Effects of Fascism and Racism in Africa
An argument against anarchy that I am presented with nearly as often as the “roads” argument is the case of sub-Saharan Africa. There, we are told, people are starving, disease runs rampant, and only through State-sponsored intervention will these people be saved. Indeed, if you suggest that the governments of the world not interfere with Africa, you are looked at as some kind of heartless, soulless monster. Since most people think of anarchists as soulless atheists bent on destroying society anyway, this myth fits right in. And yet, even as governments all over the “civilized” world give millions of dollars in aid to Africa, the situation seems to be getting more and more dire. How can this be? I make the rather bold claim that government aid is in fact what is causing starvation in Africa, and the effects of fascism and racism are vividly displayed in effects of “do-gooder” politics that runs rampant through that continent.
Where do we begin? The easy place to point out government interference is in the politics of that continent itself. Over many decades, outside governments have meddled in ancient rulers and tribal lands. However, I am not going to get into that today, as it has been written of extensively, and I feel that is low-hanging fruit. I am going to talk about the politics of charity in Africa.
As Westerners, as a “civilized” culture, we look down on indigenous practices such as hunting and gathering. We swoop down, full of pomp and self-righteousness, to “save the heathens” from their “poor” diets of bugs, roots, and meat. A civilized society, you see, eats grains. So we plant these unsustainable crops, and we teach the filthy heathens to stop eating bugs, and begin relying on grains.
“At the conference, Dunkel talked about her frustration working in West Africa, where for decades European and American entomologists, through programs like U.S.A.I.D. and British Locust Control, have killed grasshoppers and locusts, which are complete proteins, in order to preserve the incomplete proteins in millet, wheat, barley, sorghum, and maize. Her field work in Mali focusses on the role of grasshoppers in the diets of children, who, for cultural reasons, do not eat chicken or eggs. Grasshoppers contain essential amino acids and serve as a crucial buffer against kwashiorkor, a protein deficiency that impedes physical and neurological development. In the village where Dunkel works, kwashiorkor is on the rise; in recent years, nearby fields have been planted with cotton, and pesticide use has intensified. Mothers now warn their children not to collect the grasshoppers, which they rightly fear may be contaminated.”
Here we have a prime example of racism. And yet, digging further, we have a prime example of fascism as well. You see, grasshoppers are sustainable, which is to say, they don’t require the consumer to purchase them from a large, State backed corporation. They also don’t require the use of harsh pesticides, herbicides, or fungicides, all of which are produced, subsidized and pushed by various State backed corporations.
So we have a situation where, left to their traditional ways, a society is self sufficient, independent, and healthy. Clearly we can’t have that! So in comes government aid, backed by political pressure from seed corporations dying to get their hands on such a prime market. Lo and behold, the switch to an agrarian culture leads to sickness, starvation, and death. Well, clearly these cultures can’t manage themselves! Look at them, they’re starving! Let’s send in MORE government aid, backed by fascist corporations that make massive amounts of money by supplying these grains to the “charities.” So, in comes more aid, which causes more harm, which causes more aid… a never-ending cycle of State-sponsored degradation.
And could a free-market do better? We are asked that so often. The question of “but at least they’re doing something! Imagine if there were no governments at all!” Yes, imagine that. I’ll give the standard anarchist answer, “A free market couldn’t possibly make things worse than the State does.”
Ki Vick
2011
And most westerners/europeans would say the people of Africa are to blame for their own problems. Check out the "Scramble for Africa". We know why Africa is the way it is today. Even look at the politics of many African countries. They destroyed people's cultural ways of governing themselves. Africans were not familiar with european model governments and guess what. When the europeans left they sure as hell didn't give the people the blueprint either.
Imposing an abusive government, then withdrawing and leaving a void for the most violent warlords to fill after disarming and economically pillaging the general population. It was a recipe for disaster. The State destroys everything it touches.
Huge disaster. When has colonialism ever been successful?
It's usually quite successful in the short term for enriching the colonialist government and its business cronies. That's why it was historically so popular.
Agreed. Exactly for the colonialists but not the people groups they colonized
Every race has adapted to a different climate and therefore adopted different lifestyles and customs that maximized fitness in their perspective climate. Interfering with this evolutionary process by introducing the customs of another race has had the predictable but perhaps unintended effect of creating poverty, misery, disease, and internal strife.
The best way to help Africa is to leave it alone. Cut all aid - both from governments and private charities - and let natural selection run its course.
There are not many races. Only one. Human. Ethnic groups yes. Races? Not at all. It was made up by europeans to further promote white supremacy. This is fact.
Then why is that the only thing leftists talk about aside from transvestites? It seems to me everyone intuitively recognizes race until its inconvenient for them. Besides my point wasn't that race exists; that was just something I mentioned off hand. I could have replaced the word race with peoples and it still would have made sense. My point was that charity is sometimes harmful to the people it is intended to help.
You referred to evolution, not cultural adaptation. You condemn charity with a prejudicial assumption that Africans are equivalent to addicts. Then you try to backpedal through sophistry. Nice try.
Cultures themselves are the result of evolution so yes. And I wasn't comparing Africans to addicts. I used the example of giving money to the homeless as a similar instance of when charity is actually harmful to its recipient. The only sophistry here is you claiming to know my intentions. Unless you can read minds I have no choice but to assume you're full of shit.
I read what you wrote. Don't be trying to shift the blame. If you want to give an example of harmful charity, you could point to foreign aid funds being funneled to warlord war chests, or to food aid that cripples the local agricultural market. Those would be a foundation for a valid and meaningful conversation. You did not do that. Instead you played word games to avoid responsibility for what you actually wrote.
Government aid is merely the redistribution of stolen wealth, and as such should be eliminated in all cases. However, private charity is a blessing and should never be forbidden. To forbid it would be trespass and usurpation.
Your racist interpretation of cultural differences is repugnant. Take that garbage elsewhere.
lol are you one of those left-libertarians? The word 'racist' has been rendered meaningless by people like you who apply it haphazardly to anyone who disagrees with them. I never said that private charity should be forbidden, but its not always a blessing and should be looked down upon in some cases. Case in point: giving money to a homeless person will often simply reinforce a substance abuse habit that keeps them homeless. Blind altruism is a vice.
So you're a racist and a sophist. Thanks for clarifying your disinterest in serious discussion.
Ironic that you would call me a sophist when your argument is an ad hominem - in other words NOT AN ARGUMENT. Try again. Try harder.
The term "racist" has not lost its meaning when applied to people who exhibit actual racist ideology, especially when they try to couch it in a cloak of liberty.
You remain a disingenuous sophist instead of a presenter of rational argument. This observation carries far more weight than your own question of, "Are you one of those left-libertarians?" You set the tune. Now dance. Analysis of your public behavior is not an ad hominem.