World Aids Day

[Benjamin]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/awareness_campaigns/dec_worldaids.shtml

A day late I know...

I don't know how may of you are doctors, but I think if the Pope decides to say the contraseption is not a bad thing, then at least in Africa the probblem might get better.

Maybe some of you are strict Catholics and agree with his stance even though it is costing lives but for the sake of Faith its worth it ...I dunno, I'm asking you.

[Void]

hmmmm the world aids day is on the same day with my country's natonal day

[theBlind]

/cynical comment
Imagine it's World Aids Day and no-one realises...
/end cynical comment

Seriously, I'd be mighty happy if the Pope would endorse condom usage in africa.
No gonna happen anytime soon, though.
I guess a generation of african parents killed or unable to support their children is no reason to change church dogma.
Excluding homosexual men (not to speak of women) from pristhood is a more pressing concern, you gotta admit that...

/end cynical comment for real

[Retroboy]

There's a whopping big difference between endorsing condom use and getting people to use condoms. I think the problem is a little bit too big for the words of a holy man alone to correct.

-- Retro

[Tiresias]

It would still be a step forward

[hiddensmoke]

yes the popes endorsment would be a step forward, now we just need tons of condoms and send them to africa.

[Benjamin]

There's a whopping big difference between endorsing condom use and getting people to use condoms. I think the problem is a little bit too big for the words of a holy man alone to correct

I compleatly agree with you retro, the probblem is alot bigger then this, but as Tiresias put it, at least "it would be a step forward"

[SquidDNA]

The theme for this year's World AIDS day is "accountability." It's intended to be a jab at nations who have not fulfilled their commitments to help the problem, but I can't help but apply it more broadly, and more bitterly: unprotected sex is dangerous. If you contract AIDS during sex, it was a risk you should have been aware of.

That's very easy to say in an industrialised country where ready access to education is plentiful, of course, but I have a difficult time believing that people in Zimbabwe just don't have a single clue what's going on. I mean they know it's a disease, by and large, yes? What level of ignorance are we looking at?

[Tails]

What level of ignorance are we looking at?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v43/barevaperjan/idiocy.jpg

[SquidDNA]

Please don't misunderstand, I know people are resistant to the idea of putting rubber sheaths on their penises. I just want to know if it's because they don't know about the risks, or they don't care about them. I don't think the latter is necessarily outright stupid. Given the nasty realities of African poverty it could be just one more thing to worry about.

[Benjamin]

Yes, people in some parts of Africa do not have access to good education, if any at all. That does certainly not make them stupid.
Alot of people in thise parts are very religious, and one of the many popular reiligions in these parts is Catholicism. If the Pope did endorce the use of condoms, then at least we may see some improvment.

[Penitent]

Some of them really do not have a single clue, I watched a documentary once where this guy was travelling around teaching people about aids, one man said to him that condoms cut off the flow of oxygen to the penis and stop it "breathing", thats the level of ignorance in some areas I guess.

[FatalTheRabbit]

People need to stop using religion as a scapegoat. The pope is not the reason for aids in africa.

:lol:

[Da_Fish]

The pope is not the reason for aids in africa.

It's the people who listen to him.

[FatalTheRabbit]

He also says stop fucking around, killing each other, raping each other, etc etc, but do they? Hell no.

Just don't even start...

[Benjamin]

People need to stop using religion as a scapegoat. The pope is not the reason for aids in africa. He also says stop fucking around, killing each other, raping each other, etc etc, but do they? Hell no.

Just don't even start...


youre missing the point fatel.

[FatalTheRabbit]

Not really... The whole culture over there is corrupted to the very core. What the pope does, or does not endorse concerning sexual intercourse is not going to affect such an overwhelmingly debased people.

[Lestaki]

Is that racism? I think it is. Did you really just call an entire continent debased? I mean, WTF? And the whole culture corrupt to the core? Only becuase Britain (my country) and the other Europeans screwed it up bigtime.

Anyway, religion in Africa is actually very strong, and Catholicism is actually widespread. I agree that the Pope can't end Aids on his tod, but I think easing off the religious stance would be a step in the right direction.

[Tiresias]

You're underestimating the faith of a lot of Africans Fatal, they often follow catholicism very closely and the popes word means a lot. Yes there is huge corruption but that corruption is in the government, who also need to do something, not in the people.

[SquidDNA]

If anyone continues talking about Catholicism and HIV and they do not address these statistics I will delete their posts. http://squiddna.hwcommunity.com/HIVcath.htm

[Lestaki]

Squiddy, your linkie is dead. I feel deprived. :(


[an error occurred while processing this directive] The requested URL was not found on this server. The link on the referring page seems to be wrong or outdated. Please inform the author of that page about the error. [an error occurred while processing this directive]

Edit: Thanks, much better. Now call me perceptive, but I canna see a correlation. Squiddy needs a prize for "Best use of statistics in a thread".

[SquidDNA]

fixt

[Rafta]

Should Italy show that the percentage of caths is in no relation to the AIDS infected people?

Italy doesn't count cause 90% of these 96.92% caths don't give a f**k about religion and what the pope says.
Even the degree of medical education is a very large factor. It's dangerously low in Europe, so we can't assume that people in Africa know much about AIDS and the dangers of unprotected sex.

[SquidDNA]

Indeed, the point of the statistics I linked is to break the association between Catholicism and the spread of HIV and force us to examine the regions affected more closely instead of examining them superficially. If predominantly Catholic but rich and educated countries don't have rampant HIV while marginally to moderately Cathlolic but poor and uneducated countries do, gee, Maybe it's got nothing to do with Catholicism.

If Catholic priests handed out condoms during mass, people wouldn't just up and start using them. Catholicism is not the issue.

[Lestaki]

Of course you are right. This is a matter of education and economic strength. But the Catholic stance can't be helping aids, so changing it would do no harm, except to their stance, which I guess is what they think is important. I doubt that there is any one quick answer to the problem, which is one of poverty as much as anything.

[Rafta]

If predominantly Catholic but rich and educated countries don't have rampant HIV while marginally to moderately Cathlolic but poor an uneducated countries do, gee, Maybe it's got nothing to do with Catholicism.
Maybe not but it's an documented fact that many believing people in mostly poor states don't use condoms because it's against christian dogmas!
So it may not have anything to do with the spreading of aids but it's not very beneficial anyway that the catholic church has such antiquated sight on sex and protection.

[SquidDNA]

Oh, I agree the church really isn't accomplishing anything by advising abstinence and monogamy here (however well it would work, you have to consider that people are going to do what they want) but it's not causing the problem. While there are other vectors, the problem is notoriously unprotected promiscuous sex.

[Harmanoff]

That's very easy to say in an industrialised country where ready access to education is plentiful, of course, but I have a difficult time believing that people in Zimbabwe just don't have a single clue what's going on. I mean they know it's a disease, by and large, yes? What level of ignorance are we looking at?
This is what i learned from going to Kenya and i learned it from people in the village we lived in. This means it does not come from official sources and there is a high degree of prejudice involved in it seeing as prejudice is sadly as common in Kenya as in any other nations, maybe even more since harsh living conditions doesn't exactly bring out the best in people.

Basically aids is viewed with an extreme amount of superstition and comparatibly few can be said to know the workings of the virus. Either that or people simply don't accept the facts of aids due to many different reasons and claim other reasons and use homemade or traditional cures. The belief that condoms do in fact spread the disease is not uncommon. The equality between men and women is very poor and it is common for men to have more than one woman and going to prositutes. When they come home their wifes have no real way to deny them sex nor to demand they use condoms and so it spreads to them and on to the children. In turn the men will claim they got it from their wifes in order not to be shamed themselves and thus no one takes responsibility and the circle continues.

From my view the low use of condoms had not nearly as much to do with catholisism as to do with deep rooted superstitions. While most of the country is indeed devoutly christian old african religions and belief systems have a strong place in much of peoples everyday lives. There is no reason it shouldn't, it is just that the particular superstitions against condoms need to be weeded out! People will not stop having sex and, as one man put it, children is one of the few joys still freely available to them.

There you have it. Once again, this is very much the view i was given by villagers so i don't claim it to be the absolute truth nor do i want to victimize africans in any way. This is very much their problem and they will need to do the main part allthough it does concern us all. Advocating abstinence like the pope and a certain president does is not very helpful and totally fails at taking reality into account!

[TheDeadlyShoe]

From things I have read from the WHO and such organizations, various superstitions are playing a huge part in hindering attempts to stop the spread of AIDS. Harmanoff outlined it very well.

Similar superstitions have also halted the total elimination of Polio (which is unfortunately making a bit of a comeback).

Good news doesn't rate as highly as bad news, and unfortunately over the years owing to flare-ups, genocides, etc., africa as a whole has gotten a very bad rep in the western media.

[them apples]

Not really... The whole culture over there is corrupted to the very core. What the pope does, or does not endorse concerning sexual intercourse is not going to affect such an overwhelmingly debased people.

he's right.
I'd hate to say it but....they are probably the horniest race on the face of the earth,china being a close second.

[Tails]

They're not any more or less horny than anyone else. They just have a lot more unprotected sex.

[FatalTheRabbit]

If you mean race in geographical terms apples, then yeah sure, but if you mean race in biological terms that's not what I was talking about. What I said wasn't necessarily directed at black people in general.

To whomever said it- If disapproval of a people's culture is racist then, yeah, I'm racist, and I'm not one bit shy about it.

[SquidDNA]

Which people are we talking about here exactly? You mean everyone in Africa? African culture?

[Tiresias]

That is so wrong...

[FatalTheRabbit]

No, just the ones who are raping, pillaging, and murdering each other without pause. I'm well aware that there are good people within a culture which is largely barbaric, and I do not refer to them.

If you're asking me to pick out a city, tribe, religion, or specific nation I can't. That tootsie(SP?) massacre is a good off hand example of a manifestation of a highly corrupt culture though.

[Tiresias]

The mass raping pillaging and murdering comes from a post colonial econmic failures leading to corrupt governments and indistinct political systems which continued to fall. As happens in most post-civil war societies where the previosu ruling parties are destroyed there is a authority vacuum, that is often seized by a militaristic government bent on systematic oppression, or a chaotic anarchic system of confused authority, several people claiming sovereignity. In such states you end upp with such ganngs with no morality structure, and in the other you end up with ortharised mobs trying to destroy resistance.

Rather than a culture of corruption the previous culture has been destroyed, either by post colonial revolution or by post colonial authority vacuums. Social order disintergrates, mostly due to the fast swift decolonisation, and due to colonisation in the first place. Before the british and dutch were there they had long traditions and vast peaceful cultures, after all Africa was the cradle of civilisationn. But colonisation deliberately destroyed cultural evidence, and as many post colonial historians have argued wiped away the old culture setting Africa back many centuries.

[FatalTheRabbit]

Oh great, now we get to wade through the mire of politically correct history!

So before the europeans showed up on the scene the africans were an innocent people who spent their time singing and feeding birds? Rape is introduced through colonialism? Murder is introduced through colonialism? What you're saying is these people have no personal accountability, and evil was introduced by the europeans. The africans just up decided that their brutal oppressors were great examples of human beings, and out of complete innocence just started to mimic them right?

Adversity is not a liscense to commit wrong. These people were not brainwashed by colonials. Your post reeks of excuse. Let me sum it up-- Bad stuff happened so people became bad. It's only natural, and completely justified.

[Tiresias]

So before the europeans showed up on the scene the africans were an innocent people who spent their time singing and feeding birds? Rape is introduced through colonialism? Murder is introduced through colonialism? What you're saying is these people have no personal accountability, and evil was introduced by the europeans. The africans just up decided that their brutal oppressors were great examples of human beings, and out of complete innocence just started to mimic them right?

Before colonisation they were a civilisation like any other. We see this worldwide after a colonial power moves out, Latin America, pacific East Asia and so on. To suppose that somehow Africans are innately inferior to Westerners is quite frankly verging on pure old fashioned rascism.

oh btw it's not that politically correct to say that the weest screwed over the Africans in pretty much every way possible.

off to bed, too tired to argue this now, bb tomorrow

[Shin]

Interesting theories you have Fatal.

I guess according to your head, I can conclude that caucasians that owe their origin from old europe are inherently barbaric by what happened throughout history.

I can also conclude that a lot of you are gay because of Greek pederast influences.

This is probably why you shave your arse.

[Harmanoff]

Another typical sign of ass-shaving is making up concepts like "the african people" which to my knowledge does not exist.

[Tiberius Nero]

Oh great, now we get to wade through the mire of politically correct history!

I am the Arch-nemesis of Political Correctness and I don't find Tiresias' analysis touched one bit by this abominable pestilence of modern thought, mind you; I blame PC people for discoursing by responding with specific reactions to specific stimuli much like Skinner's rats; if you don't want to be like them, read closer and think harder before responding; the last thing we want is anti-PC hipness.

[them apples]

Africa had all sorts of problems even before the slave masters arived.
Africa had human sacrifices,stick fighting to the death,MASS rape(entire hordes of men would charge into a group of "mates" and 'satisfy' themselves.

dont get me wrong,the europeans had their problems to....

[Tiberius Nero]

Africa had human sacrifices,stick fighting to the death,MASS rape(entire hordes of men would charge into a group of "mates" and 'satisfy' themselves.

Africa is a huge continent; it had never a universal culture. Human sacrifice is a sign of a somewhat mature farming culture, if we are to rely on Frazer's findings, and is often preserved well into times that would be called by all means civilized and advanced: the Carthaginians, the nemesis of Rome, were originally a Phoenician colony, founded (on the Tunisian coast) at about 800 B.C.E., that developed into a mighty empire; it preserved child sacrifice to the bitter end, when it was burnt to ashes by the Romans in 146 B.C.E. So don't bring up human sacrifice as a sign of inferior civilization.

As for the other two instances I am genuinely interested in seeing some sort of reference to them. I am used to asking for that, don't take it personally

[FatalTheRabbit]

Interesting theories you have Fatal.

I guess according to your head, I can conclude that caucasians that owe their origin from old europe are inherently barbaric by what happened throughout history.

I can also conclude that a lot of you are gay because of Greek pederast influences.

This is probably why you shave your arse.

This is a good post. Why? Because it illustrates just how politically conditioned and emotional you are towards "racism". I, in no point in time ever stated that it was inherent. I said it was cultural. Of course, because you're so supercharged by society to switch in to fanatical gear whenever some one crosses into the political no fly zone of Africa, or black people you automatically, and nonsensically assumed I think black people are naturally wicked. I also at no point stated that Europe never had a barbarous culture. I know it did, and I think it's absolutely stupid that your actually trying to refute me with this presumption.

You so easily turn a blind eye to my example, and immediately try to tag me as a bigot racist. Typical. Maybe I should go try and get myself a spot on BET... What do you figure they'll have to say about it? Yay for hypocrisy, and the complete farce that is political correctness.



I can also conclude that a lot of you are gay because of Greek pederast influences.

This I just don't get... Why would you include this? It supports my position that these people can't blame outside influences for their behaviors.

Is a culture that nurtures the sort of attitudes, and ideas that lead to the mass murder of hundreds of thousands with machetes not barbaric, because it is a culture of black people? In your mind I think so. I'll bet I could call the serbs barbaric for what they did, and you wouldn't complain.

[them apples]

As for the other two instances I am genuinely interested in seeing some sort of reference to them. I am used to asking for that, don't take it personally

my civics teacher told the class this,It was about the zulu tribes(which is africa)

I've also seen it in a few documentaries.

If you want proof I guess you will have to find it on the net.

EDIT:Some people may have to face the truth instead of trying to find a way of justifying something that cant be justified.

human sacrifice is by no means civilized,so why not bring it up?

Are you trying to justify human sacrifice now and claim its their culture?

[FatalTheRabbit]

I think the odds are good that this will turn into a semantics argument concerning "civilzed", and "barbarous".

[Grognan]

Yeah it seems that by region Africa has had less stability compared to almost any other continent on the earth. This kinda hampers attempts to create further stability.

[FatalTheRabbit]

That's essentially saying the general culture is creating, and maintaining the instability.

[Tiberius Nero]

There has been no nation/tribe/population group on this planet that has not had human sacrifice instituted at some point in the past; some nations preserved this institution well into the civilized era and it was there alongside evidence of advanced culture and civilization; thus you cannot bring up human sacrifice as evidence for the inferiority of a culture, because by the same token you could do so with anything you find abominable and barbaric by today's standards. This would be an excellent way of disregarding anything before the 60's as the Age of Barbarians.

[them apples]

@fatal^exactly

when england ruled african continents,there was some civilization.
Then....the local tribes men ganged up and took back the continent under their rule(england probably could of stopped them if they wanted to)

where did this get them?now they are back to where they were before.

Its been a known fact in previous years that money/and supplies sent to africa sometimes doesnt even make it to the poor,but rather the ruling monarch and his henchmen to further his tyranical power.

[Lestaki]

There are indeed deep cultural problems in Africa. Most of which were caused by Europeans. The colonies largely forced a specific culture onto the people of Africa as a whole, when they wanted no such thing, a culture entirely supported by the colonial authority. When this authority was withdrawn, the culture collapsed, and there was no clearly defined society to replace it, after the undermining of the previous ways of life. The power and cultural vacuume was siezed on by various totalitarian dictators to their own ends.

There were problems in Africa before the colonies came, but the profound instability and corruption still largely stems from colonialism, which made an authoritarian, biased rule the norm. They really know nothing else, through no fault of their own, and so the new ditators endure. And I fail to see how you can blame the Africans at large for their corrupt leaders, who do indeed instrument many atrocities and deflect aid for their own ends.

[FatalTheRabbit]

The greatest progress came at the hands of the colonials, and where ever there is a measure of stability it's founded on colonial remnants. The colonials, as poorly as they behaved at large, were not medieval crusaders, and you're grossly exaggerating the destructive nature of their influence. There were some pretty obscene acts committed for a great deal of time, but the areas with a history of long colonization have the most stability.

History itself denies your position in countless other examples. There have been atrocities, and oppression committed through occupation throughout all the parts of the world, and yet few peoples have become as Africa at large has become.

I mean, according to your reasoning, the modern world shouldn't even exist. Just how have we come to "know better" hmmm? Are you saying African people are zombies without minds of their own? Your reasoning follows the same vein as the people who believe that video games create monsters.

Your position sounds exactly the same as Tiresias'. Bad stuff happened so people became bad. It's only natural, and completely justified. Makes me sick. Abominable.

[Rincewind]

rabbit: So you deny the fact that a great deal of the trouble in Africa stems from the colonial powers drawing political borders arbitreraily, disregarding tribal demographics? And exactly what kind of "progress" did colonialism bring?

them_apples: That's an, er, interesting view of history you have there. Please define Civilization.

[n0z3k1ll3r]

The greatest progress came at the hands of the colonials, and where ever there is a measure of stability it's founded on colonial remnants.That's astoundingly meaningless. All of Africa was a colony at some point, so logically any country with stability in Africa was a colony. So was any county without stability.

[FatalTheRabbit]

No damnit I don't deny that many of the colonial powers abused the African people, but I don't at all think that you can just pass off the self destructive culture that has persisted there for ages wholly onto the colonials, and believe the African people have no accountability for their own actions. There was always tribal warfare in Africa. It was not something introduced by the colonials anymore than they introduced it into the Americas. The only differences between what the colonials did to the Africans, and what the Africans did to themselves were the tools involved.

Slavery aside, the colonials weren't really interested in the Africans themselves, and mostly segregated them instead of assimilating them. That was probably the most destructive thing they did alongside giving a primitive people the tools to carry on in the same fashion they had for ages only on a much greater scale.

The colonials definitely exacerbated the situation through varies means, but what is done to you is one thing, and what you do in response is something else entirely. You're excusing a people for things that you would never excuse an individual for. You're hypocritical.

EDIT: Not even close n0z3k1ll3r; the most stable regions are areas where colonial presence was greatest. In fact a lot of them are tourist spots today. I'm surprised you said something so nonsensical. I would have expected you to understand the concept of population distribution. Just because all of Africa was under the rule of the colonials doesn't mean they were evenly distributed. Very weak.

Just more of the knee jerk reactions typical when one some one is observed trespassing into the political no fly zone.

[Tiresias]

I'm really interested to know where you go thtis version of History, because we have very little knowledge of pre-colonial African history precisely because we systematically tried to destroy it, there weren't many writtn languages so often when tribal elders and such were killed along with them knowledge of their history, then Colonists tried to stop them using their own language and seperated them and then tried to educate them in the ways of civilisation. Equally before this Africa was cuturally very advanced despite your claims of them being backwards. Yes they were socially different, but huge trade routes within africa and the little fragments of history we can piece together that we destroyed suggests a culture incredibly accustomed to the environment, but far from primitive like you describe.

And them apples don't trust TV documentaries ever.

Fatal we're not trying to excuse the horrific post colonial massacres, yes the tyrants that took power are evil, but they were only able to take power because of us. We rushed out to save face, never apologised, never gave them the support to get back on their feet, and to a large extent the damage had already been done.


The colonials weren't really interested in the Africans themselves

yes htey were...ever heard of the Atlantic Slave trade? That made us the economic capital to stimulate the west into capatalism and also to change the trade conditions with the East and finally overtake them as world leaders. Until the Atlantic Slave trade Europe was but a Economic and Cultural backwater in comparison with the civilisations of China and the far east. Since we over took them with the economy suppiled by the slave trade and the Americas the myth has perpetrated through a lot of historians that we were always dominant and the East was stagnant and backwards. This view is still very much alive today.

[Lestaki]

Fatal, first off, can you get off your bloody high horse about political no-fly zones, and actually respect other people's rights to an opinion. Thank you.

History is full of countless examples of times when colonies redifining "natural" borders ends in complete disaster, such as Chekeslovakia. Colonial borders largely cut across tribal and religious boundaries, with the effect that the people in that country are so divided, and have no faith in their imposed identity as a country, that freedom there was meaningless under totalitarian rule of other countries, and so becomes meaningless under new dictators. They have only known authority.

Consider that from, say, 1066, Britain was ruled by a totalitarian dictator, called the king. This word order lasted without much problems until the English civil war, and it still survived to some degree until around 1900, when British democracy really took off. Call that 900 years for an appently (by your logic) "superior" people to move from dictatorship to democracy. 900 years.

And so you expect the continent of Africa to move from dictatorship to democracy in around fifty to a hundred? Why? The history of Africa is absolutely disconnected from its reality, when you move further back than the colonial history, as the borders were drawn up by the whim of these powers. And as a result, Africa has known little more than dictatorship for a very long time, and thus struggles to make the transition to democracy. Consider Russia, for example; after around eighty years of dictatorship their democracy is still dubious, and the communists actually threatened to gain considerbale power before Putin. These things change slowly, and almost have to come from the inside, as America generally fails to create flagship democracies while policing the world.

I think you underestimate the difficulty in overturning a world order of hundreds of years, not to mention religious and tribal hatreds which streach back far longer. The world wants Africa to catch up on close to a thousand years of political and economic development in a matter of years. Give them time, already.

[FatalTheRabbit]

Fatal, first off, can you get off your bloody high horse about political no-fly zones, and actually respect other people's rights to an opinion. Thank you.

Before I answer anything else I will answer this. I'll respect their opinions when they're not composed of knee jerk reactions, full of presumptions, and driven by a need to condmemn me for being "racist".

And it looks like you should read the edits I've made while you were writing your responses...

EDIT

Lestaki, democracy isn't really a direct part of this... Britain may have been a monarchy, but it's system of values hasn't been anywhere near what plagues the peoples of Africa since the dark ages. Of course, it still had it's shortcommings like the industrial revolution, but the culture on a whole was leagues beyond where africa is now.

[Tiresias]

Fatal it is you who are being presumptuous.

Where are you getting your indepth knowledge of African History from? And tell me Fatal, how do you measure culture?

[Lestaki]

Right, let's try and sort this out. If I recall, your position is that African culture is inferior to the European equivilent. Which means that they can't sort out their own probelms, like aids. Man this is off-topic, but never mind.

Am I correct in a summary of your position? We might as well know what we stand for before we carry on.

But since when has the form of government (democracy) not been part of culture, perhaps the most important part, as governments can dictate a culture at times?

[Tiresias]

Also Fatal, the African's never travelled to another continent, enslaved another people and sold them as slaves and so on... Not really a convincing argument since it was probably not possible for the Africans, yes they less technology, because they didn't need it. Incidently before you argue that all round had technological inferiority, the Europeans adapted their sugar proccessing machinery to the African native version because that was far more efficient. There are other examples which I'll need to research more...

[FatalTheRabbit]

Tiresias, they might not have conquered other peoples, but they practiced that sort of thing among themselves. I understand that all cultures at one point in time have been this way, but africa is just one of the few that seems to lag behind so drastically, because there's little support in their culture to do otherwise.

Yes lestaki it's a part of culture, and I think that's an important point in defining what my position is. My focus is more towards values like morality, and enlightenment. I wouldn't be troubled if they were communists, or monarchists, or whatever as long as they were organized under more moral, and intellectual systems of value.

[Lestaki]

This, of coure, causes great problems with the fact that there doesn't seem to be any one yardstick for morality. And to be brutally honest, when survival is often a day to day battle, can you blame people for not being enlightened? Especially with their poor education. I would say that Africans have and had very little say in the direction and nature of their culture, which was all but wiped out by colonists and replaced by our european cultures. This didn't really work with the substantial religious differences and tribal ones, which were very much ignored when borders were being defined.

And as a result of the totalitarian dictatorships that inevitably followed, africans have very little say in their culture. In the worst dictatorships, the dictator sets the absolute standard for morality, which is often nothing at all, and there is nothing that people can do about it. Otherwise, the culture is one of pressurization to westernise, both in quality of life (good) and in everything else (not always so good).

And indeed, many of the probelms in Africa are caused or worstened by certain views of morality, particularly religious ones. But the most valued in these societies is survival, pure and simple, which is universal. Of course their culture is not perfect, but I think you overestimate the power of the average African over the direction of their culture, even proportionally to the government's influence. Especially when minority groups obtain absolute power, which can occur, and leads to great difficulties for the rest.

[Tiresias]

After secolonisation yes they're a mess, but I don't know how you know what tey were like before that.

Mya I draw your attention to the Yoruba http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoruba

they had city states and a settled agrarian economy, also a market one being placed on an important trade route. They served under monarchial rule, buit rather than hereditary they were elected by a council of representatives from the territories. Yes they suffered wars against their territory, but that's soooo different from Europe at the time

What about the Malinese Empire, where their capital became a centre for Islamic scholarship? (bear in mind religous scholarship at the time was pretty much the only kind before you say that's barbaric). Browsing through Wikipedia and other websites I can find a lot, but yet there is often so little information before colonisation, and what there is mainly comes from Islamic scholars exploring Africa and spreading the faith. Rarely before has an entire history been destroyed by an invading force.

[FatalTheRabbit]

This, of coure, causes great problems with the fact that there doesn't seem to be any one yardstick for morality. And to be brutally honest, when survival is often a day to day battle, can you blame people for not being enlightened? Especially with their poor education. I would say that Africans have and had very little say in the direction and nature of their culture, which was all but wiped out by colonists and replaced by our european cultures. This didn't really work with the substantial religious differences and tribal ones, which were very much ignored when borders were being defined.

Yes, I think they can be. Enlightment isn't necessarily just organized education. It's a value, or in other words an attitude of self improvement through observation and analysis. I understand that there is a heirarchy of needs, but enlightment is usally the path satisfying these needs. A culture that does not realize this will not progress, and they progress little. It seems to me the source of most progress has been the product of transferred values through past occupation(adimittedly the same occupation has also stunted growth in other areas), or recent encouragement, buissiness interests, or flat out aid from first world nations.

As for not having much say in their culture... I can't really support that idea. A culture is more or less just the manifestation of it's people, and if the europeans had really succeeded in erasing all previous culture, and replacing it with their own then things would be very different.

Tiresias I'm not really basing my argument on the presence, or lack of token economical, and technological achievements.

[Yuryu]

So... World Aids Day.

Africa is not the only place you know. I don't know about America but here in Europe amounts are still on the rise.
The main (but not only mind you) cause being unsafe sex. Personally I don't know anyone who has it, and it better stay that way, but I'm sure some of you have gotten to know this the personal way.

What are or can there be apropriate measures against the continual spread of the virus. I'm not talking about a cure, but about measures that prevent people from contracting HIV. Like persuading people to have safe sex.
What can we do, and how.

(And about the Pope. He isn't only against contraception, but also against premarital sex. You can't call the last unrealistic without including the first. They are on one line. If you disagree with one you disagree with both.)

[Tiresias]

Fatqal what we're arguing is they succeeding in erasing their culture, and NOT replacing it with their own, because the Europeans thought the Africans were too stupid to understand. They erased the culture so they wouldn't rebel and so we could ship them off at will to America.

As for the enlightenment yes the ideas were all noble for Europe and such, as it basically marked Europe's new status as centre of the world, but conquering Africa was hardly a decent expression of Enlightenment ideals. As for progress being driven by conquest is utter nonsense. History oes not follow a linear path, and Europe was not bringing principle and civilisation to Africa (which already had it) it was merely exploiting it for buisness.

Fatal want to take this to another thread? this is meant to be about AIDs after all

[FatalTheRabbit]

No, I don't want to carry this on forever.

The motive of the European leadership is irrelevant to my point. The fact is there was transference of certain values religious and otherwise. It would be completely impossible for there to have been no values transferred between their interactions.

You can never completely erase a culture unless you assimilate, and even that might be a stretch. The Europeans did not assimilate, they segregated. Slaves were taken by force, and not through cultural manipulation. Like I said earlier the colonists were not interested in the Africans outside of the slave trade. If any cultural white washing occurred it probably only occurred with acquired slaves, and within the bounds of occupied cities, or missionary work.

You can't really cause a people to lose their culture except by killing them, or teaching them. One they have to accept, and the other usually just unites them.

[Tiresias]

Fatal try and find history on pre colonisation African peoples not from islamic scholars, since they're the only people who took records of them that weren't destroyed. What we do know however is that there were several massive civilisations settled and largely peaceful. You seem to be ignoring this completely. Please please give evidence of these pre-colonisation barbaric peoples that went around raping and such, there will be a lot of very interested historians.

[n0z3k1ll3r]

EDIT: Not even close n0z3k1ll3r; the most stable regions are areas where colonial presence was greatest. In fact a lot of them are tourist spots today. I'm surprised you said something so nonsensical. I would have expected you to understand the concept of population distribution. Just because all of Africa was under the rule of the colonials doesn't mean they were evenly distributed. Very weak.Fatal, take a look at Rwanda. The Belgian colonial systems did absolutely jack all to stop the genocide.

Or look outside Africa at Lebanon, and how the French designed system of government collapsed completely and started the civil war.

Or how the partition of India went horribly awry.

Most of the ex-colonies just got their government stripped with little or nothing left to fill the vacuum. "Decolonisation" was a farce.

And FYI most of the uprisings against colonial governments (such as in Vietnam against the French and, dare I say it, the current uprising of Al-Qaeda against the US in Saudi Arabia) come from a minority of individuals educated by that colonial power. Education divides, it does not unite.

[Lestaki]

What enlightenment which had been achieved was largely taken apart, yes, by our favorite colonials. As Tiresias notes, they had made substantial progress, and indeed held the lead on europe in the dark ages and some of the early middle ages, but this was eventually outpaced by the industrial revolution and other development. And this meant that when the europeans invaded, the roots of Africa's developing understanding were ripped out and replaced by western flora, so to speak, and as a people were not really taught where this progress came from.

Now, the enlightenment and knowledge of europe has been forced on them, but as they have not reached these levels of development themselves, which as I previously noted took a long time for europeans, they are struggling to create what I might call the infrastructure of enlightenment. Education is part of this- how can someone be enlightened if they can't read, or if they have no time to seek out knowledge, as all of their time is spend on the needs of survival?

And then there is the problem that morality and enlightenment often clashes- our western "enlightenment", such as, say, conctraception, is often rejected on religious grounds, and the principles of our civilisation is often considered evil by some groups.

In any case, "enlightenment" is not created by a culture as a whole, but by the few. Consider the industrial revolution, and the following developments in science across europe- the elite of the land, supported by exceptional education and the interest of their governments, achieved great things. The mass culture as a whole barely contributed to it- the actions of the rulers to encourage academics and those acadmecis themselves facilitated the change.

Simply put, it is unrealistic to expect Africans as a whole to strive towards enlightenment. It is up to their governments to encourage this, and as many are indeed corrupt dictatorships, the people have no influence on whether academia is persued. And besides- where is there for them to go? Without a sound foundation of education and economic support, they stand little chance of genuine innovation, as we already had achieved a far higher technology base. Their objective is to play catch-up, and to do so in a very short amount of time, by the standards- and with the condition of world trade as it they stand little chance.
But that is another story.

I second a new thread, this is rather off-topic.

[Tiresias]

I disagree Lestaki, There was no attempt to enlighten the natives, that was the justification, but it was in fact basically a buisness enterprise. The enlightenment and the industrial revolution were driven by the expanding buisness opportunities in Africa and America, driven by comoanies such as the Royal Africa Company given a mandate by the crown. These companies were effectively the ultimate authorities in Africa, they had their own armies and built forts, and systematically exported natives as slaves to the colonies. I would argue that the engine of European growth was the exploitation of Africa, and the only reason we are where we are today is that. Rather than bringing our civilisation to Africa, out civilisation was forged out of there.

[FatalTheRabbit]

Fatal, take a look at Rwanda. The Belgian colonial systems did absolutely jack all to stop the genocide.

Ok, so the colonial systems aren't influential enough to stop such an act, but they are enough to encourage it, introduce rape/murder along with destabilizing a previously stable culture?

I'm not totally sure if you're on the same page as the others n0z3, but if you are that argument doesn't help them... and education can devide, or unite. It'll seperate some, and bring others together. Where does this fit in?

Ughh, there's too much to reply to. I'm getting a headache... other stuff can wait till later.

:mute:

[n0z3k1ll3r]

I was just countering your argument that colonial systems provide stability. They don't. Not really paying attention to what the others are saying, that's their argument.

[Tiresias]

Indeed Noz who said "everything is written for somebody, for some purpose?" Education almost tends to emphasise the primacy of ones own nation, centralising civilisation around yourself. This has manifested in hte west as the myth of progress, arguing there is some kind of divine providence in reaching where we are to day, - see Francis Fukijama's 'End of History'. This is foolis as it dissmisses non European molds of civilisation as barbaric and uncivilisaed. The discovery of america and the beginnings of conquest in Africa gave the west the critical mass when before then it wasn't really anything at all, behind the large civilisations of the east.

Indeed still today there is huge dissmissal of the achievements of the Chinese and such, Gunpowder is conceeded to them but apprently "only used for fireworks" which is basically an outright lie. someone said that the Chinese have less agricultural developments and the invention of the stirrup was in the west. Yes the west invented the stirrup but only abour 1500 years after the chinese. There are many more myths of Europe being more advanced than the east. Indeed an argument can be put forward that Africa had greater importance than Europe untiol then, if you look at what they're trading and the wealth of resorces that Africa had and Europe lacked until it found the most profitable of all, slaves.

[FatalTheRabbit]

Well, I never said they created complete stability, I just said that out of all the regions the ones with the most colonial presence for the longest periods are the most stable. If I said it completely fixed everything I would be contradicting the point I'm trying to make that the colonies didn't completely overwhelm, and rewrite the culture of the natives.


I need a break.

:claw:

[n0z3k1ll3r]

I hate Fukuyama's argument. It has absolutely no basis. I actually wrote a 2000 word essay for my last exam refuting it in detail. His "evidence" for Liberal Democracy being the ultimate form of government would apply just as well to Feudalism in the 1200s.

Europe only became the real world dominating force it is (in my opinion) because it escaped the Mongol invasions that basically destroyed civilisations in Asia and the Middle East.

[Tiberius Nero]

Look, it is pretty simple and I am sure it has been pointed out; the collapse of colonial authority brought chaos and anarchy and a power vacuum that needed to be filled; this is what happens when an external regulating authority collapses; it seems to me that the colonialists were not putting so much effort in developing an infrastructure in their colonies and a sense to the people that they were members of a great country as in robbing the places dry of their resources and utilizing the population as slaves.

Look once more towards the paradigm of Empire, Rome; Gaul and Spain were Roman provinces parts of which were at one time conquered by the sword and parts joined the Roman rule in order to benefit from the higher degree of protection and organization it brought. Gaul and Spain ended up being so well developed and deeply transformed by Roman culture that at a time of great crisis during the 3rd cent A.D. they formed a separate Empire with a senate and an emperor modelled on the Roman, that for various reasons did not last for very long and was integrated again ino the Empire proper; this serves to show that when effort goes towards development of both the city infrastucture and of the mindset of the subordinate people, at some point they can be ready to forge their own destinies (not that the overlord necessarily wants that); if a superior power simply preys like a vampire on a people and its country and then abandons this whole business suddenly and unexpectedly, anarchy is bound to ensue because there is little that has been offered to the subordinate people to make them self sufficient.

[Tiresias]

Yes indeed Tiberious's comparsion with Rome holds up in the Americas, when the portugese left barazil, Brazil set up its own monarchy in the mould of the portugese crown. Didn't last long mind you...

Equally North America formed a bicameral political system and a 3 seperations of power, a legislature, a excecutive and a judiciary. Very similar to Britain's. Coincidence? Not at all, indeed this has been also compared to the Roman model, as a model for a working system, three houses each with seperated power.

[n0z3k1ll3r]

Yes indeed Tiberious's comparsion with Rome holds up in the Americas, when the spanish left barazil, Brazil set up its own monarchy in the mould of the spanish. Didn't last long mind you...Umm... Brazil was a Portuguese colony, not a Spanish one.[/nitpick]

[Tiresias]

ooops - correcting

[them apples]

I'm really interested to know where you go thtis version of History, because we have very little knowledge of pre-colonial African history precisely because we systematically tried to destroy it, there weren't many writtn languages so often when tribal elders and such were killed along with them knowledge of their history, then Colonists tried to stop them using their own language and seperated them and then tried to educate them in the ways of civilisation. Equally before this Africa was cuturally very advanced despite your claims of them being backwards. Yes they were socially different, but huge trade routes within africa and the little fragments of history we can piece together that we destroyed suggests a culture incredibly accustomed to the environment, but far from primitive like you describe.

and why did the colonists call them animals when they found them?

because they were killing eachother in tribal wars.The zulu nation was the strongest and had around 50,000 tribes men(around there)
Thier homes Where made out of mud,they worshipped idols carved of wood,had human sacrifice(yes I will bring that up again)
They even had CANNIBALISM.


So what did the colonists do?they tried to befriend the people at first(holland)and for a while it worked.
I dont remeber what happenened next,but I've a good feeling the zulus turned on the colonists just like the Iraqua indians.


It was a mighty civilisation indeed.... :bunny:..NOT
Sounds like africa has always needed help.

[Tiberius Nero]

because they were killing eachother in tribal wars.

In case it slipped your attention this has been going on in Europe for like forever; it is only ~50 years since the last war actually. There is no patch of earth more blood soaked than what we call Europe, what does that prove?

[them apples]

tribal wars in europe? never heard of that,I suppose there is mass cannibalism to,and town idols every avenue.

by tribal wars I mean wars that are never won,and just go on forever...

[Tiberius Nero]

So you think that there was a puff of smoke at some point in history, and when that cleared up there was London, fish and chips, croissantes in the Eiffel Tower, Italian Spaghetti No10 and so on I suppose. Look a little into the history of Gaul, Spain, Germany, Britain etc before spouting such nonesense please. The Romans actively persecuted the Celtic druids and the Germans for human sacrifice FYI.

[them apples]

So you think that there was a puff of smoke at some point in history, and when that cleared up there was London, fish and chips, croissantes in the Eiffel Tower, Italian Spaghetti No10 and so on I suppose. Look a little into the history of Gaul, Spain, Germany, Britain etc before spouting such nonesense please. The Romans actively persecuted the Celtic druids and the Germans for human sacrifice FYI.

1000s of years ago of course,seems africa needs to grow up.
the romans also used urine in their tooth paste 1000s of years ago.

Spain, Germany, Britain no longer have mass cannibalism,mass idol worshop,human sacrifice..etc

africa does

[Tiresias]

and why did the colonists call them animals when they found them?

because Them Apples they were black.

Again where is this knowledge of previous African civilisations coming from?

[Tiberius Nero]

Constant bickering and war has no inherent connection with cannibalism or idol worship. And idol worship is no more of a sign of primitive culture than any religion so leave that out. If you want to make an argument about cannibalism just give figures of how widespread it is; you make sweeping generalizations that make the whole of Africa appear as if populated by warring satanist maneaters; we do appreciate precision when trying to make a point.

[SquidDNA]

No tribal wars in Europe? Guess you've never heard of something known in the West as "Yugoslavia."

Also, which cultures on the continent of Africa practice cannibalism?

[Tiresias]

We also had, you know, wars...and lots of them...

[Tails]

If I had a nickel for every time someone said Africa was a country...

[n0z3k1ll3r]

You know pretty much every war in Europe results from either racial or religious differences. I'd call those Tribal Wars.

[hiddensmoke]

i bet africa had as many or more wars then europe they just didnt write em down (most african tribes didnt devolope writtng)

[n0z3k1ll3r]

You underestimate how many wars Europe's had I think. Go back to the middle ages and they have wars for, like, something to do.

[them apples]

I'll bet the european wars were for power..
Africa wars were for bloodlust,facial differences(lol),and some were for power to.

but ive read in national geographic some time ago,that one tribe claimed they were ancestors of this certain cheiftan and they were to annihlate any non-purebread tribes men.They said they could tell which were pure and unpure by the way there fore head and nose was shaped.

funny yes,but thats not the only time ive heard that.

Even that tootsie(whatever they were called)war was something similar to the above.

[Tiberius Nero]

them apples, war is war; what are you trying to say, that it is more civilized to wage war for power than for any other reason? Wars might be for power but are often backed by the most ludicrous of ideological reasons, which actually people in the street come to accept as valid reasons; what does this whole argument prove, I wonder. Also what is a "war for bloodlust" supposed to be?

[them apples]

Also what is a "war for bloodlust" supposed to be?

I would bring orks into this,their culture seems to be based on african life. :p

Racism on games workshops part.(more sarcasm)

well when N.A.T.O soldiers go and take over a village,do they run in and rape all the women and spread AIDS?
Thats pretty much why AIDS is so common.

AIDS came from monkeys you know.... lots of monkeys are in africa,africa has the worst case of aids in the world.

Now would a civilised country give loving to monkeys in a mass form?

I say Mass because 20 million people in africa have aids now.(or some where around that much)

EDIT:
http://www.rotaryaidsproject.org/facts.html

25 million actually as its says here

[Tiberius Nero]

N.A.T.O. soldiers are not supposed to be a conquering army under any circumstances, thus it is obvious that they do not do things that european armies proper have always done in wartime in the past, namely looting and raping.

I have to warn you that most of the people here are actually intelligent and severe in their criticism of opinions expressed. You actually demonstrate a prodigious amount of ignorance by still making a sweeping generalization of "African life/culture/whatever" as if you don't reallize that Africa is a continent three times the size of Europe. It is also distasteful to bring the Orks into such a conversation unless you have a really strong point to make by such an analogy (it beats me though what actually can be illustrated with WH40k references).

Edit: Squid, if you are reading please address the biological issues raised about AIDS, if you think it worth your time, as I myself am unequipped to do so in a professional way.

[them apples]

N.A.T.O. soldiers are not supposed to be a conquering army under any circumstances, thus it is obvious that they do not do things that european armies proper have always done in wartime in the past, namely looting and raping.

Of course they did,IN THE PAST.
Every country in the past was brutal,but they became civilized.
Take the aztecs for instance.
The problem is,africa are still doing these things in a modern culture.Cutting someones heart out and throwing it down 100 stairs is not something south america does today is it?


The orks thing was supposed to be a joke -_-

I should of put a smily beside it.

[n0z3k1ll3r]

Every country in the past was brutal,but they became civilized.
Take the aztecs for instance.The Aztecs didn't become civilised. They became non-existant.

African development has been set back by both poverty and colonialism. Hence why things like this still happen there.

[Tiberius Nero]

What is THE PAST, man? The same things happened 50 years ago; too bad we haven't had another war in Europe since, in order to furnish you with recent examples. You can google Yugoslavia though, if you have never heard of it; there is bound to be still something on the net about it.

I can see discussing with you is a waste of time, and probably everybody else has realized it by now; you still fail to provide an example of where the bloody hell monkey screwing, mass rape of women, human sacrifices and cannibalism take place in Africa as a ritual of daily life; and since you insist on not doing so I can legitimately presume that you simply have your head filled with delusions and in reality you don't have the slightest inkling of what you are talking about.

[them apples]

I can see discussing with you is a waste of time, and probably everybody else has realized it by now; you still fail to provide an example of where the bloody hell monkey screwing, mass rape of women, human sacrifices and cannibalism take place in Africa as a ritual of daily life; and since you insist on not doing so I can legitimately presume that you simply have your head filled with delusions and in reality you don't have the slightest inkling of what you are talking about.

owch

fine I will stop arguing if this thread has made you emotionally upset.

[n0z3k1ll3r]

WTH? He just wants you to provide examples dude.

[Tiberius Nero]

Whatever, pay no heed to him, noze; this thread has deviated mightily off topic anyway.

[n0z3k1ll3r]

Yeah, I only actually started posting after it went OT though.

[Tiberius Nero]

So did I :D

[n0z3k1ll3r]

So... what to discuss now...

[hiddensmoke]

how about how the world will get screwed by the next plague

:google: the next plague
the history channel got awards by making a special on the black plague and a senero with the next plague.

[Tails]

http://barbershopaids.ytmnd.com/

[SquidDNA]

Just.. no.

Hiddensmoke, if the thought of death excites you so much, go spend some quality time with a dead animal and stop writing half-assed short stories about plauge scenarios on a thread about AIDS.

Noze, you don't get to change the topic.

This is not a thread about the coming plauge. AIDS didn't disappear because you're tired of arguing about it.

The state of African superculture is a valid topic for discussion because African countries are severely hit by HIV, and there's certainly a boatload of cultural factors affecting its hold on the continent.

Them apples, don't post on this thread again unless you're going to give specific examples of modern cannibalism in African nations, evidence of the intent to use HIV as a biological weapon by military agencies in African nations, and some demonstration that you understand there was a civil war in the region formerly known as Yugoslavia ten years agowhere starvation, mass rape, murders, and outright artillery attacks on the populace took place with great frequency.

For the record, consensus in the scientific community is that it's most likely that someone contracted HIV from a primate while butchering it. People eating primates is pretty well documented in Africa-- certainly much more so than people having sex with primates. :/

[hiddensmoke]

meh deleted

[n0z3k1ll3r]

Well, I'm running Fight Aids @ Home on World Community Grid. Does that count for anything?

[Rafta]

Them apples, don't post on this thread again unless you're going to give specific examples of modern cannibalism in African nations, evidence of the intent to use HIV as a biological weapon by military agencies in African nations, and some demonstration that you understand there was a civil war in the region formerly known as Yugoslavia ten years agowhere starvation, mass rape, murders, and outright artillery attacks on the populace took place with great frequency.
And they fought for about 10 years and the riots in some regions aren't stopped yet.
But I think that you can't really take any similarities with tribe wars.
The war in Yugoslavia was an economic war against a suppressor which was under the cloak of ethnical dispute.
Sure it became a wildfire between some religions in Kosovo for instance but it began as an economic war (for Croatia i.e.) and the demand of autonomy.

The civil wars in Africa are mostly some "gangs" or tribes or whatever kicking each others ass cause they simply don't know other. The African continent may be the cradle of mankind but this was long ago. Africa was raped and the natural environment changed long ago.
Some regions don't have enough food or whatsoever for the population, so war is a natural consequence.
And as if the "Africans" weren't f**ked enough the "Western" civilisation is raping Africa as we speak with diamond mines, children work and air pollution through heavy industry.

It's kinda twofaced by the Western countries to speak about the poor Africans on the one hand and using them as modern slaves on the other.
So it's no surprise that there are so many immigrants who join criminal networks or mass AIDS or whatever.

What we reap is what we sow.

[SquidDNA]

There's nothing about cultural boundaries that really sparks conflict. Cultural boundaries provide divisions among people across which the conflict will occur.

Thus a war for economic and political independence waged by Croats against Serbs, an attempt at genocide by the Hutu against the Tutsi in a poor and overpopulated Rwanda, and periodic violence between hispanic and black street gangs are not different.

Competition for resources.

Thus, wars in Africa are not fought because the culture is degenerate. They're fought for the same reason wars are fought anywhere.

[hisnOObness]

OK, err I feel I should add something because the brother of my wifes butcher's cousin to the ³d degree told me once something about it.

All you kiddies listen up now , k?

First, take a nice long look again at the stats squiddie so eloquently announced :
http://squiddna.hwcommunity.com/HIVcath.htm


Notice that his point is that there is not correlation between HIV and christianity ?
That is not the only info you can get from those stats :

1. None of those countries included in the stats have Northern African countries in it. This means that The next big thing of religion in the world after Christianity, Islam, doesn ' t really enter the picture.
2. If Islam doesn ' t enter into the picture, and you can clearly read that the highest percentage of catholics in any given country in those stats is 50.98%, then for the love of christ, why are you people not asking what the vast majority of African populaces believe in? if we knew that, maybe we could draw another correlation, couldnt we?


I'll answer that to the best of my knowledge :

As far as I know, there is no unified religion throughout central/south Africa. In places where christianity isn ' t the norm, local spiritism and pantheism are still thriving. These religions have survived all the abuse colonisation has caused central african countries.

Sadly enough, most of this spiritism and pantheism, is connected into local politics as well. Not federal mind you, they tend to be Christian.
Certain traditions, continuing to be supported by local chieftains and 'mayors', for fear of losing influence should they prohibit or suggest the population to stop following them, have implications to the spread of HIV.

Example : There is a tradition in certain spiritual communities in Gabon that states that when a man dies, his cousin has the DUTY to sleep with the man's wife, in order to 'drive out the ghost' of the deceased.
Men are reluctant to give up this tradition, because of the obvious sexual/power advantages it gives them and chieftains and mayors are reluctant to force the people to give up these traditions for political reasons.

So there you have one of your religious reasons for the spread of Aids in Africa. I'm not saying the only one, but just showing that Squids stats were good for more then saying 'OMG THE VATICAN IS IN ITALY AND THEY DONT HAVE AIDS'

[Rafta]

So there you have one of your religious reasons for the spread of Aids in Africa. I'm not saying the only one, but just showing that Squids stats were good for more then saying 'OMG THE VATICAN IS IN ITALY AND THEY DONT HAVE AIDS'
Who said that?

[hisnOObness]

of all the quotes you couldve made from that post you choose that one?
I'll admit I went a bit over the top in the ending, but ti DID seem to be the main point squid tried to get accross by showing those stats

[TheDeadlyShoe]

to throw in some bits of information. The Rwanda genocide can be pretty directly traced to colonization. The colonial power in question (the Dutch I think?) divided the native people into two groups, the Hutu and the Tutsis. This was extremely arbitrary and completely artificial, based off height and variations in skin color IIRC. In any case, the brutal violence that later erupted was based on these artifical distinctions.

Incidentally, 'colorization' is a huge problem 'round the world, as skin whitening creams can attest.

Additionally, the Darfur genocide was sparked by aggression between essentially similar tribes, one of which considered itself Arab and one that did not. (The government threw its weight behind one side after the other angered the government, which led to general massacres.)

[SquidDNA]

Yeah, that chart was thrown together primarily to post every time someone blames Catholicism for AIDS in Africa.

Thanks for providing some more detail here.

[Benjamin]

Yeah, that chart was thrown together primarily to post every time someone blames Catholicism for AIDS in Africa.

I said before, that the churches possition is not exactly helping the situation. By no means are we expecting the probblem to go away if more people start using condoms if the church decides to say its ok to use them.

But it would help, that wouldnt be a bad thing would it>?

plus some parts of africa are not as well educated and as civilised then Italy, so being promiscuous, from what I can gather, is alot more a done thing over there, in my view, it doesn't exactly say Catholicism is not a contrabutiong factor for the spread of AIDS.

Nether the less, the probblem is huge,





its 00.20...i need to crash :allnight:

[FatalTheRabbit]

The Rwanda genocide can be pretty directly traced to colonization. The colonial power in question (the Dutch I think?) divided the native people into two groups, the Hutu and the Tutsis. This was extremely arbitrary and completely artificial, based off height and variations in skin color IIRC. In any case, the brutal violence that later erupted was based on these artifical distinctions.

Ughh, man, you irk me really bad. If my brother gets a Christmas present that I wanted, or in fact gets presents when I get none do I fucking kill him? NO. Why? Because that's in total opposition to the system of values that I've learned from birth from various sources. Now, if a whole bunch of people were honored, and given freedoms, or responsibilities while another were shunned, and denied certain freedoms and responsibilities is it ok for them to kill out of bitter envy? NO. Why did they? Because largely they lacked a system of values to deter them. Does that mean they have no accountability? NO. While indeed they may not have been flogged with morality from birth, they certainly have minds of their own as well as other outside sources of input, and are perfectly able, if they wanted to, to understand the nature of the act they were undertaking. In fact, in testament to this, there were many Hutus who refused to participate, and they were killed alongside the Tutsi if they didn't manage to stay under the radar.

Again, what's done to you, and what you do in response are two different things entirely.

:rage:

[n0z3k1ll3r]

Ughh, man, you irk me really bad. If my brother gets a Christmas present that I wanted, or in fact gets presents when I get none do I fucking kill him?Now, if that happened for say 40 years straight, you might consider it.

[FatalTheRabbit]

AHHHHHHHHH.

No, n0ze I don't care if it happens for a 1000 years straight. My values would not allow for that. There are millions of paths to take given such a situation. If I learned that my family was so disdainful of me I would probably consider them fools, because I know the nature of what they do is wrong, and would probably just leave. I would definitely not be happy regarding this, but I would do what I think was right according to the values which I have learned, and accepted through my own analysis.

[n0z3k1ll3r]

You've not been an oppressed minority for 40 years, however. Hence you're not qualified to say that that's at fault. There are people in WESTERN COUNTRIES who murder each other because of a few decades neglect. I doubt any of them would have predicted it happening beforehand.

[FatalTheRabbit]

Right, but that's not excuse. They can't blame their actions on some one else. Blaming the colonials for what the Hutu did is, in essence, exactly like blaming video games for violent crimes.

How these people responded to this oppression depends on their system of values. You're point does not rufute my own... so, uhh, what's the point?

Besides, if you really want to get technical none of the ones who commited the atrocity suffered oppression for 40 years. In fact, the bitterness would have been transferred indirectly through culture, which supports my position.


I doubt any of them would have predicted it happening beforehand.

I'm not sure how that's relevant.

[n0z3k1ll3r]

I was referring to your specific case there. You say now you wouldn't kill someone, but honestly I'd say you wouldn't know if you would until you did.

The fact is that the oppression dates back to the systems put in place by the Colonials. Lebanon, Rwanda, countless others. If it hadn't been for them the problem would not exist, therefore they must bear some responsibility.

[FatalTheRabbit]

I think the colonials bear complete responsibility for the direct actions they commited, and I do agree that there is some indirect respnsibility, because of their negligence, but it wouldn't be anymore than what I would bear by arguing with say... my wife(don't actually have one) to the point where she snaps, and stabs me 30 times with a fork in the neck.

It is not justification however. If anything the Hutus hatred should have been directed at the colonials, and not the Tutsi, which makes it that much more unjust.

[Tiberius Nero]

Fatal, I think you are trying to pass moral judgement while everyone else points towards the pragmatic causes of the events; this can go in circles forever.

[hisnOObness]

I agree Tiberius. Probably Fatal missed the fact that TDS made no Moral judgement on that part of history whatsoever because ...... who cares, but there you go another page full of spam for no apparent reason.

oh and btw, you Americans, it was "ze Belgians" that screwed over Rwanda, not "the Dutch".

[FatalTheRabbit]

There's no such thing as a simply pragmatic cause with human beings. Anyway, justification and blame were implied. Also, my point was that their culture, before, during, and after the colonial occupation is the greatest factor in determining their response.

Maybe I did over react to it though. I just have a really short fuse when it comes to people who try to put an amoral spin on humanity. Maybe too short.

[Tiresias]

Our argument was firstly you have little evidence of their culture before, colonisation, and secondly you were the one putting the amoral spin on the Africans who were tribal driven to violence by their culture rather than the lack of social structure lead to life often being 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short'.

[FatalTheRabbit]

Tiresias that's completely nonsensical. Morality is a system within a culture, and it doesn't take a genius to understand that it's unlikely they were any more advanced culturally than the worst of the middle ages, and that's barbaric. You're just grasping at air.

Anyway, like tiberius said this could go on forever.

THE END.

[SquidDNA]

Fatal, it's not so much putting an amoral spin on humanity as approaching it anthropologically. Whether or not there are absolute moral standards, not everyone has the same perspective. So you can sit and hurl insults at people you think are inferior, or try to understand the problem. Anthropology helps with the latter.

As such, there's no such thing as 'cultural advancement.' There is cultural complexity, to be sure, and you can make a good argument for cultural fitness. Culture is adaptive. It serves people or hurts them. Folks on Easter Island made great fucking huge stone heads, and completely wrecked their tiny island ecosystem in the process. 'Advanced' culture by some metrics, but they would have been better off keeping it simple.

Separately, maybe you and I are better people, and wouldn't respond to oppression with blind rage. Maybe we only represent as little as 5% of our culture. After all, we're not more than a few centuries removed from bloody civil conflicts.

[Cmdr Fox Davion]

This thread has gone from ok to odd...

To me, the only things I see as wrong is killing in real life and all forms of molestation (having sex with real animals and children is wrong).

About African society, its not them but their various governments which is the problem, the governments don't care about their dieing nation.

[Starfisher]

Fake animals are ok though, right?

[Cmdr Fox Davion]

If your into fur...

3 of my friends are furrys... like I realy care what they are attracted to?

[FatalTheRabbit]

Those are all excellent points from a relative point of view squid, but I've always had trouble grappling with the notion of relative morality.

[SquidDNA]

Like I said, you can try to understand someone else's perspective, or not. Yeah, I think I'm right. I want to understand why someone else thinks they're right, though. If you can understand why they think they're right, you can better help them to see why they're wrong.

[hisnOObness]

After all, we're not more than a few centuries removed from bloody civil conflicts.

try a few decades.

[Cmdr Fox Davion]

Truth is subjective...

[SquidDNA]

We haven't had any particularly bloody ones here in the past few decades.

Davion, you speak as someone who has not read the thread but would like to start talking. Especially with the "the only really wrong things are hurting children and bunnies!" Nuh-uh. Go back and read. Your point about national governments failing their people has already been addressed, actually.

Don't give me that truth is subjective bullshit neither. Truth, by its definition, is not subjective. Depending on your approach, it may be unknowable, but it is not subjective.

[Tiresias]

So common sense is a better guage than evidence? You seem to guage the rest of the world's culture based on European as a guide line, why? Civilisations don't advance down a linear progression, this leads to if they're not like us they're behind us. Now I'm not suggesting modern day Africa is in any way a superior form of civilisation, it is quite clearly one in chaos.

I suggest you read this Fatal: http://www.istendency.net/pdf/3_05_african_civilisations.pdf

[Tiberius Nero]

Those are all excellent points from a relative point of view squid, but I've always had trouble grappling with the notion of relative morality.

Please, try to understand that colouring every single historical and social phenomenon with your concept of what is moral never makes for a discussion on history or society; at best it is good for showing others how civilized and cultured one is (this is polite form for "selfrighteous" in my book) in comparison to "heathens", "savages" and "barbarians", and it is a good way to vent one's rage. No argument can be based on it though without degenarating into opinionizing.