bongo bongo land
Comments
-
SpainSte wrote:pinarello001 wrote:SpainSte wrote:pinarello001 wrote:SpainSte wrote:
With...pinarello001 wrote:SpainSte wrote:Wrong choice of words... day).
Did...good.
...tune of approximately 20%.
We......and trade.
If you....
1. It ain't 'me...
And that is no justification, and frankly a terrible argument for giving Nigeria... (as the example mentioned previously) over £1bn in aid over the life of the current parliament. To be honest that argument hardly even seems related to the point of aid, and if it is then it certainly shouldn't be.
The UK should not have the highest aid budget in the G8 and our relationships should be based on trade, not aid.
Supporting the status quo, merely because it is the status quo is a folly.
Easy Tiger. I do not agree with it.
If its true that this administration has given Nigeria £1bn in aid, then it underlines my point about our trade and our reliance on oil. That reliance supersedes any arguments regarding human rights and corruption etc and also underlines our lack of a moral basis for 'giving' aid.
Shell, BP and other Uk agencies are very active in Nigeria with huge and lucrative oil contracts. You have pointed out the phenominal quantity of aid 'given' to Nigeria yourself - Then you try to say that aid and business is not intrinsically linked?!
Of course it is in our interests to maintain the administrative status quo in Nigeria, regardless of whatever abuses of human rights/the environment they are responsible for. In the event of a revolution it may compromise our position and allow other nations a road in.
BTW - I do not agree with A The way aid is given and B Who it is given to, your shooting the messenger. I was initially underlining a point that the foreign office for years has 'looked after British interests abroad'. The provision of aid is very rarely for strictly humanitarian purposes with no ulterior motive.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
pinarello001 wrote:SpainSte wrote:pinarello001 wrote:SpainSte wrote:pinarello001 wrote:SpainSte wrote:
With...pinarello001 wrote:SpainSte wrote:Wrong choice of words... day).
Did...good.
...tune of approximately 20%.
We......and trade.
If you....
1. It ain't 'me...
And that is no justification, and frankly a terrible argument for giving Nigeria... (as the example mentioned previously) over £1bn in aid over the life of the current parliament. To be honest that argument hardly even seems related to the point of aid, and if it is then it certainly shouldn't be.
The UK should not have the highest aid budget in the G8 and our relationships should be based on trade, not aid.
Supporting the status quo, merely because it is the status quo is a folly.
Easy Tiger. I do not agree with it.
If its true that this administration has given Nigeria £1bn in aid, then it underlines my point about our trade and our reliance on oil. That reliance supersedes any arguments regarding human rights and corruption etc and also underlines our lack of a moral basis for 'giving' aid.
Shell, BP and other Uk agencies are very active in Nigeria with huge and lucrative oil contracts. You have pointed out the phenominal quantity of aid 'given' to Nigeria yourself - Then you try to say that aid and business is not intrinsically linked?!
Of course it is in our interests to maintain the administrative status quo in Nigeria, regardless of whatever abuses of human rights/the environment they are responsible for. In the event of a revolution it may compromise our position and allow other nations a road in.
BTW - I do not agree with A The way aid is given and B Who it is given to, your shooting the messenger. I was initially underlining a point that the foreign office for years has 'looked after British interests abroad'. The provision of aid is very rarely for strictly humanitarian purposes with no ulterior motive.
I didn't say you did agree with it and non of my comments were directed directly at you, if you reread them you'll note they were all in the context of the justification you put forward as to why the aid should continue. I was merely posting the alternative view.
Of course its true ref the level of aid paid to Nigeria (this is just the example used), 5mins and "Google" (other search engines are available) will show this to be the case.
The UK receives only 8% of its oil from Nigeria, and over 60% from Norway. Enlighten me please, how much aid do we give to Norway?
Basically the argument you put accross (even if you don't support it) is that if we didnt give aid to Nigeria (as the example) then they would stop giving us their oil. Well, if you seriously believe that then its you that needs topinarello001 wrote:Wake up and smell the coffee
There is no evidence to suggest this. For example Italy has reduced its international devlopment aid budget drastically in recent years, so much so that it received a warning from the EU commission regarding this. Your going to need to help me on this...is Italy running out of oil or going cap on hand to OPEC as you put it? Well it seems not, Italy's average price for alitre of fuel is 1.82 EUR. Which is cheaper than it is in the Netherlands (http://www.energy.eu/).
I've already stated that the issue isnt about human rights. Its about need. If Nigeria can afford to men into space (which they will in tne next two years) and launch satellites (which they currently have around 4 or 5, if I am correct) then they do not need our aid money. Its that simple. Same with India - if a country can afford nuclear weapons and all the costs that involves, and launch submarines, they do not need aid. Even if we (the UK) does not save that money here and sends it to countries that actually need it then so be it.pinarello001 wrote:Of course it is in our interests to maintain the administrative status quo in Nigeria
I didnt say it wasn't, your twisting my words, I made no reference to the admistrative status quo, my post, and this entire thread is about aid. Not governments or regime change or anything else. I stated that to support the status quo (to continue giving aid to countries that don't need it, or need to sort out there own priorities with regards to their own people) simply because "thats the way it works" is folly. Nothing more, nothing less.pinarello001 wrote:Shell, BP and other Uk agencies are very active in Nigeria with huge and lucrative oil contracts. You have pointed out the phenominal quantity of aid 'given' to Nigeria yourself - Then you try to say that aid and business is not intrinsically linked?!
I never said that the two were linked and never implied such. You'll find that the Uk companies are most active in Nigeria due to our historical links with the country (and the regions that make up the country).pinarello001 wrote:your shooting the messenger.
Far from it. We're having a discussion, people exchange their views and discuss them, that usually the way it works.
0 -
If you colonise vast swathes of the world, (literally) beat it into submission, plunder its resources, destory the entire social wnd economic fabric and replace it with something so inappropriate and dysfunctional that the place becomes one of the poorest places in the world, the least you can do is throw a tiny bit of cash back.0
-
"destory the entire social wnd economic fabric"
not quite true now is it. im no historian or geopoliticist (actually i am a bit) but the social and in particular economic fabric of the places that the old world colonised was not exactly particularly developed, in fact imperialism meant that when these places were handed back they had an economic fabric in place that would not have existed, had they not been colonised.0 -
I am (was) a historian and I did specialise in colonial africa and what you're saying, in short, is just not true.
Think long and hard about your assumption of Europeans as civilised and Africans as uncivilised. It relates to the outrage over" bongo bongo land" language.
Think long and hard about the assunptions you make about Africa and Europe and think about how that reflects your views on Africana versus Europeans. Here's a clue: it revolves around idendity.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:I am (was) a historian and I did specialise in colonial africa and what you're saying, in short, is just not true.
Think long and hard about your assumption of Europeans as civilised and Africans as uncivilised. It relates to the outrage over" bongo bongo land" language.
Think long and hard about the assunptions you make about Africa and Europe and think about how that reflects your views on Africana versus Europeans. Here's a clue: it revolves around idendity.
A "historian" but obviously not very good at spelling.0 -
Yossie wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:I am (was) a historian and I did specialise in colonial africa and what you're saying, in short, is just not true.
Think long and hard about your assumption of Europeans as civilised and Africans as uncivilised. It relates to the outrage over" bongo bongo land" language.
Think long and hard about the assunptions you make about Africa and Europe and think about how that reflects your views on Africana versus Europeans. Here's a clue: it revolves around idendity.
A "historian" but obviously not very good at spelling.
What's your point?0 -
There is none because there is no point in getting into form of debate/bickering/argument/banter with you because you'll only put some sarcy comment on to suit your own needs then lock the thread or delete the thread completely at you own whim.
So nowt to do with me. My account must have been hacked. Oh no. Quel domage.0 -
-
ok fine, cultural you can have, but economic, you aint having that, so yaccording to you everywhere that was a colony, and we are not solely referring to african nations, economic fabric was destroyed by colonisation. please can you provide evidence to support this??0
-
Rick Chasey wrote:If you colonise vast swathes of the world, (literally) beat it into submission, plunder its resources, destory the entire social wnd economic fabric and replace it with something so inappropriate and dysfunctional that the place becomes one of the poorest places in the world, the least you can do is throw a tiny bit of cash back.
"Literally beat it into submission" - you have not got a clue.
Africa was always going to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 20th century, whoever went there. Before Kenyan independance, Lord Delamere was commissioned by the British Govt in 1957 to compile a complete record of dailly life in Kenya detailing everything that the British Government in connection to the administration was doing.
It took 3 years to complete, using hundreds of administration staff. I have the volumes if you want to read them.
It detailed imports, exports, watering and grazing rights of individual tribes, all records of arbritration between factions, translators, native employees of the British administration etc etc. This was to assist the Kenyans into a smooth independance.
Kenya was a huge net exporter of too many goods to list. It all went belly up in the oil crises in the early seventies. Same as many other former colonies. The oil crises exposed the deep corruption in these former colonies. Kenya had a railway, port and road network built by the British and it was all intact and running very smoothly until the British handed it over.
Our good familly friend District Commissioner Smith went on holiday to Urusha in 1967, 4 years after independance. He set his tent up and in the morning (bush telegraph) there was a gaggle of village elders. They wanted to know why he hadn't been there for a while. There was grazing issues, water hole problems, problems with generators that powered hospitals etc etc. He had to explain independance to them. The British afforded them more time and attention than the incumbent office of 4 years.
The British were invited into India by the Raj. India, population 300m, during the 'occupation' it was administered by 250,000 British - hardly the coercive occupation that modern historians like to present.
This whole 'Empire Bashing' phase we are going through is flawed. The History of our empire years is often twisted and contorted. If you want me to describe some of the atrocoties that the Mau Mau carried out - blatantly ommited from any domestic reporting, let me know. Rwanda on a smaller but just as brutal.
Empire Bashing is wrong because it is moral relativism. The French were at it, the Portuguese, the Dutch, the Germans, the Spanish, the Belgians. The Jesuits were barbaric.
We ruled 2 5ths of the world because we were better than all of the above. It was acceptable then, however, it is not acceptable now. Moral culture changes and nowadays moral culture dictates that we should change history for some obscure politically correct reason.
When we ruled, the world was at its most peaceful. It wasn't called Pax Britanicca for nothing. Indeed the global empire of capitalism is the most incidious empire this world has seen. It obligates and forces people into poverty.
Never mind the past, the global empire of capitalism is far worse and far more far reaching. Its consequences for humanity and the environment pose the biggest threat to our existence. The British Empire in years to come will be viewed as benign in comparison.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
brings a tear to the eye0
-
Rick Chasey wrote:Play the ball not the player yossie. Really not difficult.
Yes Richard, its not really that difficult. I think that public opinion says so.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:If you colonise vast swathes of the world, (literally) beat it into submission, plunder its resources, destory the entire social wnd economic fabric and replace it with something so inappropriate and dysfunctional that the place becomes one of the poorest places in the world, the least you can do is throw a tiny bit of cash back.
So you agree that UK PLC should subsidise the space programs of supposed developing nations?0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:If you [....] destory the entire social wnd economic fabric and replace it with something so inappropriate and dysfunctional that the place becomes one of the poorest places in the world,
I've got a history degree, I studied colonialism and specifically the Kingdom of Benin (now part of Nigeria).
Your quote above is simply not true, in the case of Benin (and Nigeria in general), and in many other cases.0 -
pinarello001 wrote:
Empire post
+1
We've disagreed about the nature of some of our aid spending but I totally agree with this.0 -
SpainSte wrote:pinarello001 wrote:
Empire post
+1
We've disagreed about the nature of some of our aid spending but I totally agree with this.
I'd give that a +1 as well.
I am totally cheesed off (Mods, please note moderate language) with the notion that the British Empire was evil and something for which we should continually apologise for. Some people would have you believe that most of the world's ills can be traced back to British Imperialism.0 -
Excellent postpinarello001 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:If you colonise vast swathes of the world, (literally) beat it into submission, plunder its resources, destory the entire social wnd economic fabric and replace it with something so inappropriate and dysfunctional that the place becomes one of the poorest places in the world, the least you can do is throw a tiny bit of cash back.
"Literally beat it into submission" - you have not got a clue.
Africa was always going to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 20th century, whoever went there. Before Kenyan independance, Lord Delamere was commissioned by the British Govt in 1957 to compile a complete record of dailly life in Kenya detailing everything that the British Government in connection to the administration was doing.
It took 3 years to complete, using hundreds of administration staff. I have the volumes if you want to read them.
It detailed imports, exports, watering and grazing rights of individual tribes, all records of arbritration between factions, translators, native employees of the British administration etc etc. This was to assist the Kenyans into a smooth independance.
Kenya was a huge net exporter of too many goods to list. It all went belly up in the oil crises in the early seventies. Same as many other former colonies. The oil crises exposed the deep corruption in these former colonies. Kenya had a railway, port and road network built by the British and it was all intact and running very smoothly until the British handed it over.
Our good familly friend District Commissioner Smith went on holiday to Urusha in 1967, 4 years after independance. He set his tent up and in the morning (bush telegraph) there was a gaggle of village elders. They wanted to know why he hadn't been there for a while. There was grazing issues, water hole problems, problems with generators that powered hospitals etc etc. He had to explain independance to them. The British afforded them more time and attention than the incumbent office of 4 years.
The British were invited into India by the Raj. India, population 300m, during the 'occupation' it was administered by 250,000 British - hardly the coercive occupation that modern historians like to present.
This whole 'Empire Bashing' phase we are going through is flawed. The History of our empire years is often twisted and contorted. If you want me to describe some of the atrocoties that the Mau Mau carried out - blatantly ommited from any domestic reporting, let me know. Rwanda on a smaller but just as brutal.
Empire Bashing is wrong because it is moral relativism. The French were at it, the Portuguese, the Dutch, the Germans, the Spanish, the Belgians. The Jesuits were barbaric.
We ruled 2 5ths of the world because we were better than all of the above. It was acceptable then, however, it is not acceptable now. Moral culture changes and nowadays moral culture dictates that we should change history for some obscure politically correct reason.
When we ruled, the world was at its most peaceful. It wasn't called Pax Britanicca for nothing. Indeed the global empire of capitalism is the most incidious empire this world has seen. It obligates and forces people into poverty.
Never mind the past, the global empire of capitalism is far worse and far more far reaching. Its consequences for humanity and the environment pose the biggest threat to our existence. The British Empire in years to come will be viewed as benign in comparison.Pinno, מלך אידיוט וחרא מכונאי0 -
UKIP were riding the crest of a wave after the local elections, but now, either all they touch turns to faeces, the press have started to portray them negatively, or both.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... droom.html
Not only managed to offend women, but inadvertently launched the 'Black Independence Party'
0 -
noooooooooooooooooooooo0
