Pope in Africa talking out of his ass - seriously wtf????

Yes, but it proves my point, not yours. It shows that Africans know perfectly well how to farm, but food production is handicapped by a range of factors, including that the best land isn't being used to produce food at all. Then you can start to ask the structural questions like why the best land isn't being used to produce food, and that's how you start figuring out how the problems came to be.

That they would rather make money than feed themselves and all entailing stupidity IS my point.

Oh yes, I'm sure all those people starving in Africa are doing it on purpose.

This is the structural thing I'm getting at. You ever wonder how their economies came to be so reliant on a handful of cash crops? The reason is that during the colonial period, once slavery was over, crops were all an African country had to sell unless it had mineral reserves. Post-independence, you have all these shiny new countries that still have fundamentally colonial economies, and no money. So of course they continue to produce the crops- they've invested what little they have in them anyway, and it's the only thing they have to sell to make a little income.

So what you're saying is, it wasn't until you did the "research" that you came to see racism as a valid intellectual ideology? Very enlightening if not ironic.

I'd be interested in knowing what this research was. And by the by, Nietzsche wasn't an anti-semite.

you realy can't compare growing some stuff at home to feeding an entire nation

there is a reason there are schools for farming, you can't just excpect someone with no education in agriculture to be as efficient at farming as one that had a certain level of education. Everyone can go and throw some stuff into the earth at pray that something grows, but that's far away from effecient farming, you need to know how much pestecide to use and when to use it, you need to know how deep you have to ploug for the best results, you need to know when it is the best time to saw crop x and when crop y. And farmers in zimbabwe lack that detailed knowleadge to be as effecient at farming as the white farmers were, I am not saying they are too stupid, I am saying no one tought them this stuff and you need years to pick this stuff up by yourself

and I am having a hard time beliving that the climate changed basicly overnight the moment most of the white farmers were throwen out, I need to read up on that one, but I do remember an article some time ago that said that the climate is the same as it was 100 years ago and that there is still plenty of rain during the raining season (talking strictly about zimbabwe here)

production of wrong crops, well that leads us back to my argument that most people that are in power in africa are greedy idiots, but that's something the population themself has to sort out

Of course you'll get demonized if you start saying anything else but the goody-two-shoes "we need to help them, send money and food, because it's our fault they're made of fail, because Evil White Man colonized them..." speech. It's much easier, and more comfortable to just keep repeating it, and keep sending aid.
But then, reality is anything but warm, fuzzy and comfortable. Especially for the average African himself. Spouting out caricatural hatecore, like "let's kill all those niggers", because that's not going to help Africa either.

How was Africa before the first white man ever set foot there ? It wasn't a very nice place. There was death, slavery, genocide. There wasn't some kind of dream "African United People Paradise" all living happily together and dancing to the sound of the drums and eating fried chicken (sorry, couldn't resist) and suddenly colonization shattered the dream.
Actually, colonization brought what's considered, in our Western minds, as improvements. Like the end of slavery. Generally pacifying the tribal wars that used to take a huge toll. Bringing modern medicine and starting the humongous increase in population that's nowadays part of the problem. Building infrastructure, industry, etc.
Yet those were all done by European minds. Africans started to rely, voluntarily or not, on European (then Western, and I include communism in) ideas and practices.
African became dependant on the Whites. Even after decolonization, it didn't change, for various reasons. Modern day Africa is dependant on Western (and increasingly Chinese) assistance and trade for very basic things. And it's a self-perpetuating vicious circle that's fuelled by the humanitarian idea that "we have to help them".

For exemple, in rural Africa you have farmers who can't sell their production, because imported foodstuffs, or aid distributed by NGOs, is cheaper. What happens ? They're forced to leave their land and join the cohort of urban dependants. Then they need the imported food to survive.

What about medicine ? Its a good thing, right ? I mean, you can't see those little babies with the huge bellies on TV and not think "oooh it's horrible we need to help them !". So you have NGO doctors and nurses making sure those babies survive. And a generation later you get the same problems, only worse, because There Are Too Many People living on a biosphere that cannot support them. And I'm not even getting into the problems that massive immigration from Africa cause in Europe.

The whole way Africa's dealt with by the rest of the world, that is, like a cripple who need outside support, ensures it will stay that way. What Africa needs is get its future back in its hands. Without outside crutches that perpetuate the problems.
That would be harsh. It would be, basically, cutting the current ties between the West and Africa. No more humanitarian aid to help the little babies. No more cheap foodstuffs. No more easy emigration "safety valve" : if you're a corrupt or incapable leader, you'll need to deal with an increasingly pissed population instead of sending wave after wave of refugees to be cared for by Europe.
Oh, and of course the rest of the world should hold those leaders accountable. No more billions in aid money flowing to African leaders' Swiss coffers.

Africa would be forced to take its development back. Alone. At its own pace and following its own principles. Of course the others could help, but not with free money and stuff : instead with access to education and generally "showing a good exemple".
It would be harsh. There would certainly be chaos initially, and war, and starvation. It would be very hard to watch and do nothing. Especially since the Western public is now used to have "everything, now" instead of looking at the long term. Such a process would last generations, reshaping Africa in its own image. As if colonization hadn't existed. Whatever the end product would be, at least it would be African. Not something forced on Africans by others.

My point is that people know how to grow stuff. The way some of the posts in this thread have framed it, it's like Africans somehow missed the Neolithic agricultural revolution and have been catching up ever since.

How are they going to afford pesticide, exactly?

African farmers aren't so ignorant as to not know when to sow. If that was the case, they'd all be starving. Humans have been farming successfully for longer than we've known how to write things down, so a lack of science isn't fatal. That knowledge ain't going to help you if the rains don't come, or if they do come and end up washing away your house and topsoil, or if they do and you end up with malaria from the subsequent mosquito swarm. Or if you can't afford seed. Or fertiliser. Or a plough that doesn't involve a four-legged animal at one end. Or if your plot of land physically ain't big enough to give you the yields you need. Or if your crop gets eaten by locusts or something, or laid low by crop disease because you can't afford pesticide to defend it. Or if your crop is taken by predatory governments or non-state actors, assuming they don't just force you off the land completely. And unlike your counterparts in the rich world, you're not getting a cent in government subsidy. Not all of these problems are going to apply everywhere, but smallhold farming in Africa still faces challenges that would make most Western farmers sit down and cry.

The 'farmers' Mugabe gave the land to know less than bugger-all about farming because they've never done it. By some accounts, a lot of those farms aren't even being used to grow things any more. Give the land to actual farmers on a basis other than political necessity and you'd get results, just like you did before the ZANU-PF government stole them by force, but what Mugabe has done with them is just patronage and cronyism. He's using farms instead of state enterprises or toll roads, but it's the same principle.

I was referring to the climate as it was thousands of years ago when Invictus' wonderful irrigation networks were being made in the Middle East. Failing that, it isn't a revelation that Africa has extremes in climate that the industrialised countries don't have to put up with.

The cash crops are the often the only thing these countries have to trade overseas, their only source of foreign income. Their entire economy has been structured around them since colonial times. It isn't as simple a transition as you make it out to be.

There's no doubt that agriculture in Africa could be vastly improved, but the means of improving it are far more complex than, "Teach them how to farm". You're dealing with systemic, self-perpetuating structural and environmental problems on a massive scale.

Well it comes from a guy who thinks greed is bad, while sitting on an estimated fortune of 5 billon dollars...

That just seems really odd. However, in other news, new scientific evidence suggest a high risk of HIV infection dose not deter risky sexual behavior.

Because I live in a community where this is the case? I'll admit it isn't perfect, the desire for sex being what it is. But the high school doesn't need a daycare, and even when shenanigans happen, it tends not to be casual sex.

On African's food crops, everybody understands that most of the high production food crops will only grow in comparatively narrow bands of land which include what is considered the "Mediterranean" climates and include places like South Africa not the middle of the continent.

Also that it appears that agriculture has only ever been born in a few places around the planet. The Fertile Crescent had the most potential plants to fill this role and...surprise...that is where most of our calories come from. Mainly the grains and they are also relatively high in protein. Most domestic animals are from the same region as well. Most African Animals are effectively hard to domesticate for a variety of reasons.

These plants spread through agriculture into Europe, across to Northern Africa, but could not pass through Central Africa. It was not until Europeans brought it to South Africa that it worked. When it got too far north again (Into Central Africa), such crops failed again.

I wanted to add something else here. I am a supervisor at work and my most capable and hard working employee is a part time employee who happens to be from Africa. He is also an agricultural inspector for the state. I have never asked him in so many words but I suspect that he found that the United States was a better place for a hard working and educated individual.

And this has actually worked anywhere ever? There is a term for a person who keeps trying the same thing over and over again and it does not work although cannot remember the term.

I've found this forum to be quite the opposite - we're not racist too often if at all, and we do seem to love genocide and casualty rates with lots of zeros on them.



As for the Pope's comment, it was badly badly phrased. Could be taken out of context in so many ways, and bad ones at that.

Yes, it works in a great number of places, Felidae is absolutely correct.

Of course, for those who like sleeping around and don't like consequences or being told they're wrong, memory of such places rapidly slips the mind, or is actively surpressed. (Note - This is a general observation, not directed at you specifically).

Without reading the rest of the thread:

I understand what the pope means. AIDS is punishment from God. Condoms are an abomination in God's eyes. Therefore, the more you use condoms, the more he punishes you by sending AIDS.

An extremely stupid position, but one that probably makes sense in his eyes.

Yup, typical response. Maybe you should read the thread? That might explain a bit.

The excellent point was raised that the "controversy" the Pope produces is because he tends to say something he thinks means one thing but sounds like another. I've never seen any Vatican position saying AIDS is God's punishment.

Since you state that you do not have examples, that means that you are not going to force me to hunt for multiple sources on my point either. You look in various groups in history who were suppose to be waiting for marriage and that claim that they actually did so, you can almost always find traces which show quite clearly that the official writings are sanitized.

The other problem is, to put it quite simply, too many people lie about it. If they are going to have sex, I prefer that it is not dirty and people do not lie about it. If they admit that they are having sex, then maybe we can do something about it.

I meant to touch on this earlier:
Using the Catholic Church in specific, they create additional problems. Most people can relieve their own sexual tensions through masturbation. No body has even become pregnant or caught an STD through it. It is natural and likely 99% of all humans practice it. It is also just as effective as abstinence at that. Because the Catholic Church states that it is a sin, it forces just about everybody to break the rule.

Actually I have plenty of examples, I was simply not accusing you personally of being someone who sleeps around with little regard for, or attempts to escape, the consequences.

That does not sound like what you were saying earlier.

To paraphrase the Spoony One. With a name like that, you'd either be destined to become an STD expert, or a porn star.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2991537?cookieSet=1
a study on how effective condoms are at preventing AIDS

It seems nobody here is responding to the point about HIV not actually being blocked by condoms. The virus is supposed to go right through.
That's what some people say, anyway. And I think that is what the Vatican people have been told - which is why Ratzinger thinks condoms will cause more AIDS. Because they give people a false sense of security.

That is absolutely false. As the CDC puts it, "Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing heterosexual sexual transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. Research on the effectiveness of latex condoms in preventing heterosexual transmission is both comprehensive and conclusive. The ability of latex condoms to prevent transmission has been scientifically established in laboratory studies as well as in epidemiologic studies of uninfected persons at very high risk of infection because they were involved in sexual relationships with HIV-infected partners."

Hmm my sister's studying medicine and she was chatting to me about 3 or 4 weeks ago.. I can't remember how it came up but she also said that the AIDS virus can get through condoms. I assume she got this from med school....

I dunno, maybe it's some types of condoms or something?

First, there are lambskin condoms that will prevent pregnancy, but have zero ability to stop the transmission of disease. Sperm cells are relatively large and so can be stopped by the lambskin, viruses are many times smaller and get right through.

It seems to me that most of Africa's problems come from 2 sources:

1. Warlords or militant groups that want to make themselves rich, even at the expense of the rest of the people.

2. Distrust and anger that carried over from colonial times. The native people were exploited by Europeans and the basic premise that is taught is that Europeans are out to use you, so they don't trust the supplies and advice the Western world has to offer.