Africa...Can we do anything?

POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Saturday, September 5, 2026 02:38
VIEWED: 5821
PAGE 5 of 7

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT PAGE

CITIZEN

Saturday, July 23, 2005 5:42 PM

I imagine an intergrated monolithic military is one that is large full-time and professional.

A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her.
--W.C. Fields

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, July 23, 2005 5:46 PM

These are definitely the predictable stories of Signym and rue. And frankly, I don’t know whether they are right or wrong, but I do know that I trust Dr. Duesberg and his many publications on the issue more then I trust either Signym or rue. Of course there are noted scientists who disagree with Dr. Duesberg, and there are those who agree with him. I’m not in a position to refute either side. What is certain is that this is yet another example of the politics being far more certain of its assertions then the science it is supposedly based on will allow. Unfortunately, policy is made by the politics, not the science, so the potential exists that we may be wasting time, money and lives trying to solve a problem that may simply not exist in the way we have defined it. I don't know if that means we should change the direction we are going or not, but it does mean we shouldn't be so quick to lock ourselves into one narrow depiction of the solution.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I fail to see where the deception is in my argument to be honest.

I find that hard to believe.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

CITIZEN

Saturday, July 23, 2005 6:18 PM

Quote:
I find that hard to believe.

No really i don't please explain it to me. Its obviously backed by some damning evidence.

A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her.
--W.C. Fields

RUE

Sunday, July 24, 2005 2:29 AM

SignyM

Quote:
There are so many areas in Africa where attempts at local, direct help are bound to fail in a mileu of Janjaweed-style destruction. You can fix bridges and roads, set up self-help projects (fish farms, goats, fertilizer), provide clinics or traveling doctors, but if the roads are blocked by warlord checkpoints, the bridges are bombed (again), the government drops its support price for maize, or refuses to distribute medicine from the docks....

I believe I already addressed this. I said at length that local direct help is not appropriate for countries that lack security.

But if we are setting out a buffet of ideas to be chosen as appropriate, I think this has a definite place on the menu.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

RUE

Sunday, July 24, 2005 3:06 AM

Quote:
Rue
I was idly thinking the other day about cultures, and which ones continue longest - with evolution of course - and which die completely. All of the 'GREAT' cultures - the Romans, the ancient Egyptians etc are all gone. We don't worship Zeus or Ra, or deal with the Caesars or Pharos. And I wondered if it was because those cultures depended on military might to run. Once their military was defeated, the cultures faded from existence. And I wondered if we modern people might take a lesson from that. That that of our culture we want to transmit can't be imposed at the point of the sword for very long. And that we could historically deduce that by looking at the death of military cultures over time.

SignyM
Exploring around the logical edges of this proposal... non-militarized cultures that failed, non-militarized cultures that survived, militarized cultures that failed, militarized cultures that survived...

Cultures that did not depend on the military also did not survive. It's difficult to find major cultures that were not militarized, but I'm thinking specifically of the the cluster of five large cities in the Tigris-Euphrates area that existed for 500 years and showed no evidence of walls or other fortifications, no armories, and (BTW) no temples or large "government" buildings. What about non-militarized cultures that have survived to this day? China is an example of a large culture that has been in continuous existance for thousands of years. It doesn't depend on its military and has not been expansionist (up until now). Other non-military cultures have been allowed to continue in very isolated, marginal areas: the Bushmen of the Kalahari, the Fore of New Guinea etc. Not sure if that counts. However, some cultural fragments of militarized societies (the Sumerian 7-day week) have survived intact for thousands of years. Since I can find examples in all categories, I'm not sure the hypothesis holds.

Any historians, anthropologists or others care to participate?

Anyway, I did think of the potential of a matrix: military/survive, military/notsurvive, nonmilitary/survive, nonmilitary/notsurvive. And it is true that many non-military cultures have also disappeared without a trace. BTW, if you have a reference for those civilizations I'd appreciate it. I've heard about them in the past but could never find a source. It would be absorbing reading.

Perhaps you could also help me find the single useful word to describe what I mean about the militarized cultures. Empire doesn't quite do it but it may be the closest. The religions were headed by the rulers, and religious tribute was garnered by military conquest. The militaries were professional standing armies dispatched at the behest of the rulers. And each culture was entirely under its religious/economic/military system.

I didn't want to consider the dynammic of non-military cultures that did NOT survive, just yet.

What caught my attention was what seemed to be a counter-intuitive notion that the largest, strongest cultures, dependent on the military as an essential part of their function, seemed to disappear as intact, identifiable entities. While cultures not dependent on the military could nevertheless survive as intact, indentifiable continuing cultures for long periods of time. And I wondered if the crucial factor was that without the military to keep their religious/political systems running, everthing fell apart for the 'empires'. (If that is the right word.)

But, not being a student of history, I wonder if that supposition is true. I can think of a few cultures that seem to have gone that route (Egyptian, Roman, Aztec, Inca, Maya), but I wonder if it is generally true.

Anyone care to join in?

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

CITIZEN

Sunday, July 24, 2005 3:16 AM

I've noticed a trend amongst nations. They seem to follow a similar 'life span' as individual people. A young though to adolecent phase, a young adult to middle age (expansionistic), and an old age/decline phase (decadents?). Dunno if theirs any truth to it but it seems to fit for me.

A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her.
--W.C. Fields

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Sunday, July 24, 2005 4:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I've noticed a trend amongst nations. They seem to follow a similar 'life span' as individual people. A young though to adolecent phase, a young adult to middle age (expansionistic), and an old age/decline phase (decadents?). Dunno if theirs any truth to it but it seems to fit for me.

I think it is kind of a post hoc analysis, but it is uncanny that way one can apply that analogy to some cultures. It’s an analogy that fits very well to the Roman culture, which did develop from humble beginnings into a mature and powerful Republic/Empire and then began to wane and eventually die. I don’t know how consistent that analogy is, but I think you could probably fit it to just about any state or political region, to one degree or another.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

CITIZEN

Sunday, July 24, 2005 12:32 PM

Quote:

The post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this therefore because of this) fallacy is based upon the mistaken notion that simply because one thing happens after another, the first event was a cause of the second event. Post hoc reasoning is the basis for many superstitions and erroneous beliefs.

Dunno if that quite fits. But:

The UK seems to fit. The UK started out as a poor relation to the other European powers during the dark to middle ages. Gradually, however Brition began to come to the forefront of world politics, founding colonies that still exist today (America, Australia) and at one point controlling a quarter of the worlds population. Now British world power is diminishing (along with the rest of Europe, in fact). This trend, I believe, is present in other nations (France, Spain).

The Mayan's seem to fit:
http://www.isourcecom.com/maya/themaya/timeline.htm

Ancient Greek seems to fit (admittedly in a more ad hoc sort of way as the end of Greek civilization was more abrupt).
http://www.usfca.edu/westciv/Greekchron.html
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/aegean/timeline.html

Egypt seems not to follow this so closely given that it had a more 'up and down' timeline:
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/EGYPT/TIMELINE.HTM

This seems due largly to outside pressures and natural disasters, so maybe egypt was just stricken by sickness (hows that for an ad hoc theory

).

A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her.
--W.C. Fields

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Sunday, July 24, 2005 5:30 PM

I’m starting to think this is a little too ad hoc. Greek power and culture waxed and waned for 4000 years. And finally never actually died, since Greek culture exists in a sovereign Greek state today. Growing from a collection of smaller cultures into a quasi-united power in the Aegean, collapsing into a dark age, growing again into a major Aegean power to face the Persians, then collapsing again only to grow into another major power that spread almost instantly from Greece to India, only to collapse again, eventually falling under Roman control, but rising above Roman culture to become another great power which eventually fell to Muslim invasions, and is now a weak Aegean power.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

PERFESSERGEE

Sunday, July 24, 2005 11:56 PM

Well, I have to tip my hat to you Finn, you've managed to completely fool me ever since I first saw your posts, and probably a whole lot of other folks on this board have been taken in as well. Despite my frequent disagreement with the ideas you post, I've always thought there must be some kind of intellectual integrity underlying them, even if I didn't agree with it. I was taken in by your rhetorical ability. And then I read the following from this thread:

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

How many people have died of AIDS in the world? Answer: none.

I don’t doubt that disease is rampant in Africa. Is there some reason to be surprised that disease is rampant in overpopulated, unsanitary third world countries? The issue is whether it is salient to throw money at a potentially invented or hyped diseases when we could use that money to treat diseases that we know exist and how to prevent.

And then this (your response to a different post, not my own):

Quote:
Let’s be honest. We both know you’re going to believe whatever you want to believe regardless of the conclusiveness of the evidence. It’s probably pointless to even go into it, but for people who are interested, I’ll simply suggest reading something by Dr. Duesberg.
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/pdpnas89.htm

Pretty spectacular stuff. You've made an assertion that is ridiculous beyond belief (how many people have died of old age, Finn? Virtually none by your reckoning, something else kills them). Then you suggest that you have the weight of evidence behind you when there is an enormous (let me repeat, ENORMOUS) body of evidence that contradicts your statements, and no current, credible evidence at all to support them. And then you back it up with a 16-year-old reference that was thoroughly discredited more than a decade ago. Hell, it was discredited when I was still in grad school, and we all laughed when his book came out.

Finn, the posts I quoted above represent either intellectual dishonesty, or tin-foil-hat lunacy. Well, I suppose it could be both. Frankly, I don't know which way to call it, but either way, I will keep it in mind when I see your name on a post. I'm embarassed that I didn't catch it earlier.

For the record: Do you think that the Holocaust actually happened? Have humans truly been to the moon?

not fooled any more perfessergee

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT PAGE