Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inzamam99)
    OK Miss (I think)
    Of course, :flutter::girl::bubbles:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by N.A.T.O)
    Genocide does not make a country rich. And need I remind you of the Hindu genocides in Bangladesh by the Pakistani army (East Pakistan at the time)

    Tikka Khan declared that he would implement the “Final Solution,” promising to kill 4 million Bengalis in 48 hours. “Army officials and soldiers give every sign of believing that they are now embarked on a Jehad against Hindu-corrupted Bengalis,” Consul-General Archer Blood of the U.S. mission in Dhaka wrote. Assisted by 13 battalions of mujahideen, Pakistan’s soldiers slaughtered three million people at the rate of 500 an hour over 9 bloodcurdling months in 1971 in what is today Bangladesh. Half a million women were turned into sex slaves.

    By August 1971, nearly 10 million Bengali refugees had flooded into India. At the peak of their inhumanity, Pakistani leaders persisted in presenting their country as a victim: they described India’s acceptance of refugees as an “Indo-Zionist plot against Islamic Pakistan.” Israel was nowhere in the picture, but India had by then trained and armed Bengali guerrillas.
    And the death toll is one million according to most modern historians- not that I expected you to know that from your copied and pasted excerpt.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by N.A.T.O)
    No it was not, the reason for colonialism was to secure trade routes with the far east and south Asia
    Yes because clearly instead of going through the Suez Canal, it would be much better if the trade just went through the whole of South and Central Africa to Europe :rolleyes: You clearly don't know anything about this and obviously you'd rather be blind in your ignorance than look up what happened.

    Bye Bye :hi:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inzamam99)
    Yes because clearly instead of going through the Suez Canal, it would be much better if the trade just went through the whole of South and Central Africa to Europe :rolleyes: You clearly don't know anything about this and obviously you'd rather be blind in your ignorance than look up what happened.

    Bye Bye :hi:
    i couldn't rep this because i repped ur previous post

    personal rep for you brah :borat:

    when it will let me rep again lol...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jaffacakejunkie)
    It would be nice if the people expected to make a difference actually did though... rather than leaving it down to philanthropy :/
    It seems that humankind has an increasing love for only oneself. Some do help bacause they really want to but some, for public image. And the majority just don't give a damn. Although we can do little things to help, it wouldnt change the bigger picture.
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by N.A.T.O)
    I am asking you what minerals were allegedly stolen at the time of British colonialism, how much of these minerals were stolen etc ?

    I am not asking about curent gold mining operations. And fyi gold mining in SA has made it one of the wealtheist economies in Africa. Stop changing the subject.
    FFS, gold was the main mineral that Britain wanted during British colonialism (read a book) and as how much, again, they did not put this on public records for very very obvious reasons (not to you though).

    But gold was a secondary goal, the primary was enslavement of the population, used as free labour with no rights whatsoever. When a nation is enslaved for centuries upon centuries it cannot progress economically or technologically and as I said we are still doing it......well, we pay them peanuts so they can procure everything for our well being and advancement and not theirs.

    Luckily during my years as a student I met many Africans in my class studying for engineering and the majority went back to their country and are offering this knowledge to help their people. From what I see they start to wake up. Unfortunately big western corporations are still stealing everything they have.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barden)
    i couldn't rep this because i repped ur previous post

    personal rep for you brah :borat:

    when it will let me rep again lol...
    This is exciting stuff, thanks very much

    Finally I will get payback for the 20 times I've repped you
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    just send all your immigrants over to canada. we'll take em, and honestly i think they'd be better off
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cybergrad)
    FFS, gold was the main mineral that Britain wanted during British colonialism (read a book) and as how much, again, they did not put this on public records for very very obvious reasons (not to you though).

    But gold was a secondary goal, the primary was enslavement of the population, used as free labour with no rights whatsoever. When a nation is enslaved for centuries upon centuries it cannot progress economically or technologically and as I said we are still doing it......well, we pay them peanuts so they can procure everything for our well being and advancement and not theirs.

    Luckily during my years as a student I met many Africans in my class studying for engineering and the majority went back to their country and are offering this knowledge to help their people. From what I see they start to wake up. Unfortunately big western corporations are still stealing everything they have.
    Curious, where do you believe sub-Saharan Africa would be now if Arabs and Europeans had never stopped foot on the continent? Obviously colonialism was detrimental (ignoring the positives it did bring) but to still blame neo-colonialism for Africa's woes is questionable.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KirstyK)
    Immigration in moderation is the best thing that could happen to a country.
    Wise said, indeed!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    lol, what an elegantly argued case you put forward :holmes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inzamam99)
    Yes because clearly instead of going through the Suez Canal, it would be much better if the trade just went through the whole of South and Central Africa to Europe :rolleyes: You clearly don't know anything about this and obviously you'd rather be blind in your ignorance than look up what happened.

    Bye Bye :hi:
    Dutch interventionBeginning in the 17th century, the Netherlands began exploring and colonizing Africa. While the Dutch were waging a long war of independence against Spain, Portugal had temporarily united with Spain, starting in 1580 and ending in 1640. As a result, the growing colonial ambitions of the Netherlands were mostly directed against Portugal.

    For this purpose, two Dutch companies were founded: the West Indies Company, with power over all the Atlantic Ocean, and the East Indies Company, with power over the Indian Ocean.

    The West India Company conquered Elmina in 1637 and Luanda in 1640. In 1648, they were expelled from Luanda by the Portuguese. Overall the Dutch built 16 forts in different places, including Goree in Senegal, partly overtaking Portugal as the main slave-trading power.

    The Dutch left a lasting impact in South Africa, a region ignored by Portugal that the Dutch eventually decided to use as station in their route to East Asia. Jan van Riebeeck founded Cape Town in 1652, starting the European exploration and colonization of South Africa.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by N.A.T.O)
    Dutch interventionBeginning in the 17th century, the Netherlands began exploring and colonizing Africa. While the Dutch were waging a long war of independence against Spain, Portugal had temporarily united with Spain, starting in 1580 and ending in 1640. As a result, the growing colonial ambitions of the Netherlands were mostly directed against Portugal.

    For this purpose, two Dutch companies were founded: the West Indies Company, with power over all the Atlantic Ocean, and the East Indies Company, with power over the Indian Ocean.

    The West India Company conquered Elmina in 1637 and Luanda in 1640. In 1648, they were expelled from Luanda by the Portuguese. Overall the Dutch built 16 forts in different places, including Goree in Senegal, partly overtaking Portugal as the main slave-trading power.

    The Dutch left a lasting impact in South Africa, a region ignored by Portugal that the Dutch eventually decided to use as station in their route to East Asia. Jan van Riebeeck founded Cape Town in 1652, starting the European exploration and colonization of South Africa.
    Copied from wikipedia and shows your lack of knowledge. Read a book ****.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inzamam99)
    Copied from wikipedia and shows your lack of knowledge. Read a book ****.
    Are you saying the article is false ?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eveiebaby)
    Precious metals. Africa was once very rich in them. They still have quite a lot of resources but the poor have no access to them themselves and often are forced to mine for international companies.

    Without a fairer distribution of wealth (as in the west)
    and a tighter control on dictatorships that want to keep the poor, poor, there will be little access to education and the poor are kept poor and uneducated.
    As you say, it still is -- naturally richer in many cases than the developed world. Despite most of its inhabitants being very poor due to bad leadership and civil warfare, the Democratic Republic of Congo, for example, has mineral resources that if extracted and sold would be worth more than the GDP of the United States and the whole of Europe combined.

    The fact is that international companies have the experience and expertise best to get such materials out of the ground as well as the capital and equipment etc.: it's by spurning international companies that the natural resources sit there doing no good for anyone, since poor Africans aren't suddenly going to form mining corporations. It's like if I were to find oil in my hypothetical back garden: I don't have the resources to extract it, so the best option would be to sell rights to a mining company and thereby gaining a substantial portion of the profits, rather than leaving it there until I have the ability and resources to get it out the ground and flog it myself (i.e. never). It might not be 'just', if anything ever is, that the mining corporations get their hands on my mineral wealth simply because of their size and expertise, but it's the best solution for everyone involved. Most of the profits from mining, however, have thus far been used to fund civil and international conflict (see the Second Congo War, the most costly in terms of life since WWII).

    It's pretty risible that you consider the West to have a fair distribution of wealth though. The US and UK have very similar levels of inequality to most African countries; it's merely that we have much more money, not that it's generally any more evenly distributed. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ncome_equality)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ikasu0)
    just send all your immigrants over to canada. we'll take em, and honestly i think they'd be better off
    Can I come too?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by N.A.T.O)
    Are you saying the article is false ?
    No, I'am saying you know nothing and are only posting the point which supports your view. In reality you don't know anything about events such as the Scramble for Africa.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jismith1989)
    As you say, it still is -- naturally richer in many cases than the developed world. Despite most of its inhabitants being very poor due to bad leadership and civil warfare, the Democratic Republic of Congo, for example, has mineral resources that if extracted and sold would be worth more than the GDP of the United States and the whole of Europe combined.

    The fact is that international companies have the experience and expertise best to get such materials out of the ground as well as the capital and equipment etc.: it's by spurning international companies that the natural resources sit there doing no good for anyone, since poor Africans aren't suddenly going to form mining corporations. It's like if I were to find oil in my hypothetical back garden: I don't have the resources to extract it, so the best option would be to sell rights to a mining company and thereby gaining a substantial portion of the profits, rather than leaving it there until I have the ability and resources to get it out the ground and flog it myself (i.e. never). It might not be 'just', if anything ever is, that the mining corporations get their hands on my mineral wealth simply because of their size and expertise, but it's the best solution for everyone involved.

    It's pretty risible that you consider the West to have a fair distribution of wealth though. The US and UK have very similar levels of inequality to most African countries; it's merely that we have much more money, not that it's generally any more evenly distributed. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ncome_equality)
    In a lot of African countries there isn't a big problem with income inequality for 99% of the population but you do get a handful of people in government with billions of dollars and are among the richest people in the world with property, investments and sovereign funds in other countries. This is money which should belong to the domestic community but is siphoned off and severely damages the country. There's also the problem of corruption and oil companies offering bungs to politicians in return for not paying taxes or compensating the local community damaged by pollution, oil spills etc. which also harm the economy.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I agree with immigration but there must be some rules and requirements so that only useful qualified people come here.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CombineHarvester)
    In a lot of African countries there isn't a big problem with income inequality for 99% of the population but you do get a handful of people in government with billions of dollars and are among the richest people in the world with property, investments and sovereign funds in other countries. This is money which should belong to the domestic community but is siphoned off and severely damages the country. There's also the problem of corruption and oil companies offering bungs to politicians in return for not paying taxes or compensating the local community damaged by pollution, oil spills etc. which also harm the economy.
    Sure, those are all problems undoubtedly (though, of course, we have lots of Russian billionaires in London whose methods of wealth generation we might disapprove of etc., even if they don't have serious influence over government), however, the most significant problem is civil and international warfare which African mining profits have tended to fund (see the Second Congo War, for example, the deadliest conflict since WWII). It's warfare that in addition to killing millions of people, destroying infrastructure and using up vast amounts of wealth has also stopped international companies from investing in such countries to the extent that they might otherwise. Compared to the domestic ills, the ills caused by international companies are minimal.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.