-result. Many tribes in Central America held out for 150 years after the Spanish came... but in the end, they still were conquered.

I had to go back and see why we're discussing this... naturally, like every other non-game discussion, we've gotten off track.

The main point: I don't dispute Europe has been bad for Africa before, but for different reasons than you might think: namely causing incredible population growth in a society totally unprepared for it.

The West, for all its faults, and they are many... still does more for the freedom of individuals, and is basically the sole-guarantor that regional dictators can't have their way with the world. This is ONLY because of the current balance of power. When that changes, we will go back to a world where one bloc will support one tyrant against another. I don't think anybody wants that.

Post: #38

(01-24-2012 11:46 PM)misterstir Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 03:33 PM)ElJefe Wrote:  Dude, your examples are... strange.

Greece a super-power? What? Cultural super-power, yes... but they fell apart as soon as they got big.

Those Native American civlizations were wiped out by European powers and small-pox. They never had a chance.

Seriously, anybody could go on TV and say Empires rise and fall.. it's the one thing ANYONE can say with absolute certainty. This back and forth thing you indicate by writing "balancing" doesn't fit. Big general statements are hopelessly inaccurate like that... you'd want to take a look at each situation.

By the way... the episode about medicine relates to Africa:

/thread-5348.h...l+ferguson

As for the blog - I'm not so sure. If Chinese intentions are pure, why do they keep supporting bloody-minded dictators in the UN or North Korea? I think Chinese foreign police is malignant, as far as the West is concerned, and has a long-term goal of securing Chinese hegemony and world domination - political and economic.

Yeah because the so called "Democracies" never support bloody dictators. Both the Capitalist and the Communist fight their proxy wars in the 3rd world. When most of the 3rd world started to get liberated after WW2, most of them had communist leanings or socialist leanings because they wanted equality and liberation from oppression. And the US, went around invading every communist country in the Western Hemisphere either directly or with proxy dictators/puppets.

The Chiense are not trying to push Chinese culture onto anyone, they are not saying the whole world or even the countries they operate in should learn Chinese, or act this way or do this or don't do that as a condition of trade. I'd put China's embrace of North Korea on the level of USA embrace of Israel.

The "West" is just a shitty trading partner. Here is just a shortlist of dumb shit they demand from africans
-accept their dumped agricultural products that are the result of high farm subsidies bought up by national governments, under the guise of aid
-accept "Western" values, which are always radically changing. Although Christianity is considered a "Western"religion (as opposed to asian eastern religions) if a country where to pass a law that does as the bible say where it says homosexuals :
"If a man lies with a male, as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them"
Leviticus 20:13
-Accept everything they say even when it contradicts the other things they say.
-Give up your own culture system, values, and religion and replace it with secular middle class western yuppy culture, values, and religion
-Be prepared to accept biased deals that favour your trading partner at your expense.
-Recognize America, Britain and France as some kind of "moral" superior even though they are by far the biggest danger to the world, the most tyrannical only slightly morally superior to the North \Koreans who are more publicly tyrannical.

Or Deal with China who will just trade with you as a fair trade partner and not try to screw you over.

Never mind - lost cause

Post: #39

(01-23-2012 10:14 PM)P Dog Wrote:  You underestimate Africa's rapid economic development.

I don't underestimate Africa in any way. In fact, I expect Africans to be among the most innovative, creative and hard-working people of the 21st and 22nd centuries (any beyond). I'm rooting for them.

My point is that the collective wealth of the African races is no where near the collective wealth of the European races. Don't whites control like 75% of the worlds wealth? (correct me if i'm wrong)

I'm sure Africans are buying cars, computers, cell phones, and cd's. But who are they buying them from? Probably from white owned companies, no?

Are Africans building their own wealth or are they just becoming consumers? Consumers to Wal-Mart, Nike, Apple, Microsoft, Mcdonalds, Chevron, and General Electric. If this happens, the money will continue to flow out of Africa. For Africa to get on the same level as Europe/US, they gotta keep that money in Africa.

The day that the black man is just rich as the white man will be one hell of a day. A new era in the world. I think it can happen, but not for a long time. Wars might have to be fought in order for this to happen..

???

(01-24-2012 11:21 PM)misterstir Wrote:  It really depends where we are talking about in Europe and Africa.

Good point. I guess it depends on which countries we are talking about.

Post: #40

(01-25-2012 06:52 AM)ElJefe Wrote:  Quite a few of your points I agree with. But you have to do better with your argumentation than just "You don't know anything" - that's a weak argument.

I could make something up, but I don't see the point in not simply being honest.

Quote:You still haven't said anything to convince me that the Iroquis could've permanently held off the European powers. Or that the Apaches could've won the Indian Wars.

It isn't my job to educate you. I could give you cited academic papers I've written and read on these topics, but why go through the trouble?
The bottomline is this: European dominance was not a foregone conclusion for much of the history of their interaction with the Iroquouis and many other Native American groups, as your uninformed argument ("Indians obviously stood no chance") attempts to establish.

This dominance came about as a result of several diplomatic, martial and political developments over time between many actors, both European and Native. These developments would, over time, lead to Europeans dominance.
This dominance was not a foregone conclusion during most of the 17th, 18th and even much of the 19th centuries.

If you want more detail, then read. Academic sources on this history make these points abundantly clear, which is how I'm so certain you aren't familiar with them.

Quote:Anyways, in all instances, the Conquistadors were catalysts for the events we're discussing. That they had native allies does not change that a few thousand Europeans, in the end, conquered an entire continent. Whether they did it with local allies is beside the point.

1. Your population numbers are off. It took millions, not thousands of Europeans to take over North America. Mass settlement and population expansion (factors in turn triggered by religious upheavals in Europe and other notable political developments) made this possible.

2. The point regarding local allies is far from tangential, as you claim. Their presence entirely alters your statement. In its inaccurate form, it reads as follows:

"A few thousand Europeans conquered an entire continent."

In its accurate form, it should read more like this:

"Millions of Europeans alongside a larger number of Native American allies were able to conquer an entire continent."

There is a fairly large difference between the two. The first statement gives the impression that European military power was the sole force behind conquest, its greatness so overwhelming that a few Europeans were able to simply walk in and lay waste to everything.

This was not actually the case, because it was not actually possible-European military conquests of Native American groups were, in the vast majority of cases, only possible with the aid of a significantly larger number of Native American allies. Most conflicts in Native America (ex: King Phillip's War, the Pueblo Reconquista, the mid 19th century Frontier Wars, etc) follow this trajectory. European population growth was also another key factor in victory-17th and 18th century Native American powers were not facing "a few thousand Europeans", they were facing an exponentially larger number of them, and growing.

Politics and demographics were more crucial than raw European military strength, which you have vastly overestimated. To be quite honest, microbial force was a bigger factor than martial force in all of this.

Quote:The main point: I don't dispute Europe has been bad for Africa before, but for different reasons than you might think: namely causing incredible population growth in a society totally unprepared for it.

Why exactly is this continent "unprepared", do you think?

Could it maybe have something to do with the resource rape that took place for two to three centuries?

Or the enforcement of a strict, hierarchical colonial model for several centuries, one that did nothing to enrich the land or the native people and in fact made every effort to ensure that they remained unable to advance or learn?

Or perhaps the drawing of arbitrary borders that facilitated the maintenance of ethnic powerderkegs across the continents, with some nations containing several at once?

Should I also perhaps make a mention of the Western proxy wars that destroyed what little potential stability many post-colonial African nations had and, in the case of several, dove them into destructive and seemingly unending civil wars from which they have yet to completely recover?

Do I need to go on?

Quote:The West, for all its faults, and they are many... still does more for the freedom of individuals, and is basically the sole-guarantor that regional dictators can't have their way with the world. This is ONLY because of the current balance of power. When that changes, we will go back to a world where one bloc will support one tyrant against another. I don't think anybody wants that.

1. The west is perfectly willing to allow dictatorial abuse when it is politically suitable. Any casual revision of African Cold-War Proxy conflicts will make this obvious. Many African dictators (not the least of which was Mobutu Sese Seko) owed and continue to owe their ascendance and authority to the generosity of the CIA and many other Western government bodies.

2. The west is perfectly willing to interfere with the freedom of individual nations and their citizens when it is convenient for them. Again, see Cold War proxy conflicts in Southern and Central Africa.

The west is no more a moral superior than the Chinese or the Russians.

Post: #41

Cortes and Pizarro achieved a great deal with very few men. That is what I was referring to when I said a few thousand Europeans conquered an entire continent (Modern Latin America) - it was sloppy to not specify so. Their results were impressive.

I agree entirely that it took millions of Europeans to settle and subdue North America - that was my point exactly - sheer economics meant the Native American Indians could not have "won", although they were more interested in their local rivalries than defeating the Europeans.

Had they lasted longer than they did, I can't see why modern European warfare wouldn't have defeated them the same way they defeated some many other indigenous peoples.

At the HEIGHT of power in the seventeenth, the Iroquois apparently had fewer than 30,000 tribes people, a HIGH estimate. You have to be kidding me! In 1700 the British colonies alone had 250,000 settlers.

Anyways, for all your babbling and insults, as a "power" in the traditional sense, those numbers are even lower than I first thought. I am not denying they were brutal... but yeah. Really, they would've been destroyed sooner or later.

As for....

"The west is no more a moral superior than the Chinese or the Russians."

Riiiight.... I'm sure those freedom-loving types in power now will agree with you.

Post: #42

(01-23-2012 05:43 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  I can't hope to prove the existence of karma

I know you can't prove it because we both know that there is no evidence to suggest that it even exists. (correct me if i'm wrong)

This is what is so interesting to me. Why do smart people believe in things when there is no evidence to suggest that it exists?

Don't take my intellectual challenge the wrong way. I love talking to smart people about there spiritual and meta-physical beliefs. Its one of my favorite areas to explore. I'm asking you these questions out of curiosity.

And because I respect your intellect.

As a smart Ivy League student. My question to you is...Why specifically do you believe in this force known as "karma" when you know there is no scientific data to support your belief?

I guess you answer my question here..

(01-23-2012 05:43 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  It is simply an observation and a hunch on my part.

Ok, its a "hunch". Fair enough. I respect and value my hunches also.

As far as your observations of the world. Well, I know you are 20 or 21. If you started observing the world at age 2, that means that you have been observing the world for since 1995 or so. In that time, you've seen bad people get what they deserve? And, you've seen good people rewarded for their goodness?

That is a beautiful world. I wish it was like that everywhere. My observations have been a little different.

I've seen nice guys get laughed at for being nice. I've seen guys sacrifice their own wants and needs just to make a woman happy and what does the woman do? She is more attracted to the bad boy who treats her bad. I've seen guys abuse girls beautiful girls and the girls told me that they liked it.

Good guys don't get rewarded in this Game shit. Machiavellian guys do better.

Maybe the same is true is business, politics, sports???

I think you believe in "karma" because we all want/need to believe in a higher force of goodness. We all want to believe that if we do whats right, we will be rewarded for it. We want to believe that evil people cannot win against good people. We want to believe it, but that doesn't make it true.

Nature, science, and game suggest that its not true.

Curious to hear your thoughts..

Post: #43

(01-25-2012 02:49 PM)ElJefe Wrote:  "The west is no more a moral superior than the Chinese or the Russians."

Riiiight.... I'm sure those freedom-loving types in power now will agree with you.

So be it. I'm done.

(01-25-2012 02:49 PM)Giovonny Wrote:  I think you believe in "karma" because we all want/need to believe in a higher force of goodness. We all want to believe that if we do whats right, we will be rewarded for it. We want to believe that evil people cannot win against good people. We want to believe it, but that doesn't make it true.

1. Karma, if you assume it exists, does not always come immediately. You may never witness it come first hand to someone who has wronged you, since it can be years down the line.
Your failing to see it does not invalidate its existence.

2. It is also not always obvious. One can appear to be winning and defying the principle of karmic retribution for past actions (ex: accumulating great riches, power, getting the girl, etc), but in actuality be losing (with nobody aware of this but themselves).
There is usually some sort of price to pay for past misdeeds, in my observation. What this price is and how visible it is to others simply depends on the situation.

Quote:Nature, science, and game suggest that its not true.

Taking this into account would require me to put significantly more faith into humanity. That is, I would have to assume that humans are able to see and comprehend all with their science/observation/intellect, and that which they cannot comprehend (read: the meta-physical or divine/spiritual) is therefore a fairytale.

I do not have that much faith in humanity. I do not believe that we are capable of seeing all.

I cannot prove the existence of the meta-physical...but one cannot disprove it either. Philosophical academia goes into more detail about this if you're interested in it. What I am espousing here amounts to basic philosophical skepticism/agnosticism.

Post: #44

http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/artic...ina-angola

Post: #45

(01-24-2012 08:46 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  Cortes conquered Mexico with the aid of thousands of Indians from polities surrounding Tenochtitlan, many of whom were quite dissatisfied with and/or fearful of Moctezuma's continued reign. This was the army, with Cortes at the head and Indians constituting the vast majority of its manpower, that brought down the Aztec empire. Had it truly been just Cortes and "very little" Europeans at his side, you'd have seen a different story. The political plays made all the difference.

This is just one example of the history being much more complex than you realize.

Historians like to make history more complex than it really is. Just like weather systems can be unpredictable, the basics are really pretty much the same.

Cortez (or insert any other general, emperor, king, or queen) used the the age old strategy that's probably as old as farming is, 'divide and conquer.' The natives were pawns not aids or allies. Let them bleed themselves out and step in for the feast. Just like the British in India and China. Not much changed since the Romans perfected it.

As cliche as it may sound, it's all about money and power. Only geography and and inconsequential circumstances change through out history.

During the height of European conquest you have a bunch of unorganized technically backward tribes with resources to be exploited fighting a military system with gun powder and strategy and state backing of rape and pillage. There is nothing more complicated to it. Why it happened it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, because sooner than later it would happen unless the natives could arm and govern themselves on a scale larger than a tribe.

I don't think China will be better for Africa nor do I think they could manage to be any worse. They don't have any qualms of backing despots just like any other strong nation hungry for money and power.

I just can't seem to imagine Africa united as one defending their own interests when majority of it's states are beyond fucked up. They still have a tribal mindset.

Post: #46

(01-30-2012 04:02 PM)CrackerJack Wrote:  I don't think China will be better for Africa nor do I think they could manage to be any worse. They don't have any qualms of backing despots just like any other strong nation hungry for money and power.

Up to and including the United States.

Quote:I just can't seem to imagine Africa united as one defending their own interests when majority of it's states are beyond fucked up. They still have a tribal mindset.

Their mindset is no more tribal than most other people on this Earth. I think this critique is too vague.

What you see in the Africa is the result of several completely and totally foreign decision makers swooping in and creating national boundaries arbitrarily, with no regard to the wills of the people who would live within them or the consequences that may have resulted from forcibly placing many different people together entirely without their consent.

What you see is quite a natural outcome when you combine that with the systematic geographical exploitation, proxy wars and other bits and pieces that have manufactured our modern african puzzle.

They aren't going to unite as one and they shouldn't be expected to-even Europeans have trouble doing that successfully. Just like Europeans and Asians, "Africans" are in fact, not one but many different people with proud individual heritages. The difference is that these heritages were largely smashed together arbitrarily and their individual wishes disregarded-problems naturally ensued.

Post: #47

(01-24-2012 12:08 AM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 10:14 PM)P Dog Wrote:  You underestimate Africa's rapid economic development. On a per capita basis, Africa won't reach Western GDP levels this century, but you forget their huge population increase. Africa has the fastest growing population in the world. It will hit 2 billion people by 2050. Their living standards will be lower, but collectively it is entirely plausible to see the larger African countries bailing Western European countries. Whose population's are much smaller, and a lot older. Europe, NA and Asia's population is currently bulging in the middle aged. By 2050, the only continent which will have such an advantageous bulge is Africa.

This man knows whats up.

People underestimate Africa at their own peril. The continent has more tools than people give it credit for, and its people are much savvier than Westerners think.

- Africa's chief investment comes from foreign aid, foreign investment from predominantly European and American companies and global development funds. Throw into the mix trading programs as part of that aid, and you have the miracle that is African economic growth. If Europe implodes, Africa wont be getting its free ride anymore. They cant feed their own people or compete without subsidies, let alone bail anyone out.

- If anyone thinks the Chinese are doing right by them, I have a bridge I would like to sell you. The Chinese are buying up ministers and government officials in droves and are the biggest weapons traders on the continent. Africa is crucial to Chinese food security, but the resource wealth and level of corruption has allowed them to infiltrate government top to bottom in many cases. They also do not employ locals, all labour is shipped in and stays.

- Africa may have a growing population, but its incredibly unstable and its levels of corruption so severe that its almost impossible to plan a project past a 7 year mark. When most infrastructure requires 20 years+ of use to show a return, its very high risk. Every country self implodes.

Sorry chaps, I have been on the ground level for the last 15 years. Africa wont progress until it sees a monumental shift in its basic culture. Just the way it is.

Post: #48

(01-30-2012 06:32 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  Up to and including the United States.

Since the end of the cold-war, how many despots has the United States and Western Allies toppled, and how many have they put in place?

(01-30-2012 06:32 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  Their mindset is no more tribal than most other people on this Earth. I think this critique is too vague.

Africa is what you get when you transpose a iron/bronze/stone-age society and level of sophistication 4,000 years in just 100 and give it modern medicine and weaponry.

There is no institutional history or precendence for a State. In the West, we are ultimately more loyal to the State than our family - if not always in practice, this is the basic idea. This is millenia of teaching that has made Western societies superior in organization, morale and cohesion to competitors, and this is the most important legacy from Rome and Greece. Loyalty to the State rather than loyalty to any individual.

In Africa and the Middle East, you are loyal to your family and your clan. Fair enough... just dont expect progress as long as people will tolerate crime against the State in their own family.

(01-30-2012 06:32 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  What you see in Africa is the result of several completely and totally foreign decision makers swooping in and creating national boundaries arbitrarily, with no regard to the wills of the people who would live within them or the consequences that may have resulted from forcibly placing many different people together entirely without their consent.

What you see is quite a natural outcome when you combine that with the systematic geographical exploitation, proxy wars and other bits and pieces that have manufactured our modern african puzzle.

They aren't going to unite as one and they shouldn't be expected to-even Europeans have trouble doing that successfully. Just like Europeans and Asians, "Africans" are in fact, not one but many different people with proud individual heritages. The difference is that these heritages were largely smashed together arbitrarily and their individual wishes disregarded-problems naturally ensued.

Can't disagree with any of that. But it's just excuse-making for not grabbing yourself by the balls and dealing with reality.

Post: #49

(01-31-2012 05:59 AM)ElJefe Wrote:  Since the end of the cold-war, how many despots has the United States and Western Allies toppled, and how many have they put in place?

Americans have been helping to keep the likes of Teodoro Obiang and, up until very recently, Hosni Mubarak in power. Sani Abacha is another example of an authoritarian that the USA supported and left alone after the Cold War. Ben Ali (Tunisia) is another one to be added to the list.
The United States is just like any other great power-they're self interested. Nothing more and nothing less.

(01-30-2012 06:32 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  There is no institutional history or precendence for a State.

The concept of centralized statehood was not new to Africa upon European arrival. That existed on the continent well before it arrived in Northern Europe, actually.

The societies similar to the type you're talking about (based largely upon tribal affiliation as opposed to loyalty to a central state and only loosely centralized) were common in Central Africa where the "House" system and the rule of the "Big Man"(tribal patriarch) was most prominent.

While this system existed elsewhere in Africa as well, Northern, Western and Eastern Africa each have a long history of establishing strong centralized states in which the dynamic you describe (tribal affiliation above state loyalty) was not applicable, at least not any more so than most of Europe or Asia during similar time periods. Aside from the very obvious Egyptian example, Kush and Axum immediately come to mind as the most prominent examples of this.

The Middle East is in the same boat, with centralized states that pre-date all of those in Europe. To say the concept of the state is foreign to Africans and Arabs is just absurd.

I'll further explain why in just a second, stay tuned...

Quote:In Africa and the Middle East, you are loyal to your family and your clan. Fair enough... just dont expect progress as long as people will tolerate crime against the State in their own family.

...and we're back.

This goes right back to what I said earlier about arbitrary borders. You're creating one game here and forcing Africans and Arabs to play by different rules.

Europeans have not proven any less tribal or any more inherently loyal to "the state" over time. WWI was kicked off by individuals who valued loyalty to their ethnic group over their state, and were willing to kill to prove it. Several great European empires have been torn down by individual groups who have put their ethnicity ahead of their loyalty to whatever state they were destroying, and sought to establish their own states upon that basis. This is the main reason that nations like Hungary and Poland were originally formed-they are manifestations of nationalism and tribalism.

WW2 was driven by individuals who took this tribal mentality to a genocidal extreme, at the expense of other people. Many nations in Europe today (ex: Poland, Croatia, Germany, The Czech Republic, Serbia, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania...) were established upon a basis of ethnic nationalism, and have the largely monolithic demographics to show for it.

Their entire national identity and history is an exercise in "tribal loyalty"-however, because they were allowed to draw their own borders for the most part, they were able to make "tribal loyalty" synonymous with "state loyalty" in their new nations, since their "tribe" was predominant within their land.

Being loyal to Sweden meant being loyal to Swedes. Being loyal to Germany meant being loyal to Germans (there were not a lot of minorities in the German Empire). Being loyal to Poland meant embracing Polish history and other Polish people who were 96% of your population, not 30%. This is why you see more stability.

The difference in both Africa and the Middle East is simply that, while Europeans had agency in their tribal dealings and largely set their own rules, Arabs and Africans had to deal with arbitrarily drawn dividing lines that often precluded the ability of individual groups in these parts of the world to satiate their nationalist desires, the way so many Europeans (Poles, Croats, Serbs, The Irish, The Swedes, The Hungarians, The Finns, etc) had done before them.

Whereas loyalty to Poland largely means loyalty to Poles (who are, again, 96% of your population there), loyalty to Nigeria is a lot more complicated. Poland was made by Poles and for Poles. Nigeria, on the other hand, was drawn up arbitrarily and somewhat blindly by the British for a whole bunch of different people, who largely had no say in how it was done.

It isn't too easy to be loyal to something you a) didn't agree too being a part of b) don't necessarily understand (since you weren't invited to the whole mapping process) and c) largely didn't even create.

But it is much easier to be loyal to a nation that was created by your people and FOR your people, one in which ethnic and national identity are almost synonymous. This describes most of modern Europe.

Thus, in Europe you have many largely mono-ethnic states doing well, having been able to deal with their nationalism long ago. Now they're at a point where they can even cooperate with one another, to some extent.

Africa and the Middle East have not gotten to do this. Instead of being allowed to assert their nationalism and draw their own lines as Europeans did throughout the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries (which would have accomplished that meshing of tribal + state loyalty that has been done so successfully across Europe), Africans and Arabs had their lines drawn for them, and were corralled within them. Their instability is unsurprising given this reality.

Bottomline: Europeans are not inherently less tribal or better at establishing and maintaining statehood. They have simply been operating under more favorable (read: independent) historical circumstances for doing so.

Quote:But it's just excuse-making for not grabbing yourself by the balls and dealing with reality.

Oh, sure dude. Because we all know how entirely inconsequential the impact of those factors would be on the future development of any society.
Yeah, just an excuse. Should be easy to overcome, simple as pulling yourself up by the old bootstraps! Nothing to see here...

Post: #50

(01-30-2012 06:32 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

(01-30-2012 04:02 PM)CrackerJack Wrote:  I don't think China will be better for Africa nor do I think they could manage to be any worse. They don't have any qualms of backing despots just like any other strong nation hungry for money and power.

Up to and including the United States.

Yep, a prime example.

Quote:I just can't seem to imagine Africa united as one defending their own interests when majority of it's states are beyond fucked up. They still have a tribal mindset.

Quote:Their mindset is no more tribal than most other people on this Earth. I think this critique is too vague.

By tribal I meant a hunter/gatherer mentality. Live for today, tomorrow worry about tomorrow.

All ancient nations became from tribes uniting forming a dynasty. This is the mortar that holds large populace together via traditions and gives them strength. Nec hercules contra plures.

Quote:What you see in the Africa is the result of several completely and totally foreign decision makers swooping in and creating national boundaries arbitrarily, with no regard to the wills of the people who would live within them or the consequences that may have resulted from forcibly placing many different people together entirely without their consent.

What you see is quite a natural outcome when you combine that with the systematic geographical exploitation, proxy wars and other bits and pieces that have manufactured our modern african puzzle.

They aren't going to unite as one and they shouldn't be expected to-even Europeans have trouble doing that successfully. Just like Europeans and Asians, "Africans" are in fact, not one but many different people with proud individual heritages. The difference is that these heritages were largely smashed together arbitrarily and their individual wishes disregarded-problems naturally ensued.

I agree with you. But you're applying current social values to a time were death through violence was a normal part of the day. They didn't travel on cruise ships to spread the wealth, they boarded wooden ships to get rich quickly with great risks to themselves. It would be foolish of them not to take a path of least resistance. They traded with the strong, and pillaged the weak. Nothing changed, we only added a few layers of complexity to blind the masses.