30 Years and the african economy is still no better...

cells

Surprisingly it seems the GDP of Africa is larger than that of India even if you remove South Africa from the sums.

31 countries in Africa have a higher GDP/Capita than India

And only two African countries have a GDP/Capita lower than that of India in the year 2000.

In some ways this shows how poor India was and is but we don't generally think of India as in extreme poverty like we do Africa

Generali

Africans are getting richer too as tech and the effective use of aid pushes the people forward.

cells

Generali wrote: »

Africans are getting richer too as tech and the effective use of aid pushes the people forward.

They need a strong reliable cheap electricity grid so that they can actually utilize technology and build factories and other infrastructure. Once a nation hits 1MWh per capita it will grow rapidly. China blasted off at that point growing its GDP by 10 x between 2000-2015

India is about there right now, so the 2015-2035 period could be what 2000-2020 was for China assuming a democracy can build infrastructure as quickly and efficiently as the communist demand economy.

Maybe nations like the UK EU USA China should go out to Africa and develop its hydro-power as a catalyst for economic development

i8change

Originally Posted by antrobus
The place that Kipling had in mind was British India, which is where he was born, and where he started his career as a writer. India is not in Africa.

You're still struggling (dear of you) so I will try to help you one last time so you don't have to labour under this misapprehension you have about Kipling and his poem.

In Kiplings own words ([SIZE=+1]letter of 10 January 1899 to Robert Barr) [/SIZE] it's

"a poem about expansionism that will make you rejoice"

To him "expansionism" was about helping the "less evolved" nations, again in his own words

"the White Man's work, the business of introducing a sane and orderley administration to the dark places of the earth that lie to your hand."

To him "expansionism" was certainly not just soley about helping the people of the Phillipines, where Americas new found Imperialism was just starting to venture (hence the added subtitle to the poem and his personal letters of encouragement) nor solely about India where he spent around 7 years of his life, but about improving the lot of all "the dark places of the earth that lie to your hand" which would without a doubt, in his mind, have included Africa, it already having been colonised!

It's, to him, about helping those who cannot help themselves, not about filling his pockets with Gold from their mines. And his expansionist beliefs would have been shared by many other "Social Darwinists" of his time.

In his mind: Africa - being done, India - being done, the Phillipines - to be done

If you don't think he would have supported the colonization of Africa or that he would not have had Africa, as one of the places, in mind when he wrote his "pro-expansionist" poem or that he only thought the Phillipine and India natives should/would benefit from the expansionism he believed in then I am sorry but I just can't help you.

antrobus

i8change wrote: »

You're still struggling (dear of you) so I will try to help you one last time so you don't have to labour under this misapprehension you have about Kipling and his poem.

In Kiplings own words ([SIZE=+1]letter of 10 January 1899 to Robert Barr) [/SIZE] it's To him "expansionism" was about helping the "less evolved" nations, again in his own words To him "expansionism" was certainly not just soley about helping the people of the Phillipines, where Americas new found Imperialism was just starting to venture (hence the added subtitle to the poem and his personal letters of encouragement) nor solely about India where he spent around 7 years of his life, but about improving the lot of all "the dark places of the earth that lie to your hand" which would without a doubt, in his mind, have included Africa, it already having been colonised!

It's, to him, about helping those who cannot help themselves, not about filling his pockets with Gold from their mines. And his expansionist beliefs would have been shared by many other "Social Darwinists" of his time.

In his mind: Africa - being done, India - being done, the Phillipines - to be done

If you don't think he would have supported the colonization of Africa or that he would not have had Africa, as one of the places, in mind when he wrote his "pro-expansionist" poem or that he only thought the Phillipine and India natives should/would benefit from the expansionism he believed in then I am sorry but I just can't help you.

I think it is you that is struggling to understand that a poem that refers to the inhabitants of the Phillipnes as being "half devil half child" is clearly racist. Now granted, it is paternalistic we're-only-doing-this-for-your-own good racism, rather than malignant racism (no ethnic cleansing involved), but nevertheless it is racism.

Thus I assert that it is "casual racism that rhymes".

Why anybody would want to associate themselves with such view in this day and age, I do not know. Any politician of any party who went around describing the inhabitants of any nation as being 'half devil half child" would find themselves being disbarred, disowned, and cast into the wilderness, and rightly so.

i8change

So you have finally grasped the fact that Kipling having wintered in South Africa (one of his annual vacations there for the next decade) the year prior to the publishing of his poem in support of, in his mind, benevolent "expansionism" and having written many times in support of the Boer War, might just have had Africa (as one of the places) in mind when it was written. :rotfl:

Having side stepped that error of yours you now seem to struggle as to why in regard to the original post that suggests:-

when is the government going to wake up and realise that these countries are beyond help while corruption sees the majority of aid in the back pockets of those in power......

I think unfortunately giving money to africa is the equivalent to bailing out the greeks, a pointless expensive exercise in futility...

I may suggest that "The third stanza of Kiplings 'The White Man's Burden', still relevant today":-

"Take up the White Man's burden, The savage wars of peace—
Fill full the mouth of Famine And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly Bring all your hopes to nought."

Can you really not see why a stanza (do you do know the difference between a "stanza" and the whole poem?) that includes the line emphasized in bold and that suggests that the benevolent struggle is not always successful, might be relevant to the original post?
You must be highly lacking in your comprehension skills.

As to whether I would prefer Kipling with his belittling language, but benevolent aims, and his "boots on the ground" approach. Or whether I would prefer our current politicians who, whilst not using belittling language, are quite happy to take the more "hands off" approach and bomb and destabilize whole countries from afar, killing thousands in the process and causing a huge migration crisis?

Well I, personally, have endorsed neither, I stated that his third stanza was still relevant today, remember.

I guess which is preferred relies solely on circumstance:-

• I would not want to be a waiter/customer in a restaurant when a 500lb bomb hit because they thought, in error, that Sadam was there! (although they don't have belittling names for foreigners, would they do that here?)
• I may, or may not, have been one of the Indians that benefitted from the British Raj.
• Belittling names are hurtful!
• I would not want my country to be de-stabilized and ISIS fill the vacuum!
• I would not be so keen on self-rule if it resulted in a vicious dictator that removed "white" farmers and caused me to starve!

There are endless circumstances and the misery/death toll, certainly in regards to the efforts of our current politicians, is still rising, it's hard to say which are worse. Our so called "politically correct" politicians certainly seem to be capable great atrocities towards foreigners and there countries!

I guess anthropologists are right, tribalism is the norm, it is endemic, but perhaps some political types delude themselves.

An additional factor against our current politicians as I stated earlier is:-

"tribalism" is the norm, its endemic as any anthropologist will tell you. Starting at low levels with the likes of "soft johnny English" and getting more pronounced as you head south through the Middle East and into Africa. I find, ironically, that the (minority) deluded types that are fond of casting false aspersions with meaningless political words such as "racist" are those most likely to be supportive of mass immigration from these above mentioned areas.

Hence they are not only deluded and labouring under the false premise that racism/tribalism should not/will not exist but are complicit in the spread of the most pronounced forms of tribalism.

Thus you now have a rising "homeland" death toll via our current politicians "cultural marxism" inspired mass migration policy to add to that of their endeavours abroad!

At least I can turn my TV off when the next atrocity happens. I would not import them, I did not bomb them, it's got nothing to do with me.

I'll leave the, so called, "politically correct" to ponder the results of the paths they chose.

Anyway, at nearly 12,000 posts in 5 years I am not going to compete with you (antrobus) scribbling on your cell walls, as it were, so anything else you post will have to stand uncorrected.

wotsthat

The mods decided a thread about the zombie apocalypse of curling had no place on this board. Poetry about leaving darkies to it because they're beyond help - no problem.

Generali

wotsthat wrote: »

The mods decided a thread about the zombie apocalypse of curling had no place on this board. Poetry about leaving darkies to it because they're beyond help - no problem.

They were quite upset by the idea that the challenges facing the economy as a result of changing tech could be related to economics in some way, really quite upset and threatening all sorts of consequences. No explanation was forthcoming as to what constitutes economics so if you accidentally post something that a non-economist arbitrarily decides isn't economics you can expect to be threatened with a two week posting ban it seems.

wotsthat

Generali wrote: »

They were quite upset by the idea that the challenges facing the economy as a result of changing tech could be related to economics in some way, really quite upset and threatening all sorts of consequences. No explanation was forthcoming as to what constitutes economics so if you accidentally post something that a non-economist arbitrarily decides isn't economics you can expect to be threatened with a two week posting ban it seems.

Best to put economy in the title then it's all right.

The warm places thread has gone for a burton too by the looks of it.

Generali

wotsthat wrote: »

Best to put economy in the title then it's all right.

The warm places thread has gone for a burton too by the looks of it.

There was a refusal to define economics. If the impact of technology isn't economics and the price of energy isn't economics then it's quite hard to say what might be.

It's interesting that we who post on here provide free content to the owners of the website and effectively enrich them at our expense yet are treated in a high handed and capricious way.

I think my days here are numbered. I was told that my writing is valued but I don't think independent thought is which makes me think that some dissembling is happening by people who aren't moderators.