egafd.com

David Johnson wrote:

> Look at for example, Zambia, Ghana, Tanzania, South Africa,
> Mauritius, Cameroon.
>
> They don't fit into your tired clich? of civil war ridden,
> frequently at woar with their neighbours, incredibly corrupt,
> dependent on famine aid etc etc.
>
> Like I said you can't summarise a continent in a pat, tired out
> phrase. Reality is not so simplistic


That's 6 countries out of nearly 60 and even then, large-scale abject poverty and rampant corruption in pretty much all of them. famine as well in Tanzania a couple of years ago

http://www.minorityvoices.org/news.php/ ... nt-neglect

and South Africa's ANC government is not corrupt?? I mean seriously??!

the island of Mauritius is probably about the best out of that lot. NIce enough place for a holiday anyway.

God loves a trier and my God you are a trier. I love the way you just plough on regardless.

Like in my post.

"They don't fit into your tired clich? of civil war ridden,
> frequently at war with their neighbours, incredibly corrupt,
> dependent on famine aid etc etc.

Civil war ridden ? No reply to my point.
Freqently at war with their neighbours? No reply to my point.
Incredibly corrupt? One view of South Africa.
Dependent on famine aid? No reply other than one case in 50 years in Tanzania.

Why do you not use the same term re. India? No reply to my comment.
Why not use the same term to describe the US overwhelmingly being at war for most of the last 60 years? No reply to my comment.

Many famines/uprisings took place while EUropean countries in control. Why do you not use the term basket case then? No reply to my comment.

Many African countries have had political imperialism replaced by economic imperialism by western involvement in corrupt governments. Why do you not recognise the huge impact of those Western countries? No reply to my comment.

I will leave you to talk to yourself. Feel free to come out with some irrelevant last post. No doubt you will.

Sigh .............

David, of course not *every* country in Africa ticks *every* box (war / civil war / regular coups / famine / pestilence / rampant corruption / extreme poverty / low life expectancy / low standard of living) but you'd be hard-pressed to find one that doesn't tick at least some of them.

Your point about India is irrelevant (if you want to start a separate thread about India be my guest) but nevertheless I did address it higher up, I said "fair comment" or words to that effect. And your asking "why don't you call the USA a basket case beause of all the wars it's been involved in" is just silly.

So you don't like the phrase "basket case", fair enough I won't use it if it offends you. But the bottom line is that Africa is by far and away the least developed continent on the planet, and it has been so for a very long time. The infrastructure is shockingly bad almost everywhere, many of the governments are massively corrupt, poverty is off the scale, deadly diseases rampant, medical care primitive and warfare /coups are rife.

But feel free to keep on pretending otherwise if you want. I'm off to bed. Goodnight.

David Johnson wrote:

> I love the way
> you just plough on regardless.

i'm glad you do. But I've noticed in a lot of threads that you really don't like people who disagree with you do you? It doesn't take long for you to start with the mocking and the scoffing and the sarcasm does it? You're clearly an intelligent bloke, why can't you just have a normal discussion with people? No wonder so many of the threads degenerate into slanging matches as people start to respond in kind. I've just re-read what I posted above and I'm on the cusp of it myself (unfortunately there doesn't appear to be any edit function available). Which is a shame because it started off quite cordially I thought. So I'm going to bow out of this one now before it gets unpleasant.

Milk Tray Man wrote:

> David Johnson wrote:
>
> > I love the way
> > you just plough on regardless.
>
> i'm glad you do. But I've noticed in a lot of threads that you
> really don't like people who disagree with you do you? It
> doesn't take long for you to start with the mocking and the
> scoffing and the sarcasm does it? You're clearly an intelligent
> bloke, why can't you just have a normal discussion with people?


Because that would not allow him to feel superior and patronising.

"But I've noticed in a lot of threads that you really don't like people who disagree with you do you? It doesn't take long for you to start with the mocking and the scoffing and the sarcasm"

I have absolutely nothing against people who disagree with me.

"It doesn't take long for you to start with the mocking and the scoffing and the sarcasm"

This is fair comment in the situation where I get involved in long threads with people who clearly are making little attempt to answer the points I raise as in the example I gave of you avoiding nearly all the points I make here.

I do realise it is a weakness in me and I am sorry for any offence caused. However if you read your response to me here --

"and South Africa's ANC government is not corrupt?? I mean seriously??! the island of Mauritius is probably about the best out of that lot. NIce enough place for a holiday anyway."

The words "mocking, scoffing and sarcasm" do seem to come to mind!!!!

Clearly what I don't like is tarnishing an entire continent with a gilb clich? and basing that glib clich? starting with the time these countries became independent.

"of course not *every* country in Africa ticks *every* box (war / civil war / regular coups / famine / pestilence / rampant corruption / extreme poverty / low life expectancy / low standard of living) but you'd be hard-pressed to find one that doesn't tick at least some of them".

Arguably some countries in Africa tick very few of these boxes. That is why you are using a glib clich?. I only gave the countries I did as examples, not a definitive list of countries where a number of your boxes do not apply.

One question for you.

Given the European countries had controlling influences in Africa for centuries, those areas/countries still ticked many of your boxes war/uprisings, famine, pestilence, rampant corruption (in terms of the wealth of Africa being exported to Europe), extreme poverty, low life expectancy, low standard of living etc. etc.

So why then, Milk Tray Man, do you see the start of this "basket case" analogy as being when the European empires were replaced by native rule?

Clearly, the conditions you berate occurred for centuries under European rule and for 60 years or so in some, not all African countries since.

David Johnson wrote:

> This is fair comment in the situation where I get involved in
> long threads with people who clearly are making little attempt
> to answer the points I raise as in the example I gave of you
> avoiding nearly all the points I make here.

this is a common tactic with you I've noticed David, someone takes an opposing view and you start banging on about them "missing the point" or ignoring what you've said. whereas that is clearly not the case.

As I said, I'm happy to refrain from using the term "basket case" because it seems to be that which you object to. But mmy main and consistent point throughout this thread has been that (if you'll allow me to repeat myself) Africa today is by far and away the least developed continent on the planet, and it has been so for a very long time. The infrastructure is shockingly bad almost everywhere, many of the governments are massively corrupt, poverty is off the scale, deadly diseases rampant, medical care primitive and warfare /coups are rife. That's not a "tired cliche" that's a fact. And it's a fact irrespective of the US health care system's failings, irrespective of poverty in India, irrespective of whether a few African countries may not have oit quite as bad as the rest and irrespective of the glories of medieval African empires. all that stuff is irrelevant.

now either you agree with that viewpoint or you don't but really, this is getting very boring now.


> I do realise it is a weakness in me and I am sorry for any
> offence caused. However if you read your response to me here
> --
>
> "and South Africa's ANC government is not corrupt?? I mean
> seriously??! the island of Mauritius is probably about the
> best out of that lot. NIce enough place for a holiday anyway."
>
> The words "mocking, scoffing and sarcasm" do seem to come to
> mind!!!!

You cannot be serious. but in any case I'm a rank amateur in that department alongside you. I think we all are. and you do come across as incredibly patronising and arrogant with your "I will leave you now to ...", your "this is my last post to you on ..." and your "feel free to ..." which again you seem to use a lot in these threads.

there's no need for it david, like I said you're clearly intelligent enough to argue your viewpoint without it.

David Johnson wrote:

> One question for you.
>
> Given the European countries had controlling influences in
> Africa for centuries, those areas/countries still ticked many
> of your boxes war/uprisings, famine, pestilence, rampant
> corruption (in terms of the wealth of Africa being exported to
> Europe), extreme poverty, low life expectancy, low standard of
> living etc. etc.
>
> So why then, Milk Tray Man, do you see the start of this
> "basket case" analogy as being when the European empires were
> replaced by native rule?


you are correct in saying that things were far from perfect under the empires, but go back to my fourth post in the thread and I addressd that that point there. things haven't really progressed much in terms of the above over that 50-60 year period. Certanly nowhere near to the extent that they should have, given africa's vast potential mineral wealth and had they had competent and non-corrupt governments and fewer wars.

We can "backdate" it if you like, fine by me. But I'm looking at it from today's viewpoint and I stand by my opinion.