Will Africa ever lose third world status? - Page 7 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the nations of Africa.

Moderator: PoFo Africa Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
#15006300
SolarCross wrote:They are common myths which are fashionable now particularly; I am not singling you out really. And because they are common now they are less visible because we are standing on them. So here are three myths which I believe is the invisible foundation of your cute little narrative:

1. The progressive theory of history.

- The prog theory of history rests on two (obviously) false assumptions that the future is as set as the past and that the future is better than the past.

2. Everybody is basically the same it is only the -isms that differ.

- I recall someone here some time ago "proving" that communism was better than capitalism because Communist China was more technological than Capitalist Kenya as if the average iq of the Chinese 105 in comparison with the average iq of Kenya 80 was not the more pertinent reason.
This is what I mean by saying "Africa is less developed now than Europe was a thousand years ago" because a thousand years ago europeans had the ingenuity and will to build cathedrals and all manner of tech and social practices even without an external example. A thousand years ago the foundations of modern europe were already being laid. No such thing is happening in Africa even now and probably never will.

3. There is an end to development.

- people tend to categorise countries as "developing" or "developed" as if development was a place you reach and then there is nothing left to do and you can stop. This idea is at least as old as I am but when I was born there was no internet now there is and it was "developed" countries that invented, first adopted, developed it and were radically changed by it. There is no end to development and in fact the countries described as "developing" are invariably developing the least and at the slowest pace while the "developed" countries are developing the most and fastest.

You’re second point about the fact that Europeans were building cathedrals without external influence is a neat idea and fairly well argued but I’m sure you know that the Roman Catholic Church/Vatican did sponsor the spread of Christianity through the Holy Roman Empire, the Vatican did invest a large amount of funds in the destruction of pagan traditions and the development of Christian monuments such as cathedrals, so there was external influence in that sense.
On your third point the definition of developed will change depending on what level of progress the most developed nations have achieved and it’s all relative.
#15006302
guyojcorb wrote:You’re second point about the fact that Europeans were building cathedrals without external influence is a neat idea and fairly well argued but I’m sure you know that the Roman Catholic Church/Vatican did sponsor the spread of Christianity through the Holy Roman Empire, the Vatican did invest a large amount of funds in the destruction of pagan traditions and the development of Christian monuments such as cathedrals, so there was external influence in that sense.
On your third point the definition of developed will change depending on what level of progress the most developed nations have achieved and it’s all relative.

The pagans were europeans too so they were an internal influence not external. I wasn't really making a point about Christianity because actually I could have just as easily have referenced the coloseums and aquaducts of pagan Rome instead of Christian cathedrals.
#15006304
SolarCross wrote:The pagans were europeans too so they were an internal influence not external. I wasn't really making a point about Christianity because actually I could have just as easily have referenced the coloseums and aquaducts of pagan Rome instead of Christian cathedrals.

The pagan achievements and monuments were generally much less grand than the Christian cathedral however that is more due to the technological advances and the increases in unilateral support from the Vatican.
I am also fully aware that pagans were Europeans, More-so than the Christian Romans who invaded even.
#15006346
.....the Vatican did invest a large amount of funds in the destruction of pagan traditions and the development of Christian monuments such as cathedrals, so there was external influence in that sense.


What insight is this supposed to be? All conquerors bring their religion. "The Vatican" is irrelevant. Even if one did grant that "The Vatican" invested money (and that is not how it worked in practice) the aim was not to destroy anything. It was to replace something. It was to eliminate something they firmly believed was harming people and trade it for something that would save people.

Motives matter. Methods are frequently bad but that does not eliminate the requirement for us to try to understand. But today we don't do that anymore. We don't try to understand Marx or Adams. We either affirm them or are committed to their destruction. We are shallow, educated to the test drones for the most part.

The pagan achievements and monuments were generally much less grand than the Christian cathedral however that is more due to the technological advances and the increases in unilateral support from the Vatican.


The development of Cathedrals seems to be something you completely misunderstand. Technology was not why they were "grand". And, oh buy the way, you have obviously never been to Rome or Egypt. But to understand them you would have to appreciate spirituality. You don't. I recommend you not try. You would consider it an intellectual exercise which would virtually guarantee that you never would.
#15006372
Drlee wrote:
What insight is this supposed to be? All conquerors bring their religion. "The Vatican" is irrelevant. Even if one did grant that "The Vatican" invested money (and that is not how it worked in practice) the aim was not to destroy anything. It was to replace something. It was to eliminate something they firmly believed was harming people and trade it for something that would save people.

Motives matter. Methods are frequently bad but that does not eliminate the requirement for us to try to understand. But today we don't do that anymore. We don't try to understand Marx or Adams. We either affirm them or are committed to their destruction. We are shallow, educated to the test drones for the most part.



The development of Cathedrals seems to be something you completely misunderstand. Technology was not why they were "grand". And, oh buy the way, you have obviously never been to Rome or Egypt. But to understand them you would have to appreciate spirituality. You don't. I recommend you not try. You would consider it an intellectual exercise which would virtually guarantee that you never would.

I have been to Rome on two seperate occasions however never been to Egypt.
The only appreciation I have of Rome’s architectural achievements is the sheer complexity/technical prowess of it for the time period.
I’m very much a non spiritual individual and doubt I will be anytime soon, I also don’t consider spiritualism an intellectual exercise.
What would you consider the motive of the Chinese when investing into African Nations? (Myself it would be for political favours and in order to gain access to the vast natural resources.)
#15006401
What would you consider the motive of the Chinese when investing into African Nations? (Myself it would be for political favours and in order to gain access to the vast natural resources.)


Yes. Natural resources for sure. Africa is also a very large, virtually unexploited market for the sorts of things that China excels in making.

I believe that the current administration and its absurd trade war with China has reinforced the wisdom of 'diversifying their portfolio' so to speak. Trump has shown China that the US is not a stable market. He may win some concessions from the Chinese but the cost down the line will be China's deeper incursions into other markets in direct competition with us. A competition we do not really want to win at the expense of impoverishing the American workers.
#15006408
Drlee wrote:
Yes. Natural resources for sure. Africa is also a very large, virtually unexploited market for the sorts of things that China excels in making.

I believe that the current administration and its absurd trade war with China has reinforced the wisdom of 'diversifying their portfolio' so to speak. Trump has shown China that the US is not a stable market. He may win some concessions from the Chinese but the cost down the line will be China's deeper incursions into other markets in direct competition with us. A competition we do not really want to win at the expense of impoverishing the American workers.

The thing about US-Sino trade relations is that the US is so dependent on China from a consumer standpoint and China has managed to take over a lot of companies so that they’re largely self sufficient for the most how they can supply a lot of their own demand while America definitely can’t currently.
The middle class in China is however growing therefore the cost of labour is increasing so countries like Vietnam,India and Bangladesh are picking up some of the slack.
User avatar
By Unthinking Majority
#15007039
Wolfman wrote:The definition of First, Second, and Third World has changed since 1991. Keep up.


The term is completely irrelevant since the end of the Cold War. Poorer countries are now referred to as developing countries, or the global south.
User avatar
By Suntzu
#15007058
Unthinking Majority wrote:The term is completely irrelevant since the end of the Cold War. Poorer countries are now referred to as developing countries, or the global south.


I understand, and folks who are retarded are now called autistic and intellectually challenged. :lol:
User avatar
By Unthinking Majority
#15007343
Suntzu wrote:I understand, and folks who are retarded are now called autistic and intellectually challenged. :lol:


1st world referred to countries that were liberal democracies aligned with the NATO bloc, 2nd world referred to communist countries aligned with the USSR, and 3rd world referred to the other nations that were neither.

Clearly, since the end of the Cold War these terms are irrelevant.
#15007795
Suntzu wrote:But folks still understand what you are talking about when you mention a 3rd world shithole! :p

Only because it’s been a term used for the duration of the Cold War, it’s definition as a 3rd world country has nothing to do with whether it was a shithole or not.
Considering that the USSR only fell 28 years ago a lot of the people who grew up with those terms are still alive and their original association with that term still persists.
#15007805
It is actually in the West's interest that Africa should develop. However the policies of Western governments have always been imperialist and detrimental to African stability. Gaddafi's regime was the most advanced in Africa and maintained the stability of North Africa. Nkrumah who led Ghana until he was overthrown in a US backed military coup in the 1960s was another leader who increased the stability of the region. The lack of economic opportunities and political instability in Africa will increase migration pressure on Europe. None of this is rocket science but when will the West learn?
#15007806
Political Interest wrote:It is actually in the West's interest that Africa should develop. However the policies of Western governments have always been imperialist and detrimental to African stability. Gaddafi's regime was the most advanced in Africa and maintained the stability of North Africa. Nkrumah who led Ghana until he was overthrown in a US backed military coup in the 1960s was another leader who increased the stability of the region. The lack of economic opportunities and political instability in Africa will increase migration pressure on Europe. None of this is rocket science but when will the West learn?


I agree. The West needs to quarantine Sub-Saharan Africa. 8)
#15007851
I wonder how many folks understand what "retarded" means? :lol:


You obviously don't.

You know @Suntzu, you can put sunglasses and lol on all of your posts and it does not make them any less racist.

You refer to a country as a "shit hole". Do you mean like this?

Image

Trust me. There are places and people in the US just as bad off as any in a third world country. If you are sleeping under a bridge or in the desert and dumpster diving for your meals, you are no better off than the poor in Ethiopia.

I mentioned it before but it is becoming abundantly clear that the younger folks here have absolutely no conception of happiness absent technology and an overabundance of food. Much of the world lives virtually without technology or worse, in places where our obsession with technology has invested in giving them cell phones with no place to recharge them. We have given them 911 networks where there are no ambulances to call. I am working with a country right now that has both of these and it is NOT, oh by the way, in Africa.

Happiness is not money. It is not necessarily stuff. I have, in my lifetime, made choices that put me on the road to relative affluence. Not all of these have increased my level of happiness or even well being. I am not saying that there is laudable happiness in abject poverty. I AM saying that the absence of money and the trappings thereof do not necessarily unhappiness. African tribal folks can be amazingly happy. We could learn some things from the Dogun and Baule. Not physics. They know all they need to know about physics. They know all they need to know about chemistry. They know all they need to know about political science, or biology or psychology. Small pieces of training in first aid and well drilling helps a little but building them a linear accelerator; not so much.

If I were to go live with them my IQ would not prepare me to be happy in their happy societies. I would have to learn the wisdom that they have and the survival skills that they use. They may live in thatched huts and eat from an open fire but that is NOT a shit hole. Far from it. Living under a bridge in New York, with access to world class emergency services and soup kitchens that are sometimes open is.
#15007943
Drlee wrote:Happiness is not money.

I agree 100%.
I saw it here in Bangladesh, where I was very surprised to see the poorest of the poor in the streets laughing and displaying happiness. At the same time the Ambassador of my country was always unhappy, in a bad mood and depressed, whilst being driven around by his driver in a big luxurious automobile and having his meals brought in by several servants.
Anecdote: I had a one-on-one dinner with him and the door to the kitchen had a small window in it from where the staff was observing us to see when they should bring the next course. It was pretty hilarious.
#15008015
Drlee wrote:You obviously don't.

You know @Suntzu, you can put sunglasses and lol on all of your posts and it does not make them any less racist.

You refer to a country as a "shit hole". Do you mean like this?

Image

Trust me. There are places and people in the US just as bad off as any in a third world country. If you are sleeping under a bridge or in the desert and dumpster diving for your meals, you are no better off than the poor in Ethiopia.

I mentioned it before but it is becoming abundantly clear that the younger folks here have absolutely no conception of happiness absent technology and an overabundance of food. Much of the world lives virtually without technology or worse, in places where our obsession with technology has invested in giving them cell phones with no place to recharge them. We have given them 911 networks where there are no ambulances to call. I am working with a country right now that has both of these and it is NOT, oh by the way, in Africa.

Happiness is not money. It is not necessarily stuff. I have, in my lifetime, made choices that put me on the road to relative affluence. Not all of these have increased my level of happiness or even well being. I am not saying that there is laudable happiness in abject poverty. I AM saying that the absence of money and the trappings thereof do not necessarily unhappiness. African tribal folks can be amazingly happy. We could learn some things from the Dogun and Baule. Not physics. They know all they need to know about physics. They know all they need to know about chemistry. They know all they need to know about political science, or biology or psychology. Small pieces of training in first aid and well drilling helps a little but building them a linear accelerator; not so much.

If I were to go live with them my IQ would not prepare me to be happy in their happy societies. I would have to learn the wisdom that they have and the survival skills that they use. They may live in thatched huts and eat from an open fire but that is NOT a shit hole. Far from it. Living under a bridge in New York, with access to world class emergency services and soup kitchens that are sometimes open is.


You musta never been to Ethopia. Don't think I ever saw in fat poor folks in Sub-Saharan Africa. 8)
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
EU-BREXIT

@snapdragon mcdonnel is now pushing for full on […]

Atheism is Evil

@SSDR As mentioned before, there is no fixed h[…]

Trump's Dumb Economics

Deficit $22 Trillion and rising. I rest my case.

Cis heterosexual males have suffered massive disc[…]