Africa would be much, much worse if it weren't for the efforts of George Bush.

Quote :

"It may be the shining moment of George Bush's rule, but he rarely talks about it. Over the past five years, the President's Emergency Plan for Aids Relief (Pepfar) has saved close to two million lives by providing antiretroviral drugs to HIV-positive Africans. It has helped ensure 240,000 babies are born without the virus by giving their mothers drugs to prevent them passing it on at birth. The programme supports nearly 10 million people affected by Aids, such as children living with HIV-positive parents, with food, housing and education. Yet the initiative has gone largely unnoticed outside its core focus, sub-Saharan Africa."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/17/george-bush-aids-africa

Bob Geldof in Rwanda gives Bush his props

Quote :

"Mr. Geldof praised Mr. Bush for his work in delivering billions to fight disease and poverty in Africa, and blasted the U.S. press for ignoring the achievement. Mr. Bush, said Mr. Geldof, 'has done more than any other president so far.' 'This is the triumph of American policy really,' he said. 'It was probably unexpected of the man. It was expected of the nation, but not of the man, but both rose to the occasion.' 'What's in it for [Mr. Bush]? Absolutely nothing,' Mr. Geldof said. Mr. Geldof said that the president has failed 'to articulate this to Americans' but said he is also 'pissed off' at the press for their failure to report on this good news story. 'You guys didn't pay attention,' Geldof said to a group of reporters from all the major newspapers."

http://video1.washingtontimes.com/fishwrap/2008/02/bob_geldof_in_rwanda.html

Quote :

"Bono, the Irish rock star turned global gadfly, once said that Mr. Bush has done 'an incredible job' with his AIDS campaign. As it nears the end of its first five years, it has put 1.4 million people on life-sustaining therapies at a cost to the U.S. of more than $15 billion. The Bono-affiliated ONE campaign broadened its praise last month, saying Mr. Bush deserves credit for his fights against malaria and extreme poverty in the region. The White House hopes the trip will lock in congressional support for his initiatives, particularly as he is seeking a doubling of funding for combating AIDS to $30 billion over the next five years."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120251366075155091.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

10/5/2009 7:00:27 PM

too bad his efforts were/are being undercut whenever possible by The Fucking Pope

10/5/2009 7:16:09 PM

i would recommend anyone really interested in this to take HI 476 and HI 479. also HI 475 if you are interested in the history of South Africa. we have some quite well respected African scholars on staff at State.

10/5/2009 7:48:57 PM

Quote :

"^^^ why do you ask the question? you already know the answer. everyone knows the answer. It's because of submillennial shifts of the tropic and equatorial climate cells."

goddamn, I'm hilarious

10/5/2009 8:12:29 PM

10/5/2009 8:45:44 PM

it's because black people figured, "hey if the white man can profit from raping and pillaging my homeland, I can too!"

10/6/2009 5:30:34 AM

The white man didn't profit all that much from colonization of Africa. In most cases, the home country lost huge, as their colonies were operated as money pits that gobbled up budgets and provided nothing more than a playground for power hungry government officials.

10/6/2009 8:44:25 AM

This thread was probably one of the most interesting and civil discussions I have seen in the Soap Box.

That is, until hooksaw came in and immediately drew the overplayed ideological lines.

10/6/2009 10:19:02 AM

Quote :

"This thread was probably one of the most interesting and civil discussions I have seen in the Soap Box. That is, until hooksaw came in and immediately drew the overplayed ideological lines."

[Edited on October 6, 2009 at 11:28 AM. Reason : ]

10/6/2009 11:27:24 AM

Quote :

"Africa would be much, much worse if it weren't for the efforts of George Bush."

This is a fact that I supported with evidence. It is generally accepted by people across the political spectrum.

And there is nothing "overplayed" about pointing out the fact that George Bush helped save millions of lives in Africa and it would be a much worse place without his efforts. If you don't like this, you can suck eggs.

10/6/2009 4:32:08 PM

I think Dambisa Moyo's point was that all of the aid that GW Bush poured into Africa (as did his predecessors, NGOs, the UN, etc) has actually substantially damaged Africa in the long run. So while I'm sure GWB meant well, quite frankly it is the business-dealing Chinese that appear to be having the most positive long run impact.

10/6/2009 4:35:12 PM

^ Those on the front lines in the war against AIDS, malaria, and other diseases in Africa completely disagree:

Quote :

"Dr Francois Venter, head of the HIV Clinicians Society in South Africa, is one of a number of Aids doctors who is almost disbelieving in his praise of Bush. He said: 'I look at all the blood this man has on his hands in Iraq and I can't quite believe myself but I would say it's a bold experiment from the last people in the world I would expect to do it, and it is saving a lot of lives. You give these tablets to people and they resurrect themselves. To intervene on such a scale and make such a difference is huge."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/17/george-bush-aids-africa

10/6/2009 4:42:44 PM

I know. They've been saying that for the past 60 years as Africa has gotten worse, and worse, and worse. It it arguable that monetary aid spent to assuage white guilt . . . or the white man's burden if you will . . . has done more harm than colonization did in the first place.


An increasing number of Africans, you don't get much more front line than that, are calling for the termination of aid in the long run.


Hell, all we're really doing is borrowing money from the Chinese to give the Africans anyway.

10/6/2009 6:02:21 PM

^the problem with that is that most African states have not been getting worse for the past sixty years. From after WW2 to the early/mid 1970's there was respectable growth in most of the colonial and then post colonial states. education was trending upwards as was economic mobility in addition to the fact that over that time most Africans (sub saharan) gained more independence (politically speaking). the downturn didnt start seriously until the early/mid 70's. there are a number of factors influencing that but for that answer i will refer you to the book entitled Africa since 1940: The past of the present by Frederick Cooper

10/6/2009 7:39:34 PM

I'm not going to lie, I don't remotely have the time to read it and if I did it'd go well below a number of other books. Summary?

10/6/2009 8:59:59 PM

Quote :

"i would recommend anyone really interested in this to take HI 476 and HI 479."

Dr. Vickery? I took the graduate version with him last summer.

Quote :

"The white man didn't profit all that much from colonization of Africa."

Very helpful, this point. Certainly we all weep for the suffering the Europeans endured as a result of meddling in Africa.

Quote :

"This thread was probably one of the most interesting and civil discussions I have seen in the Soap Box. That is, until hooksaw came in and immediately drew the overplayed ideological lines."

Look, I typically want to slap hooksaw across the face just as much as the rest of you, but this time I think he's right. Whether W's work in Africa makes up for some of his other fuck-ups is, of course, dubious, but it currently looks like his AIDS initiatives -- which didn't get much play when enacted and which still don't today -- did quite a bit of good.

Quote :

"I think Dambisa Moyo's point was that all of the aid that GW Bush poured into Africa (as did his predecessors, NGOs, the UN, etc) has actually substantially damaged Africa in the long run."

Certain aid is less than helpful, sure. Perhaps it has impeded development. But that's not what we're talking about here. The aid sent to help "stop people from dying of AIDS" seems to have improved the "people dying from AIDS" situation.

Quote :

"So while I'm sure GWB meant well, quite frankly it is the business-dealing Chinese that appear to be having the most positive long run impact."

Eh, I wonder. The Chinese are certainly willing to invest usefully in development, and for now that's great. But I have to think that sooner or later they'll want remuneration in some other (read: ideological) capacity. And that's when things have a good chance of going back to shit.

10/7/2009 1:15:09 AM

nobody here has been to africa. just go. within the first 24 hours you will go "oh, that's why this place is terrible"

srsly. try it out.

10/7/2009 9:49:00 AM

Quote :

"So while I'm sure GWB meant well, quite frankly it is the business-dealing Chinese that appear to be having the most positive long run impact."

That is actually questionable. The economic development deals that the Chinese cut with African nations are pretty lopsided. For example, the Chinese promise to build all this infrastructure for a nation, but instead of using local labor to provide jobs and stimulate the economy, they simply ship in Chinese construction crews to do the work and then later run the mines and other extraction platforms they set up. This is better than nothing (a road is better than no road), but there are other questions too such as the unequal treaties and long term, unfavorable contracts that are being cut that may hurt these nations in the long run.

To be fair to the Chinese, some of their practices are no different than what Europeans did decades before. They're hardly the first to do it. Yet from my perspective, it boils down to a choice for most these nations between taking Western aid and all the patronizing and meddling strings attached with it or taking Chinese aid without conditions but under less favorable terms in the long run.

10/7/2009 10:41:28 AM

Quote :

"Certain aid is less than helpful, sure. Perhaps it has impeded development. But that's not what we're talking about here. The aid sent to help "stop people from dying of AIDS" seems to have improved the "people dying from AIDS" situation."

Are you sure? I read an article recently that suggested the AIDS meds stave off the dying, but it helps increase the spread, because people stay alive longer, and infect more people. The meds merely stop the person from dying, but they don't stop the person from being able to transmit the disease.

10/7/2009 10:46:05 AM

^Holy shit, that is one of the most depressing things I have read in weeks.

10/7/2009 1:11:22 PM

^^It's stuff like this that makes me paranoid about drug companies and for-profit medicine.

10/7/2009 1:26:35 PM

^^^It's possible. I hadn't heard it, but I suppose it would make sense.

But as Bridget said, that takes us to a really depressing place, where the best thing to do seems to be tracking down all the people with AIDS and shooting them to stop the spread, or at least putting them on an island somewhere and guarding it with a fleet to keep them from leaving.

At least there's this:

Quote :

"It has helped ensure 240,000 babies are born without the virus by giving their mothers drugs to prevent them passing it on at birth."

10/7/2009 1:49:46 PM

Quote :

"Look, I typically want to slap hooksaw across the face just as much as the rest of you, but this time I think he's right."

GrumpyGOP

You may "want" to do that--but I wouldn't recommend it. I do appreciate you acknowledging the facts.

The fact that Africa would be worse without Bush's efforts stands on its own merit. More obviously needs to be done, though.

10/7/2009 2:56:59 PM

If all of Africa dies of AIDS and malaria during the Obama administration, I wonder if conservatives will celebrate.

10/7/2009 3:07:15 PM

Quote :

"That is actually questionable. The economic development deals that the Chinese cut with African nations are pretty lopsided."

It is true they are absurdly lopsided. But that does not make their usefulness questionable. The biggest problem faced by African states is political instability, which is helped by having a colonial power. Second comes rampant corruption, which tends to be lessened by having a colonial power. Sure, having a colonial power rule over you is not going to make your country a haven for development, but it is going to prevent your country from being an economic mess. This is why many African nations are poorer today, after half a century of independence, than they were upon independence, after half a century or more of colonialism.

As such, in terms of humanitarianism, I see good things now that China is colonizing poorest Africa. Of course, history goes in cycles, and in a few decades after the people of these countries have built something worth stealing, the African elites will kick out the Chinese and restart the Malthusian race back to corruption and poverty.

10/7/2009 3:10:47 PM

Quote :

"Traditional war for land in Africa I noticed a photoseries from Kenia, Africa. I don’t know the exact details, but it is stated that in the beginning of March, members of the Kalenjin and Kisii-tribe were fighting for land. This happened in the Olmelil valley, western Kenia. Twenty deaths are reported. The reason why I am posting this, is of course because of the bows and arrows, which are clearly visible in the photos. I am amazed by the size of both arrows and bows. I just wanted to share these photos about traditional bws still being used by tribes for warfare. Discussion is welcome."

http://dengedenge.com/2009/10/traditional-war-for-land-in-africa/

10/15/2009 10:27:30 AM

those are some mean motherfuckers

10/15/2009 10:36:48 AM

I wonder if they are simply so poor that none of them can afford guns or if it is a cultural custom to not use them?

10/15/2009 10:55:39 AM