mr_trudo (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} mr_trudo) wrote,@ 2006-05-14 22:35:00 |
|
Africa, Poor Africa
I was looking at google scholar, being the intellectual I am, seeing if there is a corelation between development aid and actual development on the continent. The answer is, no. Actually, aid seems to dictate economic interest of the donors and not the country itself, even on the African continent. It's just an extension, murdurous political groups are overthrown and attacked by western funding near large deposit of oil but if it were in Africa, the west wouldn't show even if there was a widescale genocide. Remember, Sir Bob Geldof is knight of the British Empire for a reason though I am sure he would tell me to fuck off as he claims his heart is in the right place. But there is no evidence that development has really helped as African countries just can't seem to get developed as their government and economic institutions are too weak and unstable thus requiring routine volience and corruption for survival the poor that just spread to the rich. The reason I give is hunger from overpopulation and desertification in my opinion, which the problems it creates is quite contagous throughout the continent. Nevermind AIDS orphans. The whole arguement it's Europe's fault to making countries with many different random ethnic groups is nonsense. Europe divided up much of South Asia too and they are doing much better. Even the Middle East is doing a little better. Look at any other country in the world, most have groups you can differentiate from and have and are developing? Has African countries routinely separated more than other parts of the world? No.
Oh, Inquiry on French Army participation in the Rwanda Genocide
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,
I was looking at google scholar, being the intellectual I am, seeing if there is a corelation between development aid and actual development on the continent. The answer is, no. Actually, aid seems to dictate economic interest of the donors and not the country itself, even on the African continent. It's just an extension, murdurous political groups are overthrown and attacked by western funding near large deposit of oil but if it were in Africa, the west wouldn't show even if there was a widescale genocide. Remember, Sir Bob Geldof is knight of the British Empire for a reason though I am sure he would tell me to fuck off as he claims his heart is in the right place. But there is no evidence that development has really helped as African countries just can't seem to get developed as their government and economic institutions are too weak and unstable thus requiring routine volience and corruption for survival the poor that just spread to the rich. The reason I give is hunger from overpopulation and desertification in my opinion, which the problems it creates is quite contagous throughout the continent. Nevermind AIDS orphans. The whole arguement it's Europe's fault to making countries with many different random ethnic groups is nonsense. Europe divided up much of South Asia too and they are doing much better. Even the Middle East is doing a little better. Look at any other country in the world, most have groups you can differentiate from and have and are developing? Has African countries routinely separated more than other parts of the world? No.
Oh, Inquiry on French Army participation in the Rwanda Genocide
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,
