41–45 of 45 posts
Even criminals have an interesting backstory, and if you look deeper into it, you might feel some empathy and understanding for why certain people act a certain way. There rarely are people who just kill because they are sinister and purely evil.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Vacuums. Vacuums aren't filled by the populace, they are filled by the strongest of potential successors. Often, one that the original manic was keeping at bay.
That actually leads to an interesting question. What happens if you just keep killing the bad guys? If you kill a dictator, then his evil successor, then his evil successor, does the next potential evil successor realize it's a bad idea and leave a decent guy in charge? Or do you just end up with chaos? Obviously assisination isn't this easy - but if it were?
But I imagine it has a lot to do with it being only alternative for these people. Just imagine you are born in an extremely poor area with no hopes of accomplishing anything. Better to take you chances as a rebel leader/cartel member because as short lived as it is, it's better than living and dying hungry in your small rural village.
A few years ago I was reading a story about the war in the Congo. I felt really guilty for not knowing much about what was going on. What I knew about it I picked up through reading The Economist or the NYT, but I didn't really have a good overall understanding of the war and the history of that part of the continent (despite having spent time living in Africa, too) So I went through Amazon and picked up some books a…
Yeah, that's what you're supposed to think. No shame in that. Most people barely have time to learn the official excuses, let alone dig around for the actual story.
Actually, Occam has a simpler explanation: all the wars and trouble in the region are the result of decolonialization, which is what we call the process by which the British, French and Belgian empires were confiscated by the US and transferred from colonial administration to post-colonial aidocracy.
This is sometimes called "independence," but by any objective indicator post-colonial Africa is more, not less, dependent on the outside world. "Third World" forms of government also owe much less to indigenous structures than the colonial regimes - for instance, the Indian Raj was much more similar to Moghul India than the postcolonial democratic welfare state. It also worked a lot better - surprise.
The writers you've been reading are institutional defenders of decolonialization. But try Occam's Razor on for size. Before decolonialization, not a peep is heard from the would-be aidocrats about how these countries are going to be completely screwed up once the Europeans leave. No, the "party line" is that the Europeans are at fault for not industrializing West Africa, etc, and instead retaining an agricultural and artisanal economy. And, of course, not employing enough Harvard-educated natives in government.
As soon as the transition in power is accomplished - not at all a spontaneous event, but driven by US diplomatic pressure - the Third World falls to crap. The steel mills in the jungle are all white elephants. The Harvard-educated natives are all "wa-Benzis." And the aidocrats responsible turn to... blaming the Europeans they confiscated Africa from.
Congo is a good example. You'll notice that your official Congo sources skate really lightly over the period of Belgian rule between the Congo Free State and "independence." There's a reason for that. Rescued from the memory hole, here's the first paragraph of a Time Magazine article about the Congo in 1955:
"In the Belgian Congo last week massed tom-tom drummers practiced a welcome tattoo. Prosperous Negro shopkeepers climbed up wooden ladders and draped the Congolese flag (a golden star on a blue field) from lampposts and triumphal arches set up along Boulevard Albert I, the spanking concrete highway that bisects the capital city of Leopoldville. In far-off mission churches, encircled by the rain forest that stretches through Belgian territory from the Atlantic to the Mountains of the Moon, choirs of Bantu children rehearsed the Te Deum. African regiments drilled, jazz bands blared in..."
The rest used to be online but now it's paywalled: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,866343,00.h...
(Much) longer discussion: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/08/from-cr...
I think (and hope) this is the first step in creating real connections between people in disparate regions. In building a movement, the first thing that is necessary is a good story. And KONY2012 will provide the story if he is caught anytime this year or the next. I'm not saying that KONY2012 needs to be the reason he is caught - there just needs to be a perception that it was the reason. There are a lot of lonely p…
Did you read the article? Do you really mean we need Americans to put pressure on politicians to support bad and likely deadly policies so that said American people can feel an (illusory) connection with people in the Third World?
A few years ago I was reading a story about the war in the Congo. I felt really guilty for not knowing much about what was going on. What I knew about it I picked up through reading The Economist or the NYT, but I didn't really have a good overall understanding of the war and the history of that part of the continent (despite having spent time living in Africa, too) So I went through Amazon and picked up some books a…
Pretty much every international situation that gets turned into a moral cause by some Western group - and even plenty of domestic problems - ends up being simplified, abstracted, and turned into something similar to what you're describing.
There are plenty of real problems in the world, and genuinely-motivated people probably can help mitigate them somewhat if they're willing to get involved feet-on-ground, but I'll bet that mass-media campaigns and 'raising awareness' often do more harm than good.