^ Yes but has been a well trodden path of empires over the centuries, keep the local populous fighting themselves so they are too weak to fight you.
That is total crap. Rhodesia was nominaly independent from the UK (British Empire) in 1965. Even after the 1970s Bush War/civil war that ended white minority rule and Mugabe changed the name to Zimbabwe it still had very high standards for all people, black and white, as a legacy of the colonial system. The problems of contemporary Zimbabwe lie squarely at the foot of Zimbabweans. Particularly those who have been in power 30 years. You can achieve a lot in 30 years of government! Even if it is the destruction of your country. Forget the people of Africa ever taking responsibility for themselves. Blame the foreigner - it is their fault!
http://www.globalresearch.ca/somalia-the-real-causes-of-famine/25725 It is a complex web but it is basically the IMF dictating what individual countries must do with their grain harvests (part of the debt slavery). The IMF would rather you SELL your harvest in the good times (receive low grain prices) rather than store it (famine protection). The problem is, when there is a drought you have no strategic reserves! so YOU are forced to BUY grain at the current HIGH prices ('drought prices'). Privatising water doesn't help either. So the "a lot of the hunger in Africa comes from the commodity bankers making money out of staple foods by trading in them" statement is true.
Yeah, it's similar as it was in documentary "movie" about Jamaica. It's cheaper for Jamaicans to get sugar from US, although Jamaica was (once) huge producer of sugar. IMF debt is like a drug. Once you are on it, your are ruined. No wonder Russians wanted to get off them as soon as possible. Since the mortality of children increased after the "help" by international organizations, the nickname (true name) for IMF is Infant Mortality Fund...
In many African countries there so many problems on so many levels I wouldn't even know where to start without sounding racist. Giving them money wouldn't solve anything. If anything it would only further enable corrupt leaders.
This is an excellent 4 Corners documentary on the story of 2 young girls separation during the beginning of the Mugabe regime and years later the white girls quest to travel back to Zimbabwe to try to locate her black friend "Mercy". Filming done undercover for obvious reasons. http://www.abc.net.au/iview/?series=2303988#/view/41811
Went on a two week excursion to Jamaica after my trip to Afghanistan in 2011. I was working as a civilian with a group of Aussie's and Brit's (some of my best friends to this day) at the ISAF / NATO headquarters. Jamaica is beautiful, and I was taken aback on how the division of class/wealth is so extreme. As I drove through the country, the roads are terrible, people was their clothes in streams/rivers and you can tell who has money by who has an air conditioner in their home. What a beautiful country, once you get over the culture shock. Sipping on Blue Mountain Jamaican coffee and taking a dip in the warm, clear water is heaven on earth...
You don't sound racist...you sound honest and what you said makes sense. The corruption runs deep, and more money would only make things worse.
I would love to visit it someday. I've heard it's also quite dangerous, but that is no wonder considering the poverty and shit. It's really sad how money countries are/were destroyed just because someone needed few more yachts.
Yes, certain parts, like most countries. And, most live in poverty. I stayed away from Kingston. I drove through the country and stopped on the road side for local produce, peanut porridge, red pepper shrimps, etc. I was approached by kids on bicycles, and I'd give them American Candy, Coca-Cola's and a few bucks. I literally spent $50-60 giving to kids who were mesmerized by seeing a foreigner (that was away from the resorts). I enjoyed the natural springs, even jumped 30 feet from a cliff into crystal clear water. Just a great time. If you ever want to go, I'll give you some travel tips so you don't end up on the wrong side of a gun getting robbed.
I think we're approaching the same destination from different directions. I thought you were blaming the British for the hyperinflation and Mugabe's policies. So my response to you was stronger than it should have been due to the mistake, sorry mate. The Brits did have a policy of independence for the African colonies dependent on majority rule post-independence, Smith and the whites set off on their own path when they realised that would alienate them in the nation they had built. Can you blame the British in the 1960s/1970s who were watching their empire disintegrate at a time of their domestic economy declining as a result of too many nationalised industries, just wiping their hands of some problems. Particularly with Rhodesia when both sides (colonists/blacks) didn't want the help that the British were offering. And militarily the Brits were fully engaged in trying to sort out spot fires in Aden and Malaya in those decades. I'm not surprised that by the time the Bush War started they didn't lift a finger, notwithstanding the knowledge they would have of Soviet funding and support and direct Cuban participation in rebal armies across Southern Africa . I once worked with a veteran of the peacekeeping force sent to Rhodesia. Wasn't like peacekeeping today - he describes how they were stressed out and without support from allies for their entire deployment.
Well then, in that case, Respect. Would be great to have a beer at some stage in the future Careful, you'll fall foul of the PC brigade for whom colonialism was a sin and an account which white males and our society needs to repay for the rest of time. I met a good many South Africans while I was in the UK many years ago, even the younger ones remembered what life was like before the ANC started destroying everything. In regards to the end of the colonial period I love the precautionary tale/movie: The Guns at Batasi. The female politician was everything wrong with UK society at the end of the colonial period. RSM Lauderdale and his Sergeants were part of an order that had been undermined by people like the female politician and was soon to be sent packing. And the African Lieutenant who was the rising national star, his speech towards the end of the movie where he revokes all his ties to the British who trained him and fostered his path to power - in that speech you can see Motubu Sese Seko, Idi Amin, Mugabe, Charles Taylor, the Mau Mau. All the tyrants who rose when the colonies folded, their rise and their character was predicted in that movie role. Can't find the speech on Youtube, there are only 2 videos posted from the whole movie. This gives a taste of the 1964 film, The Guns at Batasi, which I recommend: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9hkhKVq5rM[/youtube]
