Replies

I can only echo your questions in the previous post. I have no idea why sub-Saharan Africa is the way it is. I suspect tribalism has some role. The ability to chop up your tribe's rivals without a second thought does not bode well for a form of government in which all, at least under the law, are equals. It appears that whoever gets in power favors their tribe, and when the government changes, it's the same old thing, only with a new tribe.

The other thing I don't understand is why dictators don't do more to endear themselves to the people. Hear me out. If I were a dictator, I'd take 90% of the international funds sent to my country and give the people an infrastructure, food, etc. They would be singing my name in the streets. Meanwhile, I've happily skimmed 10% off the top (and we're talking real money here) and no one really cares.

I'm not sure I share Bush's feelings about everyone being ready for self-government. Perhaps some of these African countries aren't. So, if you are going to have a dictatorship, why not a useful one? You do not have to rob and rape your country, a la Mugabe, to run an efficient dictatorship.

I have often wondered why the African countries haven't made the economic leaps of the Asian countries. I don't know why they can't look around the world and see what works - and it isn't tribalism or dictatorship.

I stand by my initial sentiment - I am glad that my forebearers were brought to this country. Even under segregation and Jim Crow, my relatives owned property, got college educations, had jobs, and were generally left alone by the government. I cannot say the same thing for Africans over the same time period.

And as for Anchan's comments re blacks living in hell holes - maybe this is where my conservatism is showing. It is 2003. If you are uneducated, unskilled, or a single mother of 4 kids by 4 different men, it ain't the white man's fault. You have made the choices that led you to those results. My sympathy with your plight is growing thin.

If I were a dictator, I'd take 90% of the international funds sent to my country and give the people an infrastructure, food, etc. They would be singing my name in the streets. Meanwhile, I've happily skimmed 10% off the top (and we're talking real money here) and no one really cares.

The Benevolent Dictator. Many people have tried that route, but the thing is, there must be a moral foundation, and strength of character, to carry this out. Most despots have neither, or at best, only one.

The ability to chop up your tribe's rivals without a second thought does not bode well for a form of government in which all, at least under the law, are equals.

Consider if you would, the environment.

Sub-Saharan Africa is a savage, brutal region. This gives rise to brutal cultures, with brutal rules of conduct. The Near East was the same, but look at what happened: empire after empire rose and fell, all recognizing that you didn't put the entire population to the sword, or reduce the cities and farms to ash, after each conquest. Local populace was assimilated into the conquerors. Cities were repaired, and redressed to the masters. Trade was restored, if it even died during the conflict.

Many of the Northern Eurpoean wars all revolved around the seasons - not because of weather, but because of the harvest. The peasants who were conscripted into the armies had to be released to get the crops in. This was an unspoken rule of war back then, because of the harvest failed, the ruling class would starve as well.

I would agree with this point: Africa has yet to evolve as a "culture"; even though the Euro-Eastern cultures have seen exposure, it hasn't taken root yet - I'll leave it to the next commentor to continue....