Is this harrassment ?

[BruceVC]

So basically after the ex-colonial powers were kicked out of the region rich with natural resources they and the imperialists kindly sat on their hands whilst the dumb brown folk rolled around in the mud unable to sort their **** out.

 

So we're basically going to dismiss decades to centuries of slavery, genocide, slave-wages and racialized economic subordination and exploitation as inconsequential?

 

And are we stating that meddling by, and subordination to, the imperialists simply did not exist or that their are we stating that their "involvement" wherein they cripple African markets through subsidization, forcibly liberalise them under the pretences of "aid" that at best allows them to meet the conditions attached to the aid received and more explicitly when they don't tow the line have their democratically elected progressive leaders overthrown and replaced with corrupt, military-dictatorships somehow had no effect on these countries economies or was somehow in their best interests?

 

Baroth there are factors outside of what I mentioned  that have negatively impacted the economic transformation of Africa and you have accurately touched on some of them. I am not denying these. For example during the Cold War both the West and the USSR fought numerous proxy wars throughout Africa and also supported, in some cases, brutal dictators because they claimed ideological loyalty to one side or the other

 

Subsidizes are still a contentious point, but the problem with blaming factors like colonialism and capitalism is what they do is absolve the current leaders from fixing what needs to be fixed within there own country as the reason for the failure is some emotional and nebulous factor  that happened  decades ago. Certain African leaders love to play the colonialism card to justify there own corruption and mismanagement of there economy., So I'll give you two modern examples

 

In 1990 Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe  embarked on radical economic policies of Indigenisation and nationalisation in order to stay in power. He basically destroyed any foreign  economic  investment when he took over any white owned farms without compensation and wanted to implement a policy where any foreign company had to give  51 % of its ownership to local Zimbabwean. Now just think about that for a moment. You are foreign investor and have invested money in Zim, you have also hired people and trained them and you also pay taxes. Now you get told you must  "give 51 % of your business away " to some local person who has done nothing to ever grow the business? Why would anyone want to invest in a country like that? This move by the Mugabe government lead to a massive flow of capital out of the country and most investors understandably not being interested in investing in Zimbabwe

 

And what did Mugabe do? Instead of backing down on these radical policies he blamed sanctions on the state of the economy. But there were NO sanctions that ever prevented any foreign business from investing in Zim, this is a very important point. For example  South African and Chinese companies have continued to invest in Zim but its not enough to grow the economy because most investors are not interested in the economic investment  proposition that Zim offers. And the economic woes of Zim have not effected Mugabe and his cohorts as he has benefitted from the private resource deals and lives a life of opulence while the majority of his country lives in poverty. So Zim is an excellent example of what is wrong with Africa. There you have a dictator who has managed to convince many people that he is a victim of the West but in fact its his own policies that have lead to the state of the economy of his country

 

And then Burkina Faso, the president has ruled for 27 years and wanted to extend his rule indefinitely. The people rioted and said " no way " and he has fled his country. So the country is now in a state of political flux and a military junta has stepped in to govern. But who is really to blame for the instability? Surly the ex-president thinking he could rule for life ? And another contentious point is how did the AU allow him to rule for so long and ignore the principles of Democracy. The AU charter explicitly says  " governments must adhere to Democratic elections ". So the failure of the AU to enforce its own rules is another major reason for the failure of Africa to achieve its full transformation

 

I can give many more examples but I think you get my point

 

In summary the main reason for the failure of Africa to uplift itself is really about the failure of certain counties and the AU to enforce policies and systems of good governance that will allow this African renaissance. You can blame certain things on colonialism and capitalism but they aren't main reason for the state of Africa

[BruceVC]

The Chinese are hardly benign philanthropists but at least they are giving something back in terms of infrastructure. They're far better than that bunch of hypocritical holier than thou carpet baggers from the Old World.

 

And going back to the original topic for a second, we tried the catcall video here to somewhat different results.

 " of hypocritical holier than thou carpet baggers from the Old World"

 

I have to say that is one of the funniest descriptions I have ever heard to describe Western investors

 

But you wrong, the Chinese are worse than Western investors because they don't expect good governance from African leaders so they help to perpetuate corruption and also certain African leaders are giving the Chinese major mineral right concessions so its a form of colonialism all over again as far as abuse of African resources is concerned

[BruceVC]

The Chinese are hardly benign philanthropists but at least they are giving something back in terms of infrastructure. They're far better than that bunch of hypocritical holier than thou carpet baggers from the Old World.

 

And going back to the original topic for a second, we tried the catcall video here to somewhat different results.

 

This is a very good article about how serious really is  this issue around harassment in big cities, I particularly like the part below

 

"

Professor Cooper also noted that in the New York video, heckling men appeared to be loitering on the street and were potentially from a less privileged background.

"There's actually an ethnic dimension there, which strikes me as being about men that belong to a more marginalised group ... asserting masculinity because it is what they have to assert - they don't have other social status to assert."

 

So in other words, and we touched on this, that initial video about the women in NY is really a skewed view of this problem because they based the results on the responses of people who are in a certain social and economic situation. This doesn't reflect the reality of every area or person in NY and in the Auckland video you can see a totally different response from people. And the main difference is the type of area the women walked through

[Volourn]

Oh, please. The 'professor' is using psycho babble to diagnose what someone is thinking without even talking to them. That's what quacks do.

[BruceVC]

Oh, please. The 'professor' is using psycho babble to diagnose what someone is thinking without even talking to them. That's what quacks do.

 

I'm not sure understand your point, are you disputing the analysis of the professor based on the context of the original video?

 

The first video irrefutably does show the women walking through areas of NY that are not necessarily upmarket and the comments do seem to be from people of a certain less privileged background ?

[Volourn]

But, their motivations - outside the fact they see an attractive woman and want to let her know  - is unknown. For all we know they could be pimps with plenty of beautiful women (and men) to lord power over. So, not marginalized at all.

 

All this proves is some guys (and girls as shown in other videos) are not shy about letting their eprverted thoughts out. Of course, the video also counts stuff like 'hi' as 'harassment' so it's also very dubious. I'm 'harassed' multiple times a day in my small city going by THAT definition. LMAO

[BruceVC]

But, their motivations - outside the fact they see an attractive woman and want to let her know  - is unknown. For all we know they could be pimps with plenty of beautiful women (and men) to lord power over. So, not marginalized at all.

 

All this proves is some guys (and girls as shown in other videos) are not shy about letting their eprverted thoughts out. Of course, the video also counts stuff like 'hi' as 'harassment' so it's also very dubious. I'm 'harassed' multiple times a day in my small city going by THAT definition. LMAO

 

Fair enough, we don't know the reality of the lives  of all the people in the video

 But he is taking about economic marginalization of the people making comments and how this effects how they identify with themselves, he is not saying they are marginalized because they can't get women or have girlfriends

[Volourn]

But, we have no way of knowing how rich or poor these men are. Plus,k it assumes that rich men would never catcall or harass. And, we know that not to be true.

Edited November 6, 2014 by Volourn

[Barothmuk]

Baroth there are factors outside of what I mentioned that have negatively impacted the economic transformation of Africa and you have accurately touched on some of them. I am not denying these. For example during the Cold War both the West and the USSR fought numerous proxy wars throughout Africa and also supported, in some cases, brutal dictators because they claimed ideological loyalty to one side or the other

Or more accurately for their economic and geopolitical usefulness.

Subsidizes are still a contentious point.

I made a note to reference a source more cuddly like the U.N.

 

but the problem with blaming factors like colonialism and capitalism is what they do is absolve the current leaders from fixing what needs to be fixed

Before “fixing what needs to be fixed” it must first be ascertained what needs to be fixed and how it needs to fixed. Correctly recognizing the impact of colonialism, imperialism and capitalism is a part of this.

 

For example...

In 1990 Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe ...

Spreading your third world country’s thighs to e dominated by foreign capital is not the way to solve issues of poverty and inequality. Mugabe has a **** tonne of faults but his anti-colonialism is not one of them.

 

And then Burkina Faso, the president has ruled for 27 years and wanted to extend his rule indefinitely.

Worth noting is that said president, Blaise Compaoré, overthrew the Marxist leader Thomas Sankara and undid many of his progressive policies in favour of more explicitly capitalist/market-oriented policies.

 

He was probably a bad example to use.

Edited November 6, 2014 by Barothmuk

[Zoraptor]

Plus Blaise C was spirited out of Burkina Faso on a French helicopter, and had extensive support from the french over the years. Certainly a bad example.