jaxvid said:
Gee, Botswana sounds like a swell place. I wonder why???? Oh yeah, it's a government and culture set up completely by the British. Those evil white guys sure do help out once in a while. Britian kept close watch over that country even after they cut it loose.
Yeah, European governmental values are still put forth in botswana...just like they are in Nigeria, Niger, Ivory Coast, Uganda, Somalia, Zambia, Swaziland, and Sierra Leone among others.
As you can see, these other countries are all just as super successful as Botswana, all thanks to the British and their influence.
*Ending sarcasm right here*
European influence was present in almost every colony they were in previously. European colonizers in many cases remained in the colonies after independence.
European influence does not guarantee a successful government. All the examples I gave you right up there in that last paragraph are countries that range from not so great, to just plain bad. ALL have had strong European influence, and all of them use forms of government with some basis in Europe.
And yet, some are successful and some are not. Did you REALLY think that just by having European influence a black country can automatically gain success?
No, you didn't. You aren't silly enough to believe that.
Do you know why some African countries have gotten somewhere? Their government has been responsible, while others have not. Botswana's history of solid leadership is the reason it did not turn into another Zimbabwe.
This is basic history, you should know that.
jaxvid said:
But the real reason the country is not the hell-hole every place else in Africa is? Diamonds. Yep, the DeBoer family runs the place like a family business.
Again, same story. Nigeria has LOTS of oil. Zimbabawe has at least as many diamonds as Botswana. The Sudan is also rich in oil.
Going by your logic("They're only rich because they have diamonds!") this should make those countries just as successful.
They are not. Do you want to know why?
They have not governed themselves properly. These countries are governed and run by blacks, just like Botswana. But Botswana has been responsible. Nigeria has most definitely not been(corruption abounds over there).
jaxvid said:
Notice how no one from Russia is rushing to Botswana to "improve" their standard of living? Yet the white lands of the world are struggling to keep native Botswanans from immigrating.
Wrong again. Botswana is not one of those countries that has a problem with emigration.
In fact, it's a lot like America in that it has a lot of trouble keeping immigration in control. Zimbaweans, Zambians and Angolan's pour in.
http://www.irinnews.org/report.asp?R...thern_Af rica
http://ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=21124
Try again.
jaxvid said:
Why? Cause Botswana has an estimated 40% HIV infection rate. Kinda reduces the "quality of life" a bit don't you think?
35%.
And yeah, it does lower the standard quite abit. Botswana would be even more successful economically were it not for this.
Yet despite the infections, they still manage to rank at 52, ahead of Russia and others.
Interesting.
jaxvid said:
Nice stats, by the CIA I see. And a lot of that stuff is objective i.e. standard of living, and corruption. But I bet the place is better then some considering the strong British presence and culture that was sown there, the same reason Hong Kong, and New York, for that matter are in good shape.
Yeah, just the same way Uganda benefitted from that super british influence.
You are aware that the british colonized A LOT of African lands, right? And you are aware that many of them are quite unsuccessful today, right?
Because right now it just looks like you have no idea what you're talking about. You can throw the "Yeah, it was the fact that they were a European colony that makes them successful" but that does not work when I can throw at you facts like Uganda, Swaziland, lesotho, Niger, etc, etc, etc.
It's plain to see that colonialism is not a significant factor of success...at all. In fact, it could be argued that colonialism is part of the reason for problems.
Hve you done your research? Because if you had, you'd know this as well as Ido.
jaxvid said:
So let me amend my point, 99% of the black populated places on the planet are sh!t holes, but occasionally a former white colony not yet decimated by black behavior finds itself in better shape then former Communist countries and current Muslim societies. WHOOP-DE-DOO!!
Once again...you're completely incorrect. 99% is really quite far from accurate anyway, just another exaggeration.
Secondly, your former white colony argument makes no sense considering the fact that every black country today has been colonized at one point or another. All countries in Africa have been, save for Ethiopia and Liberia, and even they have been occupied for long periods of time.
All the colonies are formerly white ones. All of them have had blacks running them at the beggining of their independence.
So are you saying that Sudan should be successful now because it's a former white colony?
Again...you make no sense. Are you sure you know what you're talking about?
Furthermore, i don't want to hear that "well, those countries were formerly communist!" talk. Those people are still whites, and the fact is that their supposed superiority could not getthem ahead of some of these blacks here. Besides that, Africa has suffered through autocracy and communism the same way eastern europe has.