Are some people incapable of freedom?

[mabus]

This news story is one example of the turmoil in Africa. Ethiopia is undergoing a famine, again. As are several other African nations. But rather than work together as a people to combat the hunger and end the famine, too many have resorted to tribal warfare and attacking each other with guns and machetes. This is just....ridiculous. Many of these people are, SOMEONE has to say it, EVIL! Not all of them, of course. But those that aren't are starving because of the evil people. Now, we Americans have had it beaten into our heads since childhood that the reason people starve in Africa is because of us. We somehow are directly responsible of every bad thing that happens in the poor nations of the world. And if only we just send them more and more of our money, they would rise out of hunger, because all they are is hungry. All they need is food, we are told.

It is my belief that they are responsible for their own plight We are not gods here. If you have a group of people who rape and pillage for the sheer fun of it, no amount of money on Earth can change that situation. They have to stop the mass killing and war and corruption and rape and torture and brutal oppression before anything good happens. Only with freedom and the understanding of freedom can they make it. Sadly, I don't believe they will ever achieve it.

...........................................
Rebels in Liberia Attack Capital; Shell Refugees in U.S. Annex
By SOMINI SENGUPTA

ABIDJAN, Ivory Coast, June 25 — Fighting between government and rebel factions for control of Monrovia, the Liberian capital, erupted today, and people ran frantically through the streets in search of safety.

An unknown number were killed or wounded while seeking shelter in an American Embassy annex.

Whatever hopes had been nurtured by a cease-fire agreement brokered last week by United Nations officials in nearby Ghana were dashed.

Today, the rebel groups said they would not stop fighting until they had seized the capital, while President Charles Taylor, who last week had said he might step down in the interests of peace, urged his supporters to "fight on."

"Your survival is my survival, my survival is your survival," Mr. Taylor said over the radio, according to an Associated Press report.

President Bush is to make his first visit to Africa next month. He does not plan to visit Liberia, but his trip has raised the question of American intervention in the conflict. Liberia, a small West African country bloodied by two decades of civil war, was founded by freed American slaves 150 years ago.

"Certainly there's a perception in the region that expects American involvement," a senior Bush administration official said in an interview this afternoon.

The British ambassador to the United Nations, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, called today for such action, on the eve of a Security Council delegation to West Africa.

According to a Reuters report, Sir Jeremy, referring to the United States, said, "If there were a lead nation that was prepared to take action in Liberia, then I think that would be very broadly welcomed internationally."

Two rocket-propelled grenades landed inside a United States Embassy annex, which is perched on a ledge overlooking the Atlantic Ocean. It had been opened to those fleeing the fighting, and thousands had crowded in, eyewitnesses said, only to be shelled this afternoon.

A State Department spokeswoman said two embassy employees were killed. Neither was an American citizen.

An American aid worker, speaking via satellite telephone from the capital, described seeing people filing up and down the streets this morning, "almost confused as to where to go," with mattresses and cooking pots on their heads.

A hospital operated by Doctors Without Borders, the international medical aid agency, had to be shut down for a second time in two weeks.

Analysts of the region have long pressed for American intervention in Liberia, pointing to what the British have done to bring peace to their former colony, Sierra Leone, and the French have done in neighboring Ivory Coast.

"There is a compelling argument on humanitarian grounds for U.S. intervention," John Prendergast of the International Crisis Group, a research and advocacy group in Washington, said today. "If we are seen to be doing nothing when the killing spree is unfolding in Monrovia, it will, to say the least, put a damper on President Bush's trip to Africa.

"Like it or not, the general perception throughout the world at this point is that given the French leadership in Côte d'Ivoire, the British leadership in Sierra Leone, U.S. leadership is required and expected in Liberia."

Publicly, Bush administration officials have said only that they are weighing a number of options.


KENYA: Thousands of refugees displaced by unrest at camp
IRINnews Africa, Wed 25 Jun 2003

NAIROBI, - About 30,000 Sudanese refugees have been displaced from their homes within the Kakuma refugee camp in northwestern Kenya, due to fighting with the local Turkana people which has claimed 11 lives.

By early Tuesday morning, eight Sudanese, two Turkana and one Ethiopian (caught in crossfire) had died due to the fighting, which erupted last week when the Turkana found a missing cow in the refugee camp, Emmanuel Nyabera, spokesman for the UN refugee agency (UNHCR), told IRIN.

Since then gangs of Turkana, some of them armed with AK-47 rifles, had attacked the camp leading to escalated fighting with the refugees who defended themselves using crude weapons.

About 22,000 of the displaced refugees were staying with friends and family on Wednesday, while 8,000 were camped in schools, churches and public buildings, Nyabera said.

UNHCR was providing food and water to the displaced, many of whose food stocks had been looted in the unrest, he said. Two mobile health clinics were also tending to the sick, as the main hospital in Kakuma had been forced to close.

Turkana and refugee leaders, who met on Tuesday, stressed they would try and contain the violence. The Turkana complained that the UN and aid agencies operating in the area were all catering for the Sudanese instead of the local people, while the refugees said their women were being raped outside the camp while searching for firewood, as well as having their food rations stolen during raids.

The population in the refugee camp is almost double that of the local Turkana community, which had led to periodic skirmishes since the camp was built in 1992. The main source of friction is competition for scarce resources, especially grazing land in the extremely arid region.

Nyabera described the atmosphere in the camp as "tense" on Wednesday, but said no further killings had taken place since the Tuesday meeting. By Wednesday, 25 police had been brought in to control the situation and more were expected, he added.

Further unrest was also reported in the town of Lokichokkio on Tuesday, as a spill-over from the Kakuma violence. UNHCR was forced to close its refugee transit camp in the town, where asylum seekers report on arrival in Kenya. The 335 Sudanese at the centre could not be moved, said Nyabera, because it was feared they might be attacked by the local people.

........................
and on and on and on....

 

[Myriads]

There are root conditions needed for a 'free society' to form and function.

It's not the people who are incapable.

Myriads

 

[Haltickling]

The Dark Continent

…It is my belief that they are responsible for their own plight We are not gods here. If you have a group of people who rape and pillage for the sheer fun of it, no amount of money on Earth can change that situation. They have to stop the mass killing and war and corruption and rape and torture and brutal oppression before anything good happens. Only with freedom and the understanding of freedom can they make it. Sadly, I don't believe they will ever achieve it.

Sorry mabus, you’re completely ignoring the historical facts. Fact is that the whole of Africa was divided into bits and pieces by the colonial powers England, France, Belgium, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Netherlands, and Germany. All of them exploited their colonies to the max, robbing them of most of their natural resources, damaged their environment permanently with their monocultures, took away the (genetically) healthiest part of the population as slaves, denied them their own cultures and languages, and never gave them a chance to develop neither economically nor socially. Most of these nations only started out into political “independence” after WW2, and the borderlines were drawn by the colonial powers, in complete disregard for social, cultural, ethnic or economical situation. The only part of society that worked in daily life was the tribal system. Our own brand of “civilization” was forced on them against their will, and they can’t accept it because it contradicts what they have experienced over thousands of years.

The power was almost never handed over to a democratically elected government, but almost always to local tyrants who were able to keep the uneducated people in check and proved “helpful” to the former colonial powers. In some cases, the war-weakened colonial powers were chased out by the strongest warlords. And let’s be honest, they were left to struggle with themselves, without more than token charities to help them getting started from scratch.

Some schools and hospitals were built by the colonial powers. But when they left the country, they also took away most of the teachers and doctors, and the money to run these institutions. The warlords were not interested in them, because the more uneducated the people were, the easier they could be held down. The colonial reign was simply replaced by the reign of the strongest warlords. They fought their age-old enemies to secure their own power and wealth. All those countries had less than 50 years to develop halfway-functioning societies. Europe took thousands of years for the same procedure, and the emigrants to America imported the European cultures by and large, forming a new one; America never had to start from scratch, and Europe had enough time to develop their own civilization..

And “tribal warfare”? There was a big civil war in America. “Tribal warfare”? The complete extinction and general genocide of the Native Americans by the white immigrants. “Tribal warfare”? There was mass murder during century-long wars in Europe, often within the same nations, and the last big example was WW2, less than 60 years ago. Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, most of them wars between communism and capitalism, are even younger. The ethnic cleansings in former Yugoslavia happened about 10 years ago. The war against Iraq is still fresh on our minds. “Tribal warfare”? Just as there are different nations and cultures within the white “race”, there are many more different peoples on the Dark Continent. Only the methods are different: they have Kalashnikovs and Machetes, we have tanks and cruise missiles. “Tribal warfare”? Honestly!

… And if only we just send them more and more of our money, they would rise out of hunger, because all they are is hungry. All they need is food, we are told.

Yes, were told that. But this conclusion is simply wrong: They need education, before anything else. Only in recent years, the methods of economic aid for development have been slowly changing. Assistance to help themselves, that’s the ticket. Educate teachers, send engineers for farming and irrigation to teach the locals, develop village-based groups of task forces within the tribal system, and so on.

I can’t resist to shoot an arrow at most Christian missionaries here: As long as they condemn birth control by contraceptives, as long as they teach the people to accept their fates as “God-sent”, as long as still existing economic interests of the West continue to influence the people in Africa, the problems will persist and grow.

I’ll even go one provocative step further: Famine has always been a very efficient natural agent against over-population. The only other method working as well would be a food pill that makes infertile at the same time. Ethically unacceptable, I know. But is it ethical to keep several hundred millions of people on the brink of starvation, just to increase their own problems, and to prevent them from strangling us some time in the future?

Sorry for the rant.

 

[avethibaltus]

I think Hal has hit the nail on the head with his response.

Africa is the only continent in the world where active genocide is allowed and even promoted on a regular basis. The predominantly white controlled, former slave holding and exploiting nations of the world seem to have a 10 million person per incident limit which must be exceeded before they even do anything to stop the carnage that goes on there.

Africa is also a prime example of the divide and conquer mentality that was used by the colonial powers to enable them to retain control of the continent even after they were long gone. I would put forward that the comparatively limited interventions that have taken place also serve to keep the situation unstable, as opposed to trying to come up with a long term solution.

If one or two African nations were to get the support that the US gives Israel for example, I believe that things would look a whole lot different there. But this doesn't happen and won't happen.

Due to the cultural diversity of the continent (they probably speak a thousand different languages and come from just as many cultural backgrounds) and continued exploitation it will take a lot of external effort and pressure or a much younger and stronger Nelson Mandela type of leader to bring Africa up to where it should be. Since none of this has happened, we in the "civilized" world are content to sit back and let the Africans get slaughtered - as long as not too many of them try to enter our countries without a visa of course.

 

[BigJim]

There seems to be a myth perpetuated about Africa. It says that Africa is a barren, poor, resourceless country. Total crap. Africa is the richest place on the face of the planet for natural resources; especially extremely valuable minerals like diamonds and gold. (Another good example is Brazil, whose exports are 80% foodstuffs, but has one of the highest rates of childhood malnutritiion in the known world.) So why are the people so damn poor? Well, Hal did touch on it, but there's more to it than that.

Africa has been totally crucified, not by us, but by the people who run ALL our lives. They just happen to crucify Africa more blatantly than they do America or Europe. I think people who make money out of misery and exploiting others have looked on Africa and it's resources like the Martians looked on Earth in the H.G. Wells novel, The War Of The Worlds. "Envious eyes" was the phrase I believe.

The biggest tool of Africa's impoverishment has been the world's financial system. People often believe that money is created by governments. Not true. 19/20th's of the money in circulation is actually money loaned out by private banks. But here comes the really arse factor of this discussion. Banks lend money that doesn't exist.

Puzzled? So was I, but here comes the backup.........

The Central Reserve that many americans believe to be a state owned institution, responsible for the financial security of the US (and therefore most of the world) is nothing more than a cartel of privately owned banks. And here comes a really confusing thing that I just can't understand............
Banks are LEGALLY ENTITLED to lend $10 for every $1 they have on deposit. This means that the massive majority of money in "circulation" doesn't actually exists as anything more than figures on a screen or ink in a ledger. You go to whatever bank you have your business with and ask for $15,000 to buy a car. They don't actually do anything. The don't mint any coins, print any banknotes, do any work, go to any expense. What they do is get comeone to sit at a terminal and punch up A.N.Oher Account#87483794873957 Sort Code 54-76-09---$15,000. Hey presto, money that never existed suddenly does exist, because it says so on a computer screen. No-one's done any work, or broken into any sweat, but suddenyl you owe them that amount of money and are likely to have to pay another 6 or 7 thousand dollars on top of it in interest.

Now take this to the national level......

X-Bank of X-Country is lending money to both sides in a civil war in Africa. Both sides spend themselves into unbelievable debt, to blow the shit out each other, make people homeless, commit murder and spend all the money on bullets and grenades instead of desperately needed food. After 10 or 15 years, the whole country is in debt so deep it's choking it and both sides have more or less ceased to exist because of the death toll. The war ends. (For now.) The country is in ruins, buildings are falling down, fertil land has been laid to waste and people are dying left right and centre from starvation. The solution? The new (setup by agencies in the West usually) government borrows even MORE money to re-build their shattered country. the result? The piss the money up against the wall because they're puppets controlled by financiers and top bods elsewhere in the world and the people suffer even more. All this while what little fertile food growing land they still have available is growing co-coa beans for the West's chocolate industry.
The result after 20-25 years? Most of the continent's wealth is paying billions of dollars/pounds in interest on debt that never existed in the first place except as figures on a screen tha took less than 60 seconds to create. Talk about a lucrative way to make money eh?

So while the West's banking families with their privately owned banks are making billions profit for zero effort or expense, billions children, women and men are starving to death, or existing in limbo while suffering from horrendous diseases like Berri Berri or Rickets. Just fan-f**ing-tastic. Just sign here Mr. Mugabwe/Lamumba/Pot etc. We'll take good care of your people and make sure they aren't ripped off.

This same scam happens to all of us whenever we borrow money for a car, holiday, new kitchen or whatever. We just don't starve to death as a result is all. Of course there's a big movement for "forgiveness of Third World debt these days, with figureheads like Muhammed Ali in the van. The banks are offering this forgiveness in return for Africa and places like Brazil handing over permenant right to their land to their creditors. So not only will they have nothing in this event, they'll have less than nothing. Sad.

So what's the solution? Well can someone tell me for starters why privately owned banks create the money in this world? What happened to governments elected justly by the people doing it? Governments could allow themselves the same allowance of lending as private banks do (to make sure inflation doesn't erupt as a result of printing worthless money) and lend it at a hundredth of the cost to people who really need it. A small adminsitration charge could generate the expenses and a marginal profit needed. Governents would actually make money this way, instead of having to borrow it from private banks like the Federal Reserve instead. So why isn't it done?

Good question........... Long answer. Try reading Parts 1 & 2 of World Corruption, Lying Politicians and the tragedy of 9/11.

 

[BigJim]

Forgot to mention.......... two previous presidents of the US attempted to implement a system whereby the government would take responsibility for creating interest free money, and got as far as the beginning of starting it up.

Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy.

 

[P50]

I second Myriads' contentions.

Ponder a question in starving countries, please.

If a farmer manages to produce enough food to feed someone besides just himself; what does he get for his work ?

More to the point,,,

Does he get to make a profit ?

Does he get to keep a profit ?

Does he get to decide (for himself and by himself) what to do with the profits he made on the last crop ?

All this is based on the idea that the farmer gets to own a piece of land in the first place.

 

[august spies]

i think the notion that americans have it drilled into their heads since a young age that the crisis in africa is the fault of the US is absurd, most people dont even know there is a crisis.

however when economic conditions become so bad, societies will break down, and things such as war and famine and disease will occur.

and when you have africa, a contenent with a history of being abused by imperial powers, paying millions of dollars a day to rich countries such as the US in "debt repayment", when you have countries like the us supporting and implanting some of the most corrupt and brutal dictators the world has ever seen in countries like congo, and when you have financial institutions such as the WTO banning the manufacture of affordable medicines to dying children in afria because it interfears with "profits" of mainly us firms. its hard not to blame global, mainly US capitalism for the crisis in africa.

its not that they have freedom and we love freedom, remembers it was this government that send experts on torture to south america to demonstrate tequnique on live subjects to military dictatorships.

 

[terorizer]

Escapable Incapabilities

There are a number of ways this question can be interpreted. I'm not sure my way honors of the spirit in which it was phrased, and if it doesn't I apologize. The answer for me is a conditional yes and a conditional no. By no means do I imply Kenyans or Ethiopians as a people or as a country are incapable of comprehending freedom. I do mean to say freedom is often (if not always), as much a mental state as it is a social or physical state and when the "root conditions" that Myriads mentioned do not exist, freedom in the social sense does not exist and that makes it unlikely freedom in the mental sense will exist. It becomes cyclical for many of the reasons introduced in previous replies. Nevertheless, history is packed with accounts of those born into oppression yet have achieved a physical freedom or have strived for social freedom, after "freeing the mind" as it were. Likewise, accounts exist of those who've had their freedoms taken from them, and in time, their mental state became a reflection of their physical state. All of this is to say, my experience and studies tell me it is more a matter of the individual, as to whether they capable of liberating their mind, regardless of external conditions.

 

[BigJim]

i think the notion that americans have it drilled into their heads since a young age that the crisis in africa is the fault of the US is absurd, most people dont even know there is a crisis.

One thing I wish we could get away from is this "the US is responsible for Africa, the UK is responsible for Ireland" bollocks.
Yes, people based in the US have caused billions of agonising deaths in Africa; yes, people based in the UK caused catholics in Ireland to be classified as second class citizens with restricted voting in elections and limits on what businesses they could own and run.
But why do citizens of these countries feel as if they bear theguilt for it? And why do people think terrorist groups like the IRA are justified by blowing up mothers and children in shopping centres with nail bombs?
Why the hell are citizens at each other's throats when they've got no bastard argument with each other? It's all shit and it's a a wonderful way of making sure we don't focus on the people who are really causing our misery.

and when you have africa, a contenent with a history of being abused by imperial powers, paying millions of dollars a day to rich countries such as the US in "debt repayment",

They pay very little of their debt money to the US. They pay most of it to privately owned banks, masquerading as "the Central Reserve". There is no such thing, it's just a collective for a load of robbing gits who aren't even remotely close to being state-owned or a state asset. There are plenty of banks based in the finacial district of the City of London, who are robbing Africa blind too.

when you have countries like the us supporting and implanting some of the most corrupt and brutal dictators the world has ever seen in countries like congo, and when you have financial institutions such as the WTO banning the manufacture of affordable medicines to dying children in afria because it interfears with "profits" of mainly us firms. its hard not to blame global, mainly US capitalism for the crisis in africa.

We support them, because we ARE exactly the same, but in disguise. How many ordinary citizens living in dicatorships think, they don't live in a wonderful country where they had to fight for their freedom? Not many I would guess. Our own countries are just as dictatorial to their own citizens as any other. Choosing the puppet of your choice every 4 or 5 years and not having any input into the laws that govern you between those "elections" does not constitute freedom. It constitutes an elected dictatorship. Democracy has great potential, but only if people drag their heads out of their arses and fight for it, figuratively speaking. What we got now, isn't freedom and doesn't even remotely resemble it. IT makes it even less free when critiscism of what masquerades in America and the UK as freedom results in people feeling like you're attacking the most sacred thing in their lives.