Shopping & Style1 min ago
Should We Get Involved?
60 Answers
http://
Should the UK, the US and France get involved in Africa's problems?
The Nigerian government doesn't seem to be particularly concerned neither does the African Union.
The continent of Africa is a very large continent containing many countries, some of which have various problems that are alien to civilised countries.
Will Africa ever join the rest of the modern world or are they confined to living forever behind the rest of the world?
Yes I know it upsets some to hear of criticism of Africa and it's people, but these issues must be addressed not for just us but for the good of the African people.
All I ask is "Should we get involved" "Get involved in a more determined manner" "or leave Africa to the Africans"?
Should the UK, the US and France get involved in Africa's problems?
The Nigerian government doesn't seem to be particularly concerned neither does the African Union.
The continent of Africa is a very large continent containing many countries, some of which have various problems that are alien to civilised countries.
Will Africa ever join the rest of the modern world or are they confined to living forever behind the rest of the world?
Yes I know it upsets some to hear of criticism of Africa and it's people, but these issues must be addressed not for just us but for the good of the African people.
All I ask is "Should we get involved" "Get involved in a more determined manner" "or leave Africa to the Africans"?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It's more of a philosophy than a fact, to be sure, but I don't really agree with the concept that these are "Africa's problems", as opposed to anyone else's. That this sort of thing is going on in the world today matters, as much to us as to those it more directly affects.
If nothing else, a violent and lawless Africa encourages yet more (illegal) immigration into Europe, so we can't pretend that it's something happening over there that we needn't care about. While we perhaps shouldn't directly intervene -- any excuse to cry "Colonialism" might well make things worse -- we should try to help in whatever way we can.
If nothing else, a violent and lawless Africa encourages yet more (illegal) immigration into Europe, so we can't pretend that it's something happening over there that we needn't care about. While we perhaps shouldn't directly intervene -- any excuse to cry "Colonialism" might well make things worse -- we should try to help in whatever way we can.
I recommend this book for anyone who is interested in Africa http://
It depends on the level of the problem, doesn't it? If France sent a full-scale military invasion to keep tuition fees at a level of only £3200-ish a year, then I'd not exactly welcome that. But if massacres in the scale of hundreds dying happened with any sort of regularity, I'd be pretty peeved if the rest of the world turned a blind eye.
More realistically, if the August Riots of 2011 just got out of hand and our own forces were unable to deal with the problem, then I'd have hoped that our government would a) ask for help from others and b) be given such help.
Any country's problems should, ideally, be dealt with by that country first. But if this doesn't happen, and the country's own government is ineffective, then there is a case for foreign intervention, so long as it's invited and well-managed.
More realistically, if the August Riots of 2011 just got out of hand and our own forces were unable to deal with the problem, then I'd have hoped that our government would a) ask for help from others and b) be given such help.
Any country's problems should, ideally, be dealt with by that country first. But if this doesn't happen, and the country's own government is ineffective, then there is a case for foreign intervention, so long as it's invited and well-managed.
SeaJayPea
/// Well, we involved ourselves in Nigeria and all over Africa for a very long time. Then we left a fractured country whose borders suited us rather than the population. ///
So you believe if it hadn't been for British constructed railways, British built bridges, British law, British education, and all the other British know how, you think that some parts of Africa would now have been better without colonialism
/// So I'm afraid that many of Africa's problems are of our creation, and that of other European colonial powers. ///
By that you then agree that we are better off keeping our noses out and leaving them to sort their own troubles out?
/// Well, we involved ourselves in Nigeria and all over Africa for a very long time. Then we left a fractured country whose borders suited us rather than the population. ///
So you believe if it hadn't been for British constructed railways, British built bridges, British law, British education, and all the other British know how, you think that some parts of Africa would now have been better without colonialism
/// So I'm afraid that many of Africa's problems are of our creation, and that of other European colonial powers. ///
By that you then agree that we are better off keeping our noses out and leaving them to sort their own troubles out?
This is how a colonist in the Guardian views matters, make of it what you will.
http://
http://
On humanitarian grounds, yes I think we should do something, the question is how much.
It is puzzling how other countries managed to cope with being part of someone else's empire but Africa countries seem to have more problems putting it behind them. How difficult should it be to agree a new border if they don't like the existing one ?
It is puzzling how other countries managed to cope with being part of someone else's empire but Africa countries seem to have more problems putting it behind them. How difficult should it be to agree a new border if they don't like the existing one ?
Unfortunately religious apologists of all flavours are unwilling to acknowledge the inconvenient truth that all the Abrahamic religions are fundamentally fascist philosophies who foundational texts encourage followers to impose their beliefs on the entire population of the planet.
Instead we are told to accept that events like this are just a symptom of extremists who twist the positive messages of these basically peaceful religions. To those who make this assessment I ask only that they read the books to see that it is they who are mistaken.
Until we can publicly say that the problem is intrinsically linked to the tenets of these archaic beliefs without being accused of bigoted intolerance we will never address the real issues.
Instead we are told to accept that events like this are just a symptom of extremists who twist the positive messages of these basically peaceful religions. To those who make this assessment I ask only that they read the books to see that it is they who are mistaken.
Until we can publicly say that the problem is intrinsically linked to the tenets of these archaic beliefs without being accused of bigoted intolerance we will never address the real issues.
andy-hughes
/// 'Colon-ist'??? I know your appreciation of the left-wing press is less than bountiful AOG, but was this a Freudian slip rather than a simple ///
Yes sorry about that,it was due to my addresses on colonialism plus me not paying enough notice of the choices in my spell checker that were responsible for my slip, so it can't be blamed on Freud.
But it is rather unusual for you to pick me up on my spelling mistakes Andy, since you confess to being a regular offender yourself.
/// 'Colon-ist'??? I know your appreciation of the left-wing press is less than bountiful AOG, but was this a Freudian slip rather than a simple ///
Yes sorry about that,it was due to my addresses on colonialism plus me not paying enough notice of the choices in my spell checker that were responsible for my slip, so it can't be blamed on Freud.
But it is rather unusual for you to pick me up on my spelling mistakes Andy, since you confess to being a regular offender yourself.
I don't have the time really to investigate this properly, but is there perhaps some connection between relative peace of the transition from Empire and the population of indigenous people that remain? In the US and Canada for example, the Native population has been reduced to (in the US) somewhere in the region of 2% of the total population; in Australia, the Aborigines make up 3% of the population; Maoris are something like 15% of the total. But in Africa, most of the population remains native. There was little displacement if any.
I'm not sure what this means, if anything, but one possibility is that the strife between local tribes was essentially "put on hold" while the European colonialists had control, and then flared up again once they had left. This is more significant if the tribes were never destroyed by the invaders, but just subjugated.
That has some disturbing implications... but I only noticed this after OG posted, so I might be talking utter rubbish.
I'm not sure what this means, if anything, but one possibility is that the strife between local tribes was essentially "put on hold" while the European colonialists had control, and then flared up again once they had left. This is more significant if the tribes were never destroyed by the invaders, but just subjugated.
That has some disturbing implications... but I only noticed this after OG posted, so I might be talking utter rubbish.
