For God's Sake, Please Stop the Aid!

Of course if you systematically rape, pillage, and burn a continant for a few hundred years, you'd be astonished how little it can do for itself afterwards.

Colonialist practices have set Africa back centuries and continue to cause political and humanitarian disasters today. Perhaps our current aid isn't as targeted and as well thought out as it could be -- but that's not to say that aid itself is a problem.

What we ought to be doing is creating real and viable local markets, investing in infrastructure, and - most importantly - providing strings-free loans rather than the current pork-barrel programs the IMF favors.

The more excuses you make for others, the more dysfunctional they remain.

The more excuses you make for others, the more dysfunctional they remain.

And that attitude is the paragon of wealthy, white, male privilege.

On an unrelated note, how does this phrase make any sense? the more dysfunctional they remain

Protectionist trade policies by 1st world countries further hinder what should be the worlds vegtable gardens.

Agreed there. America and Europe's agriculture subsidies are appalling.

Never let it be said that you let a little thing like copyright get in your way.

South Africa is the only civilized part of that continent.

why? because it was run by whites for soo long? Have you ever thought of the effects of slavery and colonialism? And for all the corruption articles you guys are pasting, I'll have you know that Nigeria has improved dramatically over the past 8 years and i personally blame most of the corruption and military dictatorships on the western world. These guys were all backed by the US,UK, etc. as long as the oil kept flowing, they never cared, and still dont care. Darfur is a great example.
With regards to AID, I suggest you all keep your money. It makes no sense to me to offer grain(bought from foreign companies) at inflated amounts and call it aid, or test experimental drugs on poor children(See Nigeria Vs Pfizer), and call that aid, and then turn around and give ridiculous loans to these same countries to develop infrastructure, so you can keep them down. It's a lot more complex than

Africa was set back for centuries before the colonists came and will always be that way

In fact statements like that irk me tremendously. If your people stay away from us and our natural resources, we'll do just fine thanks very much.

I'm also curious why they "will always be that way." What, exactly, will dictate that Africa is always "that way?" Is there something intrinsic in the land? Maybe in the people? The inference is unclear, but bordering on offensive.

What???? When the colonists left Africa, the factories fell into disarray, trucks cars and farm equipment rotted where ever they happened to break down, the paved roads became overgrown with weeds.

Arrant nonsense; Africa was just perfect during colonial rule. What extreme racist ignorance.

That which costs nothing is of no value. There are plenty of good African entrepreneurs, and they are mostly women. I know an elderly woman who charges a few francs to recharge cell phones from a car battery. She takes her battery down to the next town on a bus for recharging. There are people who build tall wooden towers, so cell phone users can get a decent signal. Africa's infrastructure is slowly emerging, despite the government.

Africa's problem is not the stupidity of its people, though many of them are illiterate. Africa's problem is its lack of effective leadership. The same is true of the countries of Mexico and Guatemala, two countries I know very well indeed, my wife is from Guatemala. Capital markets cannot operate effectively when graft and corruption exist.

The West has enabled these dysfunctional governments by paying bribes. Do not presume to blame Africans for the wholesale destruction of their countries, given half a chance and a 50 dollar loan, every woman in Africa would become self-sufficient overnight. You are sadly mistaken about the nature of African Companies, they simply do not exist. The Lebanese culture essentially runs Lagos Nigeria, it pays bribes, and actively contributes to the disgusting status quo in Nigeria. Lagos has become the chief trans-shipment point for heroin in the world. Who pays the bribes? Not the Africans. Africa remains crippled with the active connivance of the West.

I don't think we are disagreeing. I don't feel Africa has one reason for it's current state but it has some fairly recognizable issues. Graft and corruption are inherently based in violence, violence is based in government thus a solution that leads to proper government will also lead to the end of graft and corruption. There isn't a group of people born corrupt, and I'm dubious there is even a stable culture that condones corruption.

Do not presume to blame Africans for the wholesale destruction of their countries, given half a chance and a 50 dollar loan, every woman in Africa would become self-sufficient overnight.

Was this meant as a reply to me or somebody else? I didn't address anything but one specific issue, that of Western aid not other issues that impact economic and political development in Africa. And I don't understand why you are biased to women being entrepreneurs, I'd assume there would be equal proportion between genders. If there is a difference I guess it'd be a cultural bias.

I have no opinion on current African companies, I'd be surprised if there truly was none at all but it's largely irrelevant to what I was saying. Given a secure environment, open markets in capital and goods it is logical for locally based groups of businesspeople to take off. The stable government is the hard part, but I think the article author was correct that the best way to end it is simply to quit feeding it. However to help the people versus the governments free and unbiased trade should be established at the same time.

Empire isn't the same thing as colonialism.

I'm talking about the systematic export of everything of material value, centuries of unequal trade practices, and -- in the case of Africa -- the enslavement of literally generations.

And what does this have to do with today's corrupt African leaders?

And what does this have to do with today's corrupt African leaders?

Nothing....

Except that it informs the population they "govern," the power structures they uphold, the borders they police, the economy they oversee, the culture they exist within, the foreign relationships they form, and the historical, political, and religious imperatives of their nation.

Nothing... and everything.

Why aren't you protesting the rape of Africa by corrupt Black leaders?

Why don't you write a column about it? Why have you not bashed these guys?

Why aren't you protesting the rape of Africa by corrupt Black leaders?

Why don't you write a column about it? Why have you not bashed these guys?

Because I view the leaders as a symptom of the problem rather than the problem itself. The problem is systemic.

Seriously -- do you think that it is the corruption of individual leaders in African countries that's causing this problem? If so... why does this seem to span administrations and even governments? Is corruption a necessary prerequisite to gaining power? If so, doesn't that constitute a systemic rather than personal issue?

To put it another way -- if it's the leaders who are the problem we should be able to send in special ops teams to solve that problem. Democracy or at least prosparity should spring up and everyone should be happy. Right?

So why haven't you written columns advocating "regime change" in Africa?

Dear observer, it is easy to criticise African leaders. They're literally the worst of the worst. It is much harder to acknowledge that that's just half of the issue.

So I ask, which is worse, a dictator in a fragile 30-year old state who without institutional restraint loots $1 Bil. and takes it to a Swiss Bank or the Swiss System which has had stable democracy for 1.5 centuries which takes the money knowing its source?

It's very easy to criticise African Leaders. I stand by my conviction that these guys were allowed to operate with the backing of the Western World. It is almost common knowledge that the Industrialized world helps to kill or keep the good ones down(at least in the past). The emergence of people like Idi Amin was backed by the UK. Mobutu was inserted by the US after they arranged Patrice Lumumba's murder.
At this point in time, the US claim to be in Iraq to avoid an impending ethnic genocide if they leave right? If this is so, why are they not in Darfur where there already is a genocide?
I dont want to dwell on this too muc and i feel we should look at what's happening now. A lot of these countries are wising up(Nigeria at least), The Swiss Banks are starting to co-operate with the government, and we are seeing the extradition and prosecution of many of these looters, it's a good start and i prefer to focus on that.
I just feel many of the guys that conspired to arm these dictators and turn blind eyes on their actions also have blood on their hands and can never hide behind the same lies for centuries.

Africa's borders... let us take Nigeria for example, which should be Africa's most prosperous country. Inside Nigeria's borders are confined

Hausas: found all across the Sahel in at least five countries, nominally Muslim, have implemented Sharia law where they are strongest, in the north of Nigeria, expelling tens of thousands of Christians from other tribes.

Yorubas: from the center of Nigeria, nominally Christian and animist.

Igbos: from the coast of Nigeria, better educated, have had contact with Europeans since the 1400s, nominally Christian.

At least 370 smaller tribes.

I lived through the Biafran War, when the Igbos attempted to secede from Nigeria. The river tribes are now rebelling. The Hausas are detaching from the rest of Nigeria for all practical purposes, imposing Muslim law.

The only leadership Nigeria produces comes from the barracks, not the ballot box. That's why Nigeria can't produce leadership. Niger Republic has never known an elected government. In a way, the only way Africa could ever come into its own politically is to abolish the colonial borders. This solution has always been known: both Nelson Mandela and Muhammar Khadafy have proposed the same thing, a United States of Africa.

First of all I strongly reject the use of the word tribe. Why do you people always have to take this flawed way of looking at the continent. The Niger Delta struggle has nothing whatsoever to do with ethnicity. It is being led mostly by Ijaws (the 10 million of which is by no means a tribe) but it is an issue in federalism, robber-baronism and sovereignty. How can you call Hausas a tribe? People united under a kingdom for many centuries? How can 30 million Yorubas be a tribe? Yorubas who were united under a complex constitutional kingdom for most of 800 years? The tribal narrative as default for talking about Africa is pure nonsense, and it stops a lot of people from understanding the continent.

Africa is one generation away from where people think it is. Unlike in the Middle East or Asia there is little disagreement about democracy and liberalisation being the way for example. The problem remains elites welded into a way of dealing that's about corruption and exploitation. But African governments have done a lot of reform in the last decade but how would you know when all you read about the continent is bad news? Just remember; wherever you are in 10 years that I predicted today, an unparalleled decade of progress for Africa.

I agree with many of your points though.

I will not bandy words with you, if I call them tribes, you know exactly what I mean. Nigeria suffers from its own endemic racism, as you very well know, Oluseye. It's obviously a Yoruba name. I lived through the Biafran War, if my guess is correct, you were too young to remember it. I watched Igbos hacked to death on the streets of Kano, your protests about "tribes" fall on deaf ears. Nigeria is perhaps the worst-governed nation in the world.

In the immortal words of Fela Kuti:

Whether you like or you no like
Army Arrangement

I don't know what you mean. Your use of that word is wrong, it is inexact and it is racially charged.

Is Nigeria one of the worst-governed countries in the world? Absolutski! How does that justify you calling Yorubas a tribe. You're wrong on that. There are 30 Million of them in some 8 countries. How can 30 million people be a tribe?

Oluseye in Yoruba means "God has done something miraculous that I deserve". "Eye" is a difficult word to translate.

Quoting Fela is always cool but it much less frequently as in this case legitimises misuse of words.

Oluseye -- "tribe" isn't about numbers. It is about cultural and familial identity. Tribalism is not a pejorative word -- at least not in the political sense of the word. It has strong and direct connotations about identity and association -- about how authority exists in the world.

But it's not racist.

I'd refer you to some of the contemporary political theory on the subject but I'm afraid it's not at my fingertips yet.

Thanks for intervening. I don't however see how 30 million Yorubas who for 800 years had a state qualify to be a tribe apart from being African and thus by default "primitive".

As for the word tribe here is my comprehensive take on its use. A look at its etymology, particularly in sociology and anthropology informs me that it came into this application when scientific racism still existed, and does have a racist angle to it that flows from that era.

All this talk of tribes is very silly, fellow. It is true, the Yoruba had their own nation, and would probably have it still, were it not for the Congress of Berlin, which divided Africa into its current obscene boundaries. It is also true the Yorubas call the Ibos "sharp" and the Hausas call the Yorubas "sharp", you wish to gloss over Nigeria's endemic tribalism, or the role of the dominant tribes in the wholesale enslaving and selling of those slaves to the White Man. Do not pretend such racism does not exist, Do not try to bluff me, I am the one person on NewsVine who knows Nigeria and Niger, I've lived this and seen its lasting consequences.

Africans do not enjoy hearing the truth about themselves, it is my observation. Nobody does, really. Scientific racism, my ass, tribalism is racism, and Nigeria suffers horribly from it. Tens of thousands of Christians are now displaced from the northern states, especially from the Jos and Bauchi areas, their churches burned, their homes looted. It is a mask, for the Hausas are Muslims and wish to push out all the other kufr tribes. Play these little semantic games elsewhere, the Hausa word is k'iyayya, prejudice, the secret hatred. A little Hausa proverb for you: kafircin mage alwala ba/ salla, the cat who washes himself is not preparing for prayer.

I've had discussions with Oluseye on this very topic in the past, and it's a hot topic. But I'd like to jump in and ask you a question, Blaise. Are the Basque people a tribe? They are by your definition. How about the Norse, the Slavs, the Magyar, the Britons, the Angles, the Franks, Germanic *peoples* and all the others we now call "peoples" or "nations".

For the record I don't object to the word. But it's not being used on me. No one calls the white Europeans a tribe or a collection of tribes (but we are, in the end).

In that list above, the ones you would call tribes are the ones who were known to the Romans and post-Roman scholars as tribes. In other words the Magyar, Angles and Franks. I think this is the reason western scholarship liked to term African (for want of a better word) nations as tribes. And I think that's the implication Oluseye objects to. As I said, it doesn't bother me. I think there are things the west has lost which we might recover by understanding the word tribe. But I wonder if I would feel the same if I was being called tribal by people who thought of themselves [NB and oh how history has proved them wrong and continues to do so each day] as "advanced" and "civilized".

All this talk of tribes is very silly, fellow. It is true, the Yoruba had their own nation, and would probably have it still, were it not for the Congress of Berlin, which divided Africa into its current obscene boundaries. It is also true the Yorubas call the Ibos "sharp" and the Hausas call the Yorubas "sharp", you wish to gloss over Nigeria's endemic tribalism, or the role of the dominant tribes in the wholesale enslaving and selling of those slaves to the White Man. Do not pretend such racism does not exist, Do not try to bluff me, I am the one person on NewsVine who knows Nigeria and Niger, I've lived this and seen its lasting consequences.

Africans do not enjoy hearing the truth about themselves, it is my observation. Nobody does, really. Scientific racism, my ass, tribalism is racism, and Nigeria suffers horribly from it. Tens of thousands of Christians are now displaced from the northern states, especially from the Jos and Bauchi areas, their churches burned, their homes looted. It is a mask, for the Hausas are Muslims and wish to push out all the other kufr tribes. Play these little semantic games elsewhere, the Hausa word is k'iyayya, prejudice, the secret hatred. A little Hausa proverb for you: kafircin mage alwala ba/ salla, the cat who washes himself is not preparing for prayer.

You're now dipping into the zone of saying rubbish. I know the truth, read my column. I don,t deny Africa's problems. To paint ethnic struggle as tribal is ignorant. Because Christians are attacked (including Christian Hausas) by Hausas, that makes it a tribal struggle?

Why don't we try putting Germans, French, Italians and English into one artificially defined country and see if there wont be ethnic conflict. Ah wait, that was what happened in Yugoslavia. Ah wait, the Basques keep fighting in Spain. Wait wait, Northern Ireland anyone? Whyt don,t you call those conflicts tribal? It makes you feel good to associate the word with Africans?

The fact that you lived in Nigeria does not mean you know jack or understand the country. You evidently do not. You talk about the role of dominant tribes in selling people to Slave raiders. That's quite ignorant; What role of which dominant tribes? Tell me about it Mr Nigerian expert.

Pretending racism does not exist , more nonsense from you. By any definition of the word race, Yorubas, Ibos and Hausas are of the same race, including by genetics So please shine your expertise on this discussion, in identifying where the racism is.

Unfortunately, the one person that cn not be convinced is the one who thinks he knows. You can see but not observe, know but not understand. That is your case. The problem in Nigeria (related to religious violence) is a weak state that in enough cases fails to prevent breakdowns in law and order. The causes of the breakdowns themselves are a bunch of real historical issues, mixed with urban poverty and ignited by politicians and thug rulers for selfish end. Contrary to what you think, there is a serious religious conflict that has existed because the Hausa-Fulani have had a 200 year Jihad to convert the Kafr, but it has very little to ethnicity. Nigeria is unique in being a country half Christian and Half Muslim. There is a real there there. In fact Christians are aggressively also evangelising in the Muslim heartland of Northern Nigeria.

I alm not trying to deny anything, I am just pointing out your ignorance, an ignorance that comes from using a framework to analyse the situation that is not real.

Afterall, all traditional power structures in Nigeria are more or less gone, and the machinery of state is more powerful than anything. The Sultan of Sokoto has no power beyond his palace. The Alaafin of Oyo is left to hnoting but his serial adultery. The state is in control in Nigeria so "tribal" frames are meaningless.

For you to dismiss scientific racism is incredible. For a long time, the settled thinking of learned people in the West who used this word tribe was of Africans as inferior. It's why they called 30 million Yorubas who had a state for 800 years a tribe but called Luxembourg a nation. It's why they never used the word tribe to define the Basque, or the Friuliani, or the Alsatians, or even the Magyar. It has a real direct and exact base in racism which has persisted up until now and this was transmitted into social science.

I am dipping into /what/ ? It is to Nigeria's lasting shame that it did not rely on its organic power structures after independence, and aped the West in far too many aspects. Now it must undo all this baturi nonsense (I hope you recognize the Hausa word) and leveraged what Africa has to offer in terms of its own long traditions. I do not use the word "tribe" as if such entities were savages, Nigeria is now reduced to a savagery people of a century ago would never have understood or tolerated. Nigeria-the-nation used to have a national anthem while I was a boy, containing a curious line Though tribe and tongue may differ, in brotherhood we stand.. Would that it were true, but it is not, as we both very well know. Tribalism is racism, and it is the single worst aspect of Nigeria.

I have furthermore stated Nigeria is an awkward conflation of mutually hostile tribes, a lie to its core. Whether the Sultan of Sokoto has power, the Emir of Kano does. The Hausa and Fulani I know, the Yoruba less so, but the Yoruba do not suffer from being divided across national boundaries to the degree the Hausa do.

You will forgive me yet another Fela quote, for he saw Nigeria more clearly than anyone else, and spoke up where others were silent:

Abeg commot for my face oja re. That one is "Shakara" (1972). Real Shakara oloje. We wanted independence and we got it. We also fought apartheid shouting "Blacks Got To Be Free" (1980). But where is the freedom in Nigeria? Where is the multi-party system? What we have is a system of "Chop & Quench" (1972). Waki and die. We want to be like America. We listen to BBC because we want to be like oyinbo for Britain. So, all we are, is "B. B. C. (Big Blind Country)". For us, multiparty system is about "Going In and Coming Out" (1972), but only the same people over and over again. Obasanjo dey kampe. Saraki dey, Ekwueme dey, Enahoro dey, Shagari dey, Gowon dey, Balarabe Musa dey, Shonekan dey, Jim Nwobo dey too, all na the same people – all na jan jala dem be. That is why they do selection and called it election; the end result will be a "G. O. C. (Government of Crooks)".

We won't make any headway unfortunately. A lot of what you're saying is valid and true. You do have some data. The problem is the model with which you process the data. Talking about ethnocentrism in Nigeria, you're talking about something real. Ethnic identity in Nigeria is very strong since most people have identified with their ethnicity first and the artificial nation next. Just after independence, the country,s constitution actually tried to work in traditional political systems into the new one. There was a House of chieves similar to the British house of Lords. Unfortunately all that has broken down.

Listen Blaise, the tribal frame is meaningless because Nigeria is a state, and its politics and organisation has been that of a state.

I agree that ethnocentrism can be defined as a type of racism. I agree that ethnocentrism and ethnic discrimination is rife in Africa. What I do not find valid is the tribal frame for discussing that.

I also don't accept the denial that people's differences are real, and calling them tribal is a way to dismiss them. Take Iraq where people talk of tribalism in explaining what is happening there. Iraq's problems are not at the level of clans, it is at the level of central government. Iraq is a state. What insight do we get from talking about tribes or clans there?

I have a great deal more respect for the tribal model than the current barracks-centric modus now in place

... what, exactly, is your problem with the word "tribe" ? I have lived in Nigeria, and never heard anyone complain as you do about the word. I do not use it pejoratively, in point of fact, I believe the "tribal" model to be a rather good one, well-suited to Africa and its needs. The word in Hausa is dangi, and is used to distinguish among Hausa as well as external entities. It's also the word for a team, or one's relations: tuwon 'dan dangi ba/ ya/ cika ruwa He who has a dangi will never encounter too many difficulties, his dangi will help him.

While Africa labors under the colonial borders, I contend it will never, ever make headway. Those borders are the lasting legacy of the Europeans. Africa for the Africans, I say. It is disgraceful to see the country I love, Nigeria, fall into the hands of crooks and spoilers. The dangi works, and would serve as a fine replacement for this oyinbo European-aping pseudo-Africa.

Blaise you can't be more wrong to say dangi=tribe. Dangi means kin. One's kin is not one's "tribe".Just what is the tribal model? Maybe if you explained that to me it would help.

Listen Blaise, working out a system that welds the traditional into the system is very important. I agree. At independence, Sharia became wedded into the Penal Code, and Customary law still governs many things in Nigeria, chief of all family law.

But you have to either convincingly show what this tribal model is or realise the serious flaw of that view.

You and I disagree over the definition of "tribe", in any event. You might be thinking kabila, which I interpret as "race", but dangi is more than kin, it's also tribe. Good grief, you're now arguing with me about Hausa, and you're a Yoruba, I've spoken Hausa all my life.

I am the one person on NewsVine who knows Nigeria and Niger, I've lived this and seen its lasting consequences

I beg to disagree on that one. As a Nigerian living in Nigeria right now, I would think i should know a little more than you. The major problem i see with you guys is the fact you dont seem to be here, you are quoting news sources and some people are going as far back as the 60's to reference civil war. I dont think those are relevant today.
We have our internal difficulties.(yoruba/hausa/ibo) but they are by no means our biggest problem and we always sort that out when it comes time for olympics or world cup anyways.

This divide and Rule tactic has been around for eons. It's not really about the tribes/ethnicities/what have you, nor is it about the leaders, it's about the puppetmaster, and who is that??

Blaise, dangi means kin. In fact, in virtually no African language does the word "tribe" exist. Even though you still have not told me what a tribe is or what the tribal model is In Yoruba, all people are called "eniyan" or "ara" which means "people". E.g; Hausa people, Ibo people, Chinese people. No word for tribe. The Yoruba equivalent of dangi is ebi which means kin or extended family.

You might know Hausa words but without understanding the society and how it works you don't know jack. I am not sure that you know Hausa more than me and I would admit being limited in knowledge of the language.

You and I disagree over the definition of "tribe", in any event.

For the umpteenth time, what is your definition of tribe and how does it apply to Yorubas, Ibos or Hausas or Ijaws who number in millions and are by every definition possible nations, within the Nigerian nation.

Kai. Dangi does not mean near kin, it's a common mistake in non-Hausa speakers, it specifically excludes immediate family, such as parents or children. May I urge you to learn the language, move to Kano, where the clearest Hausa is spoken. Dangi, dango, dangantaka. Synonym kabila, but that's clearly Arabic.

From the root 'dan adan, the human being, but 'dan adan in the singular shouldn't be used unless you're angry at someone.

Kin can exclude immediate family. One's extended family goes across many generations, and are usually traced to one single ancestor; it is a loose assemblage of nuclear families. You can even call it a clan. In Hausaland there are 100s of 1000s of those. Is that what you call a "tribe"? If that were to be the case, doesn't that prove that Hausas as a whole are not a "tribe"?

You still have not told me what your tribal model is and what on God's earth is a "tribe".

@mbrennan - I agree. As well, stop dumping crap we don't want on Africa, e.g. unwanted frozen chicken parts dumped on Africa by Brazil, the US and the EU that undermine the local poultry industry. One source here

link is here but actually you could easily find similar by googling.

mbrennan, I often wonder why people in the West are so attached to aid. Have you ever seen a large street demonstration or riot of Africans asking for more aid? What you see are Africans rioting for better infrastructure, democracy, good governance.

Humanitarian aid is different from developmental aid. Humanitarian aid should never stop. Afterall even the US received that after Katrina. When disasters happen, the struck need help. The poor also need help and poverty is a disaster, but charity never cured poverty. Never happened.

What works is investment. The money being given as aid, how about investing it in African infrastructure? If the investment comes back you get a larger pool of funds to invest to fight poverty, if not, you were going to give it as aid anyway. No loss.

I think that's a great way to view it. Stop the aid, start the investment. Invest in microenterprise, economic and technological infrastructure. According to Bono that is occuring. He's preaching the era of investment and the end of aid.

Investment = accountability and competition that breeds excellence. It will also have plenty who lose out. Perhaps a research team that can bring opportunities to private equity and corporations. Starbucks has made some strides. I heard Pepsi is doing some major investment in India's food logistics infrastructure.

Very interesting. Given the dominance of western style government, is it possible for a nation to develop in more organic/private terms? It's almost a move of isolation, but could be the way of the future given the rise of institutional costs and the decrease in institutional effectiveness. But my generation is just sitting back and "waiting on the world to change." John Mayer

Sure, it's possible to develop in a more organic form. The tribal entities become political parties, enter into power-sharing relationships with other political entities. Nelson Mandela has written a fair bit about how such things might be done.

See, it's the same problem in Iraq. A Sunni in Basra is a minority, a Shii in Ramadi is a minority.

If Africa reorganized into smaller, organic entities, with a sort of homeland and a diaspora throughout Africa, he would be represented by a (here I resort to a Hausa word) ba-fada delegate to a council. As all politics is local, he'd also need some sort of representation as a citizen of a particular town, by (yet another Hausa word) sarki, a local chief and complaint,k'ara resolver, who administers doka, the law as it is known in those parts, with his 'dan sanda constabulary arresting crooks, all the vide hakunci legal process would be kept local and reasonably fair. Africans are eminently reasonable people, they do understand justice and mercy. These stupid national entities actually hinder the process of African advancement.

Demand will be met. It's an amazing thing to watch a market work and develop without the "aid" and redundancy of government.

Blaise, didn't you spend time there?

Yeah, 12 years.

Spent time in Iraq or Africa?

I spent 18 months in Lebanon, was only in Iraq for a few weeks.

The difference is slave trade. 14 Million Indians were not taken in 400 years, even if a lot went into forced labour. In any case, quite a lot of people are living in extreme poverty in India. 250 Million. India has done better by keeping a stable democracy; and there have been almost no CIA or MI5 sponsored coups in India. Yes, how about India not forced into the shenanigans of IMF structural adjustment in the 1980s; (which Africa is just recovering from).

South Asia is not doing much better than Africa, and by the way, did you compare the levels of FDI to each region in the last 40 years? Africa has received very little investment.

Racists have to know that it is very real that Africa has been degraded and pillaged and it's not even over yet. Find another comparison Craig this one does not work.