Live 8 Philly, invitation!

[email hidden] (Curly Sue) wrote:

BTW Sue, I just re-read my post - I didn't mean to sound like I was
putting you down - sorry 'bout that.

--
The Doc says my brain waves closely match those of a crazed ferret.
At least now I have an excuse.

RJ said:

I guess they should bring back colonialism.
Under colonialism, cities were built,
utilitys installed,
there was employment,
rule of law
the countries fed themselves AND exported product.

Paradigm shift: For "colonialism," substitute "Saddam Hussein," and marvel
at how the veracity of the passage doesn't change.

Bob

Gregory Morrow said:

One program that *does* work are the the "micro - loan" programmes that
exist in Bangladesh, India, etc. Fifty or a hundred bux is given to a
woman, with that seed money they can buy a cheap sewing machine and some
bolts of cloth, some chickens, some garden seeds and fertilizer, etc. The
woman is given some basic literacy/small business training, in no time at
all these women are running little money - making businesses. With this,
they can boot out that LAZY ABUSIVE [censored] of a husband, these gals are now
earning their own way and are subservient to nobody. They are building
wealth and a legacy upon which future generations can build. That's how you
have to work it, enough with the grandiose "aid" programs already.

These programs don't cost much overhead - wise, they are highly successful.
The money goes directly to where it'll do the most good, not to some corrupt
UN or government kleptocracy...

I agree. I've heard wonderful things about these programs. Take it to
the grass roots level and work up, rather than down. I'd like to see
more of this.
Goomba

"<RJ>" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

I guess they should bring back colonialism.

Bite your tongue.

Quoted message said:

the countries fed themselves AND exported product.

You don't know much about colonies. Colonies exist to be sucked dry by
the métropole and then finished goods returned to them as consumer
goods to be purchased at inflated prices. This was Gandhi's beef
against Britain, that it took Indian cotton, shipped it to England,
manufactured goods from it and then shipped it back to India. The
goods could have been manufactured in India but the English would not
allow it as India was there to provide Britain with raw material.
There is not ONE colony that was not in the same situation, some of
these colonies being in fact countries in their own right before they
fell to greedy invaders.

--

"Compassion is the chief law of human existence."

Dostoevski, The Idiot

Dave Smith <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

day said:

When will Africa improve?

The US already does more than its' share.

Despite my feelings that our present system of aid to Africa is a
waste of money, I have to disagree with your suggestion that the
US does more than its fair share. While it is true that the
amount of aid from the US is large, the US is a very wealthy
country and has a large population. The problem is that the per
capita contribution is pitifully small when compared to western
European countries.

If the US were to apply the exact formula that was devised for
general support at the end of WWII (just look at the formula for
contributions to the UN general fund), they would be bankrupt many
times over by the amount they owe in back payment. It's obvious it's
in their interest (and if I were a USAian, I might agree) to deny
that others are actually carrying much of the load.

It should be embarassing to be so cheap when you know that you're so
rich. Of course, that is also a relative term. In a recent article
in the Guardian, Hobsbawm argued that the US economy has never been
as strong as it was in 1945 and has in fact been in constant decline.
Perhaps if they admitted this to themselves and the world, we vould
have an end to this incessant "schwartz-waving".

--

"Compassion is the chief law of human existence."

Dostoevski, The Idiot

"Gregory Morrow"
<[email hidden]> wrote
in news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

You are forgetting the HUGE defense burden that the US has
shouldered around the world since 1945, that also is a form of
"foreign aid". We kept (and are keeping) the peace on the
frontlines of the European East - West divide, Japan, Taiwan,
Korea, etc. We successfully stood down the Soviet Evil Empire,
that took trillions and trillions of dollars over the years.
Luckily the outcome favoured us, by hook or crook it could have
easily gone the other way, e.g. total utter thermonuclear
destruction...

Of course, it just so happens it was in your nation's interest to do
so. Canadian soldiers kept the peace in many hot spots around the
world and Canada has no interests outside of its borders, except
maybe on holidays in Cuba.

The Europeans you say you fed and clothed were of those nations the
Allies believed were susceptible to becoming communist, like
Czechoslovakia did in 1946. I don't buy this holier than thou
attitude of the Allies...individuals maybe, nations no. Western
Europe was invaded by the Allies not to liberate them from naziism
but to prevent Stalin from taking the whole of the continent.
Altruistic my ass; Stalin was an ally. The Marshall Plan was devised
to put the recipent nations in debt to the West so that pressure
could be exerted on them to steer a wide path from Moscow.

You should read a bit of diplomatic history. Might I recommend
Gerhard Weinberg's A World at Arms, and Churchill's later volumes of
his history of World War II :-)

--

"Compassion is the chief law of human existence."

Dostoevski, The Idiot

Michel Boucher said:

You don't know much about colonies. Colonies exist to be sucked dry by
the métropole and then finished goods returned to them as consumer
goods to be purchased at inflated prices. This was Gandhi's beef
against Britain, that it took Indian cotton, shipped it to England,
manufactured goods from it and then shipped it back to India. The
goods could have been manufactured in India but the English would not
allow it as India was there to provide Britain with raw material.
There is not ONE colony that was not in the same situation, some of
these colonies being in fact countries in their own right before they
fell to greedy invaders.

Some colonial rulers were better than others. Some of them had an abysmal
record, bit I would suggest that Britain was the most benevolent of all and
its former colonies are among the wealthiest, most successful countries in
the world. They include the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Hong
Kong, Singapore, South Africa, Rhodesia (Zimbabwe). The people of India
may have had some problems, but the British did manage to unite the
subcontinent.

Unlike other colonial rulers, Britain established government, law and order
and an infrastructure that enabled the colonies to be economically viable.
They were established during a time when there was no law and order on the
high seas. They did maintain monopolies on trade with their colonies, but
then the other colonial powers were doing the same. The same thing was
happening on a smaller scale all over the world with a series of war lords
who charged tolls to cross their territory, but without the offer of
protection.

Gregory Morrow said:

You are forgetting the HUGE defense burden that the US has shouldered around
the world since 1945, that also is a form of "foreign aid". We kept (and
are keeping) the peace on the frontlines of the European East - West divide,
Japan, Taiwan, Korea, etc. We successfully stood down the Soviet Evil
Empire, that took trillions and trillions of dollars over the years.
Luckily the outcome favoured us, by hook or crook it could have easily gone
the other way, e.g. total utter thermonuclear destruction...

Sure the US had a huge defence budget. It also has a huge military industrial
complex that has helped push the world to the edge of nuclear confrontation. It
has funded and armed insurgency within other countries. It intervened covertly
in Afghanistan in order to screw the USSR, and now it has to deal with the same
Islamic fundamentalists who they trained to fight the Russians. Just imagine
how much they could have saved if they had allowed the USSR to bring some
stability to that armpit of the world.

Quoted message said:

The US *single - handedly* kept the peace all these years, that's a pretty
major accomplishment. You can't argue that fact.

Single handed?? You can't be serious. I suggest that you do a little research to
determine how little the US has provided in terms of peace keeping operations
around the world. You will find out that it has done a lot less than other
countries and even less on a per capita basis.

Quoted message said:

Let those nagging Europeans, etc. remember who fed, warmed, and clothed them
during those record cold winters of '45, '46, '47...it is *directly* because
of US largesse they now have the luxury of criticising us. They wouldn't be
nearly so smug and comfortable if postwar popular US public opinion had held
sway during the immediate postwar years, fortunately we had visionary titans
like General Marshall and President Truman (and despite my dislike of the
man, I'll include General MacArthur with his Japan occupation policy) who
could see beyond the mundane opinion polls and lend a helping hand to Europe
and other places.

Those same Europeans are well aware that the war had been going on for a long
time before the US got involved, and that it did so only after it was attacked
by Japan. They are particularly nagging, just fed up with the bragging that
exaggerates the contribution.

Bob' virtualgoth@die_spammer.biz said:

RJ said:

I guess they should bring back colonialism.
Under colonialism, cities were built,
utilitys installed,
there was employment,
rule of law
the countries fed themselves AND exported product.

Paradigm shift: For "colonialism," substitute "Saddam Hussein," and marvel
at how the veracity of the passage doesn't change.

Bob

I'll bet there's lots of Iraquis who long
for the peace and quiet of Sadaams days...

<rj>

Quoted post said:

I guess they should bring back colonialism.
Under colonialism, cities were built,
utilitys installed,
there was employment,
rule of law
the countries fed themselves AND exported product.

now, Africa is a joke ! A whole continent on welfare.
( of course, they blame colonialism )

Unfortunately, they were in such a weak position that they were subjected to
colonialism. Yet, as suggested in another post, Britain's former colonies rank
among the most successful countries in the world. They provided the
infrarstructure that made them succeed.

Joseph Littleshoes said:

Dave Smith:

The header of this post is vaguely racist. The word 'Africa' with a
question mark ? after it would, IMO, have been more appropriate:

Oh? Which race in Africa is useless? There are several different races
there. If you are suggesting that there is one particular race there that
always seems to end up on the bottom I am sure that there are people who
will agree with you. The fact remains that Most of the continent is in sad
shape and in desperate need of help. Western governments have been pumping
billions of dollars into Africa every years, but the situation for the
people at the bottom has not got any better. Given their record of high
level corruption, I doubt that increasing the level of financial assistance,
increased aid will just make the corrupt leaders even richer. Their
increased wealth and power will allow them to oppress their people even
more.

"Curly Sue" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Hopefully the G8 will also address the issues of fair trade so that
Africans can benefit from their products.

Sue(tm)
Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!

Of course, that is one of the problems. Very few products. Very little to
make them with. They do have oil, diamonds, but no manufacturing to employ
people and much of the land is poor for farming.

On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 21:34:21 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Curly Sue" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Hopefully the G8 will also address the issues of fair trade so that
Africans can benefit from their products.

Sue(tm)
Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!

Of course, that is one of the problems. Very few products. Very little to
make them with. They do have oil, diamonds, but no manufacturing to employ
people and much of the land is poor for farming.

There are products. Kenya has coffee. Current US import tariff
structures put Kenyan farmers at a disadvantage, where Starbucks makes
huge profits. Some of the African countries export cut flowers,
competing with Holland and Latin America. What they also need is
guidance in business models and global competitiveness.

These are things that can be addressed at the G8 conference.

Sue(tm)
Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!

Edwin Pawlowski said:

Of course, that is one of the problems. Very few products. Very little to
make them with. They do have oil, diamonds, but no manufacturing to employ
people and much of the land is poor for farming.

Yes, some of the land is poor for farming, but a lot of it is very lush. Much
of the land in the US and Canada is also unsuitable for farming, as is much of
Asia.

Dave Smith said:

Joseph Littleshoes said:

Dave Smith:

The header of this post is vaguely racist. The word 'Africa'

with a

Quoted message said:

question mark ? after it would, IMO, have been more appropriate:

Oh? Which race in Africa is useless

I was attempting to alter the header of this 'thread' to suggest a less
'Afro centric' and thereby less offensive dialogue.

There is only one human 'race' and the less we emphasize regional and
social artificiality's the better.

Quoted message said:

There are several different races
there. If you are suggesting that there is one particular race there
that
always seems to end up on the bottom I am sure that there are people
who
will agree with you. The fact remains that Most of the continent is
in sad
shape and in desperate need of help. Western governments have been
pumping
billions of dollars into Africa every years, but the situation for the

people at the bottom has not got any better. Given their record of
high
level corruption, I doubt that increasing the level of financial
assistance,
increased aid will just make the corrupt leaders even richer. Their
increased wealth and power will allow them to oppress their people
even
more.

--
---
Joseph Littleshoes
may be consulted at
---
http://finblake.home.mindspring.com/tarotintro.htm

Dave Smith <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You don't know much about colonies.

Some colonial rulers were better than others. Some of them had an
abysmal record, bit I would suggest that Britain was the most
benevolent of all and its former colonies are among the
wealthiest, most successful countries in the world. They include
the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Singapore,
South Africa, Rhodesia (Zimbabwe). The people of India may have
had some problems, but the British did manage to unite the
subcontinent.

The successful ones you name were colonies of white people.

Quoted message said:

Unlike other colonial rulers, Britain established government, law
and order and an infrastructure that enabled the colonies to be
economically viable.

Not at first they didn't. The British empire started in 1600 with
the establishment of the East India company (just as they had the
Company of Adventurers into Hudson's Bay here) and for many centuries
these were the only presence and pretence of civilization.

It waswn't until they had raped and pillaged the local resources that
they developed a social conscience.

--

"Compassion is the chief law of human existence."

Dostoevski, The Idiot

Joseph Littleshoes said:

Dave Smith said:

Joseph Littleshoes said:

Dave Smith:

The header of this post is vaguely racist. The word 'Africa'

with a

Quoted message said:

question mark ? after it would, IMO, have been more appropriate:

Oh? Which race in Africa is useless

I was attempting to alter the header of this 'thread' to suggest a less
'Afro centric' and thereby less offensive dialogue.

There is only one human 'race' and the less we emphasize regional and
social artificiality's the better.

Bwahahahahahahahaha

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There are several different races
there. If you are suggesting that there is one particular race there
that
always seems to end up on the bottom I am sure that there are people
who
will agree with you. The fact remains that Most of the continent is
in sad
shape and in desperate need of help. Western governments have been
pumping
billions of dollars into Africa every years, but the situation for the

people at the bottom has not got any better. Given their record of
high
level corruption, I doubt that increasing the level of financial
assistance,
increased aid will just make the corrupt leaders even richer. Their
increased wealth and power will allow them to oppress their people
even
more.

Goomba38 said:

Gregory Morrow said:

One program that *does* work are the the "micro - loan" programmes that
exist in Bangladesh, India, etc. Fifty or a hundred bux is given to a
woman, with that seed money they can buy a cheap sewing machine and some
bolts of cloth, some chickens, some garden seeds and fertilizer, etc. The
woman is given some basic literacy/small business training, in no time at
all these women are running little money - making businesses. With this,
they can boot out that LAZY ABUSIVE [censored] of a husband, these gals are now
earning their own way and are subservient to nobody. They are building
wealth and a legacy upon which future generations can build. That's how you
have to work it, enough with the grandiose "aid" programs already.

These programs don't cost much overhead - wise, they are highly successful.
The money goes directly to where it'll do the most good, not to some corrupt
UN or government kleptocracy...

I agree. I've heard wonderful things about these programs. Take it to
the grass roots level and work up, rather than down. I'd like to see
more of this.
Goomba

Microloan programs and educational programs run by NGOs work well here
in Honduras also. We have one cooperative, runs a credit union, that is
for women only. They help them set up small businesses that benefit not
only themselves, but provide useful products to the locals.

In the realm of small businesses that we have here (both woman owned,
family owned, or owned by men): vegetable starts for the garden, custom
tailoring shops where I have all my khaki pants custom made. There are
leather worker cooperatives - everything from belts and wallets to
saddles and other tack for horses. The bee keepers have a cooperative
to market and sell honey. They received advice and support from Heifer
International, an NGO that assists third world families to become self
sufficient. Small scale coffee growers have been taught about organic
farming and shade grown coffee. At the last online auction, a Japanese
coffee company bought one lot of beans from one grower for $17.60 a
pound. He sold 10 sacks of 150 pounds. Last years high sale got $13.80
a pound for his coffee and now has a permanent contract with a coffee
roaster in the US.
The woodworkers also formed a cooperative - and I can have custom made
furniture from mahogany, laurel, cedar, teak, etc made at a reasonable
price.

Money loaned goes directly to the people who need it, small lows, low
interest, and the products produced are marketable in country since
people do drive up to our town from the major cities for the wood
products and the honey is marketd nationwide.

Sandi

Sandi

Michel Boucher said:

Quoted message said:

Some colonial rulers were better than others. Some of them had an
abysmal record, bit I would suggest that Britain was the most
benevolent of all and its former colonies are among the
wealthiest, most successful countries in the world. They include
the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Singapore,
South Africa, Rhodesia (Zimbabwe). The people of India may have
had some problems, but the British did manage to unite the
subcontinent.

The successful ones you name were colonies of white people.

That is an interesting observation. It seems that most of those who
kicked out the whites have not faired so well. Rhodesia used to be quite
prosperous. The current government in Zimbabwe has done its best to get
rid of the white farmers. They forced them off their farms to give the
land to their veterans (party loyalty and all), and now they can't feed
themselves. Uganda was making great progress until Idi Amin came along.
He was not quite so harsh with the whites as he was with the Asians. He
booted them out of the country. He made a real mess of the country, and
a string of successive governments have not been able to get the country
back on track.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Unlike other colonial rulers, Britain established government, law
and order and an infrastructure that enabled the colonies to be
economically viable.

Not at first they didn't. The British empire started in 1600 with
the establishment of the East India company (just as they had the
Company of Adventurers into Hudson's Bay here) and for many centuries
these were the only presence and pretence of civilization.

True enough, not at first. Those were harsher times than now, and the
practice of the day was to establish trade monopolies. The had to master
the seas in order to get past the French, the Spanish and the Portuguese
or else they would have been shut out of the trade completely.

Quoted message said:

It waswn't until they had raped and pillaged the local resources that
they developed a social conscience.

I suggest that you look at them in relation to the other colonial
powers. The Spaniards were quite brutal in their suppression of the
Aztecs and the Incas while the English privateers were content to simply
steal from the Spanish treasure trains and the galleons hauling their
loot back to Spain. The Germans were quite violent in repressing the
indigenous people, wiping out most of the natives of Namibia for example.

I suppose the ultimate rape and pillage of a colony would be the French,
who have been known to use their Pacific holdings as a testing ground for
their nuclear weapons. Testing your weapons on the opposite side of the
planet, as far from home as you can possible get, has to be the ultimate
rape.

Do you consider Canada, Australia and New Zealand to have been raped and
pillaged? The US started off as a series of English colonies. Obviously
they had some problems with the Crown and revolted to form their own
government, and they went on to take over lands formerly controlled by
the French, the Spanish and the Russians. There is still a Commonwealth
of countries with British roots that spans the globe, more prosperous
than most countries and governed by democracy. That's not a bad legacy.

Joseph Littleshoes said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The header of this post is vaguely racist. The word 'Africa'

with a

Quoted message said:

question mark ? after it would, IMO, have been more appropriate:

Oh? Which race in Africa is useless

I was attempting to alter the header of this 'thread' to suggest a less
'Afro centric' and thereby less offensive dialogue.

That's very nice, but the thread started off about Live 8, which is to raise
awareness about the problems in Africa.

Quoted message said:

There is only one human 'race' and the less we emphasize regional and
social artificiality's the better.

This is not about social artificiality, whatever the hell that is supposed
to be. It's about the ongoing problem of the people of Africa. I trust that
you don't take offence at the use of the word Africans, because that is what
they are... Africans, just like the people of Europe are Europeans, and the
people of North America are North Americans. For some reason these Africans
(the people living in Africa) seem to be having a hard time feeding
themselves. They live on a continent that has lots of arable land, and
despite having had colonial rule to help them develop a decent system of
government and an infrastructure, they just don't seem to get it. Europe
has been doing a pretty good job. Australians, with an even smaller
percentage of arable land seem to manage. North Americans have carved
prosperous countries out of wilderness over a period of less than 200
years. Yet, the Africans just can't seem to get it together. Maybe you can
tell us why.