Quote Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog View Post
Quote Originally Posted by Narachon
Natives got a hold of? Give me a break! It's their country, after all! So you mean to say that Africa was much better under European Colonialism? Why do you think Africa is in the state it's in now? Who do you think destabilized the continent in the first place?
By far, yes.
So you agree that it was perfectly acceptable in the denial of the "fitness" of subjugated peoples in Africa for self-government then?
You really must be one of the few remaining British people still around, with fond memories of their "Great Empire" in Africa ....






Quote Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog View Post
Quote Originally Posted by Narachon
I would highly suggest that Marmite the Dog, and others who share and still believe in the anachronistic doctrine of "The White Man's Burden" ( in addition to those who do wish to really understand why Africa is in the sorry state it's in now ) to please read a very good book called " How Europe Underdeveloped Africa ", by the late Walter Rodeny.
I would suggest you read Empire by Niall Ferguson. It gives a very good account of how Britain gave everything the Africans needed to go on and make better countries for themselves (huge investment, industry, infrastructure, respectability in the world economy and education), but as anyone can plainly see, they have royally fucked it up.
Unlike you, I *do* plan on taking your suggestion and looking that book up. It's an interesting premise. Obviously, the British either did not do a good job of what you mentioned above, unintentionally or intentionally.
You also seem to neglect to mention in your post regarding your "Empire" book that Britain was just *one* of the European imperialist powers in Africa, there was France, Belgium, Germany, Italy, and Portugal. Britain may have had a fairly good chunk of the African population at the time, but did not have influence, direct or lasting, in other regions, most of which are the ones with the serious problems today. And when those countries,( England included, despite what you mentioned above ), suddenly gave those former African territories their independence, for the most part, there was little, if anything done to prepare them for actually running a coherent functioning Nation State - not because of their lack of "innate inablity" to do so. Also, you still do not continue to acknowledge the role that Britain and other European powers use and reliance on the strategy of the classic "Divide and Rule" doctrine, the use and manipulation of conflict between ethnic, religious and racial identities, in order to keep subject populations from uniting against the " occupying power ", in addition to the drawing of arbitrary Territorial borders around them for convince. As in the case of Britain, this left a terrible legacy of partition and/or inter-communal difficulties not only in areas of Africa, as in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), The Sudan ( the present Dafur conflict ), and Uganda, but in areas outside of Africa as diverse as Ireland, India, Cyprus, and Malaysia.
Now I've personally done a mission in the ECA and one for OCHA, so I've actually talked to and helped people over there in Africa. Yes, It's a nearly impossible and daunting task, but at least I've made an attempt to help out the suffering and hardships over there.
Unlike you.
I do have other books and links to show you, but I have a feeling that you wouldn't bother to read them. But I'm open enough to read your suggested book.
So do you have any other books that support your bias views of Africa that you can suggest that I can also look up, read, and debate to you?





Quote Originally Posted by Lily View Post
Quote Originally Posted by Narachon
But it as it stands now, the UN or any other outside organization or Nation State ( with the possible exception of China

And what about the UK, US, Australian and European companies that are firmly entrenched there?

The Burma Campaign UK: The Dirty List - Companies Supporting the Regime in Burma

I think you already know the answer to your own question, Lily. Even despite present and possible future sanctions...
Also, those same UK, US, Australian and European companies that you listed would in most likelihood not do anything to jeopardize their investments in Myanmar to the present government, because they could *easily* be replaced by their Chinese or Indian or Thai counterparts if they even attempt to influence internal politics. And as long as there are no economic consequences for the continued exploitation of Myanmar's natural resources, despite the ongoning humanitarian violations in that nation, there will be continued investment there.
But I agree, those companies that are doing business with the present goverment of Myanmar should be made public for all to know.



Quote Originally Posted by Mid View Post
China threatens the WORLD with the fate of the Burmese people

"If the situation in Myanmar takes a worse turn because of external intervention, it will be the people of the country who will bear the brunt,"
China's UN envoy Wang Guangya said.
As you can see, The People's Republic of China, is at the same time both the problem and possibly the solution to the whole situation....And not just in Myamar.....In a sense, China is now the new imperialist power ( ironically ).



Well, latest new is that The Junta has now appointed Deputy Labor Minister Aung Kyi "liaison minister," to to coordinate "contacts" with detained opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi . the concept and position of a liaison officer was suggested by U.N. special envoy Ibrahim Gambari during his recent UN diplomatic trip to Myanmar. So hopefully continued International pressure is starting to work on the present government of Myanmar for the good...