[Atabong]

Originally Posted by froggy

I'm sure you are on to something here - probably you could expand it some more for me. Am I to understand that you are saying that principally, they are still here in our midst (controlling our affairs) and if so - am particularly eager to fathom - of what use to them would a strife-torn state be?

Do you by some chance know anything about neocolonialism, to begin with?

[froggy]

^^ other than the dictionary definition

...The state of poor, third-world countries which enjoy formal political independence, but continue to remain economically dependent on rich ...

it is not a term that I can claim to be well acquainted with.

But, yes, i accept as per definition, the coloniser can continue wielding influence.

What i cannot get is - can the coloniser instigate / influence / precipitate or acquiesce to chaos in the colonised?

A kenya in chaos can be a good market for british bullets, but how many bullets can we buy, and isn't refugees a bigger problem to the brits than a munitions market?

Im just trying to understand since I have no schooling in the subject.

[Msoto]

Originally Posted by froggy

^^ other than the dictionary definition


it is not a term that I can claim to be well acquainted with.

But, yes, i accept as per definition, the coloniser can continue wielding influence.

What i cannot get is - can the coloniser instigate / influence / precipitate or acquiesce to chaos in the colonised?

A kenya in chaos can be a good market for british bullets, but how many bullets can we buy, and isn't refugees a bigger problem to the brits than a munitions market?

Im just trying to understand since I have no schooling in the subject.

It is not so much about the the bullets as it is about reconstruction.

To create the need for dependence, we would become the trash cans for technology, for whatever they see as appropriate for us.

We would feel incomplete without British goods, British services. We would feel lacking. This endless market maintains the British economy, since everyone values something not intrinsically but because it is 'British' and 'British' know what is best for us. The commonwealth does not really exist to serve the needs of the nation, it exists predominately to serve the needs of Her Majesty the Queen.

I hope, I have demystified some concepts for you Froggy, this subject is actually coined as neo-colonialism.

[willpress]

Half the people in Africa ate maize meal yesterday.The other half just stared. . .that is the current status quo in Africa as we speak.Before we solve this problem i think many of the sober points raised here will remain just that.Forget tribalism,corruption and globalisation challenges. . .Poverty and food security are the main issues to deal with.
Unfortunately or not the very core of African history and institutions revolve around food.The number of proverbs and wise sayings centered on food is overwhelming and enough to spark major hunger pangs.So it may be argued that the wise men of Africa must have been well-fed. . .
With this in his genes the African is always hellbent on breadwinning.And that includes accepting bribes,running for public office,breaking into someones house,riggin elections or helping to push a stranded car to the garage.Its all a rush for the extra morsel. . .
I knw this is too simple a hypothesis but it does not hurt to try.Lets get a way of bringing food to the table of each and every African just as it was in the olden days where even outcasts had their right to nutrition.And then maybe, just maybe we will have wiser brighter faced Africans ready to deal with other problems.

[Atabong]

Originally Posted by froggy

^^ other than the dictionary definition


it is not a term that I can claim to be well acquainted with.

But, yes, i accept as per definition, the coloniser can continue wielding influence.

What i cannot get is - can the coloniser instigate / influence / precipitate or acquiesce to chaos in the colonised?

A kenya in chaos can be a good market for british bullets, but how many bullets can we buy, and isn't refugees a bigger problem to the brits than a munitions market?

Im just trying to understand since I have no schooling in the subject.

Go anywhere around the world you'll find China plates, china rice, China motorcycles etc. Go anywhere in Africa all you find is Western guns, Western landmines, Western grenades, Western commanded figurehead leaders, that’s the harsh truth.

Also, ask all the 'former' British colonies, and they'll tell you the same story: they left as though overnight.By so doing they created vacuums and left behind toddling governments, weak unviable states that had to depend on them and this is not unique to the British.

[froggy]

Originally Posted by Atabong

...weak unviable states...

that much has always baffled me. for instance, why divide masais into 2 countries, why did they not create tanzania (or kenya) to encompass all maa? Somalis - why did they not bring the whole of somali territory under kenya / or somalia? Why have Luos, Acholis, Padholas, Langis etc in 3 different countries yet they are one community

the partitioning does not make immediate sense to me. got a clue what informed it?

[Atabong]

Originally Posted by froggy

got a clue what informed it?

Foresight. To know the reaction before the action is what is refered to as magic.

[Atabong]

Originally Posted by willpress

Poverty and food security are the main issues to deal with

I agree with you in many ways but this statement looks a little inadequate. A man with the proper education will not lack food to eat. Not Western Education but education that suit our needs.

A man/women with the proper education is more likely to distinguish between good and bad, more likely to find the strength to stay upright even in material poverty, less likely to be manipulated by corrupt politicians and others, more likely to be ambitious, more likely to educate his/her offspring, more likely to be conscious of human dignity, to respect and be respected, more likely to have food on his/her table, his/her girl child is less likely to be a drop out or indulge in sex for food, generally speaking he/she is more likely to take part in molding his/her own destiny and helping others to achieve their goals in life.

Proper education is the key that opens up the door into the kingdom of opportunities within us.

[Mkenya24]

There are two countries in the carribean, One is Haiti and the other the Dominican republic. These two are on the same island and share a common border with each other.

Haiti is mostly black and Dominican republic has a larger multiracial society than black Haiti. Dominican republic is prosperous and regarded as a middle income state. Haiti is the poorest state in the northern hemisphere (worse than many sub-saharan states including Kenya).

Closer home, why are countries with a large white population (S.A, Namibia and zimbabwe before Mugabes action) more developed than those with lesser or no white populations? Even Mauritius, the best country economically in africa is not demographically black, most Mauritius citizens are asian descendants. Makes me wonder.

[milanya]

Originally Posted by froggy

^^40 years after westerners pulled out, the Kenyan state is imploding solely because of tribal rivalry, hatred and mistrust. How are westerners to blame for that? We conduct shoddy elections, kill each other, ruin our economy and precipitate a civil war, then half of us die: which westerner is to blame for that?

The westerners ruled Africa by the principle of divide and conquer. Remember how the hate between the Hutus and Tutsis began? The Brits. Now, even in Kenya the tribalism we have is a result of the Brits taking African land, displacing natives and then presidents allocating land to different people. Then, we have the fact that some tribes were coaxed into collaborating with the settlers while others rebelled. Now some are seen as traitors.

Even look at race. Black people are the most looked down upon in most countries where they are not native. Why? They were brought in as slaves.