Skip to main content

quote:
Originally posted by Black Viking:
quote:
Originally posted by ricardomath:
I don't believe that anybody here who might criticize this country has claimed that there are not economic advantages to living and working in a country that has exploited the rest of the world over living and working in a country which has been subject to that exploitation.

Indeed, there were lots of economic bennifits that derived from slavery. Should abolitionists also be criticised for their opposition to slavery?

yeah


I didn't see this... appl
quote:
Originally posted by Dissident:
Some members here act like Black people owe Amerikkka a favor. nono

The productivity Blacks achieved in this country is purely a result of coincidence and circumstance and not the result of natural selection. This system was not designed to benefit AA's in any way shape or form. But if Blacks can somehow acquire some meaningful benefits through a system which was originally designed for whites to maintain a level of white privilege, AA's are suppose to be thankful? Negative. Again, the social and economic advancement of AA's in Amerikkka is purely circumstantial, so why should AA's feel beholden to the red, white and blue.

Black people owe Amerikkka NOTHING. Yet America owes Blacks(and failed to deliver) an unprecedented amount of moral and financial gratitude.


P.S. Amerikkka has so much because it takes so much from others.


quote:
Originally posted by ricardomath:
I don't believe that anybody here who might criticize this country has claimed that there are not economic advantages to living and working in a country that has exploited the rest of the world over living and working in a country which has been subject to that exploitation.

Indeed, there were lots of economic bennifits that derived from slavery. Should abolitionists also be criticised for their opposition to slavery?



I think I'm going to add these to the "Most Powerful Member Quotes" thread. thanks
quote:
Originally posted by Dissident:
Some members here act like Black people owe Amerikkka a favor. nono

The productivity Blacks achieved in this country is purely a result of coincidence and circumstance and not the result of natural selection. This system was not designed to benefit AA's in any way shape or form. But if Blacks can somehow acquire some meaningful benefits through a system which was originally designed for whites to maintain a level of white privilege, AA's are suppose to be thankful? Negative. Again, the social and economic advancement of AA's in Amerikkka is purely circumstantial, so why should AA's feel beholden to the red, white and blue.

Black people owe Amerikkka NOTHING. Yet America owes Blacks(and failed to deliver) an unprecedented amount of moral and financial gratitude.


P.S. Amerikkka has so much because it takes so much from others.


Didn't see that either... appl appl appl
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
You don't know what the hell people know about anything because you don't know any of us personally.

Actually, I think the only reason he doesn't know what people know about anything is because he simply can't read. His utter lack of reading comprehension becomes evident every time he posts stupidity like this...

quote:
Originally posted by Romulus Burnett:
After all those bigoted, pro black, extremist, separatist, anti-American, anti-christian, anti-nonblack arguments you negroes have fought over in the various forums on this discussion board,


Which is constant.

I find it hilarious really. With all the wide variety of opinions and positions on every topic on this board... and all the knockdown, drag out fights we've had over them over the years... he still finds a way to lump us all into that nonsense. Roll Eyes

Or...

It could be his complete and total lack of honesty and integrity. Such as when he sets parameters like this...

quote:
Originally posted by Romulus Burnett:
I'm talking about being a resident of a foreign country. And I don't want to hear shit about what you read online or in a book in a library or what somebody you know said about living there.


But America's so great because of something he read about somewhere he's never been...
quote:
Originally posted by Romulus Burnett:
I've never left the country but I did read this:

Fifty-thousand South Africans are insured by the LifeSense Rape Care policy, underwritten by Lloyds of London. After a rape, policy holders receive a triple cocktail of anti-retroviral drugs for 28 days and free HIV testing for one year. The policy also covers the morning after pill, counseling, alternative therapy, and security upgrades for the home. --A Market for Rape Insurance Emerges.

Either way... he's still FOS.
Originally posted by Romulus Burnett
quote:
This is exactly what I'm talking about. You can 'vacation' for long periods of time and more than likely never really get to the meat and potatoes of what's really going on in the country you're visiting especially if you're encouraged/steered away from areas where tourists don't usually go.

Female mutilation is so rapant in many parts of South Africa they actually have a company that has provided rape insurance policies for women. How sick is that to need corporate assistance to deal with such an atrocity?


fro for clarification....RAPE is NOT FGM. Apples and Oranges. And nothing in the article provided mentions remotely ANYTHING about FGM. Confused

Article:

Where HIV Skyrockets, a Market for Rape Insurance Emerges

By Kelly St. John

KHAYELITSHA, South Africa "” Siphokazi is eight years old, and cannot write her last name. Last year was not a year for school, but for police stations and HIV tests. Siphokazi was raped.

Siphokazi is a statistic in the country with the world's highest per capita rates of rape. For South African companies marketing "rape insurance," she is also a sales pitch.

Doctors believe Siphokazi was raped at least ten times, by her uncle. So far, HIV tests have come back negative. But, said mother Nancy Matutu, not all news is good. Siphokazi is scared of men, including her own father. And she will probably never have children.

Siphokazi proudly shows off the bedroom she shares with three younger siblings, in a modest yet tidy brick house in this township outside Cape Town. Out of her mother's earshot, she hugged a worn blue bear and recalled her ordeal.

"I was sad," she said, "because I made my mother cry."

In South Africa, the only thing that makes Siphokazi's story exceptional is that it is so common. Fifty-four thousand people reported rapes to South Africa's police in 1998. Here, a woman is five times more likely to be raped than in the United States.

Rape victim Siphokazi Matutu, 8, hides behind her teddy bear. An estimated one in three South African girls is raped by her 18th birthday. Photo by Mimi Chakarova.

HIV-AIDS is also spreading faster in South Africa than anywhere else in the world. According to South Africa's government, four million of its 43 million people have HIV and 1,700 more are infected daily. Here, rape can be more than just a devastating act of violence. It can be a death sentence.

But many South African women are saying it shouldn't be. A course of anti-retroviral drug treatments could cut a rape victim's risk of contracting HIV, but these drugs are not covered by the government's health system. Five insurance companies have stepped in, helping women with means to take care of themselves.

Fifty-thousand South Africans are insured by the LifeSense Rape Care policy, underwritten by Lloyds of London. After a rape, policy holders receive a triple cocktail of anti-retroviral drugs for 28 days and free HIV testing for one year. The policy also covers the morning after pill, counseling, alternative therapy, and security upgrades for the home.

Policyholders pay less than $2 each month for the LifeSense insurance, which is sold through employers. In contrast, a one-month supply of three anti-retroviral drugs costs consumers as much as $833. That's no small price considering South Africa's per capita household income is $2,880, according to the World Bank.

Audrey Potter, who helped design the LifeSense policy, made a convincing pitch. "We do make money out of it, but we don't make a lot," she said. "The government is doing nothing about rape. They're burying their heads in the sand. Companies are stepping in and its their social responsibility, because no one else is going to do it."

LifeSense's brochures include frightening statistics. A Cape Town hospital reports that three-fourths of the rape victims it sees are gang raped. One in two South African women is raped in her lifetime. The Johannesburg Hospital estimates that 40 percent of men 20-29 are HIV-positive. This is the age group of most of South Africa's rapists.

"And rape victims are treated appallingly" by the system that is supposed to help them, Potter continued. Rape survivors receive shabby medical treatment, and are sometimes not even told about the existence of drugs that could prevent HIV transmission.

There have been sporadic reports of rape victims being raped again in police stations. Fewer than 20 percent of rapes in 1998 were prosecuted, and just nine percent of reported rapes in South Africa ultimately result in a conviction.

"If it happened to me here, I wouldn't report it," said Potter, who pushed successfully for LifeSense to cover rapes regardless if they are reported to the police.

Commercial General Union became the first South African insurer to issue rape insurance last year, and from the beginning the policies have drawn fire from critics. While the policies cover HIV testing, they make no provision for HIV-AIDS care if a woman tests positive for the disease, critics say. And, some argue, medical care after a rape should be an integral part of all medical insurance and the health care system, not an optional benefit.

People Opposing Women Abuse, a Johannesburg-based advocacy group, criticized the police for profiting on women's misfortune and suggested the money would be better spent helping police deal with the increase in rape cases. LifeSense does donate a portion of its profits to organizations combating rape.

The debate over rape insurance is one that centers on class, and since much of the country's wealth is held by the white minority, the issue of class inevitably turns to race. Rape insurance is a new concept, but it follows an old trend, said People Opposing Women Abuse's director Nthabiseng Sepanya. People who can afford it, typically affluent whites, spend their money to opt out of the system all together. Meanwhile, the vast majority of the country's women are left with their lot.

In that vein, rape insurance is not much different than companies that have helped whites flee the country since the end of apartheid. "The people who are saying they can't take walks, they've never taken walks. Before they were scared of communists," Sepanya said. "Now, it's rapists."

South African women live at a dangerous intersection: thw world's highest rates of rape and the fastest spread of HIV-AIDS. Women in townships like this (Gugulethu) are most at risk, but least able to afford insurance or medical care to reduce their chances of contracting HIV. Photo by Mimi Chakarova.

Still, South Africa's high crime rate and increasing rates of HIV transmission make the policies attractive. And arguing over the validity of these policies is peripheral to the broader question about rape and HIV-AIDS, said Helen Rees, director of the Reproductive Health Research Unit at Chris Hani Baragwanath public hospital in Soweto.

LifeSense's brochures tell patients that anti-retroviral drugs like AZT and 3TC taken within 72 hours of the rape will lessen their odds of contracting HIV by up to 81 percent. That estimate is extrapolated from studies of health care workers pricked by HIV-infected needles, because no study about rape and HIV transmission has been completed.

"At the individual patient level, physicians want to prescribe these drugs, even though there's no direct science" to attest to their effectiveness, Rees said.

"The government is saying 'We've only got so much money and we don't even know if these drugs work.' But individual physicians are acting on scientific logic, if not hard science," Rees said. "They're equally right."

People Opposing Women Abuse may be critical of rape insurance, but it stands with one of LifeSense's biggest supporters "” journalist and rape survivor Charlene Smith "” in lambasting the government of President Thabo Mbeki over anti-retroviral treatments for rape victims. "If they cannot guarantee us safety," said Sepanya, "they must provide remedies once we've been violated."

Smith sparked a furor last year when she wrote about her own rape and her difficulty in obtaining anti-retroviral drugs in a national newspaper. She has taken the state to task over its failure to buy AZT. "With regard to the high cost of anti-retrovirals, the government is talking absolute garbage," Smith fired away by email to a reporter.

Glaxo-Wellcome, the American drug company which holds the patent for AZT, reduced its price for South Africa to about $67 for a 28-day supply, Smith told a delegation of American congressmen last December. South Africa rejected the offer.

Advocates say the government's call for more study about HIV and rape is a smokescreen, because the government has not responded in other policy areas even when the evidence is clear. Widely-accepted research in Europe and America found that the drug AZT halves an HIV-positive mother's chance of infecting her newborn infant, but South Africa still does not give the drug to pregnant women.

In the mammoth Chris Hani Baragwanath hospital, no rape victim has ever arrived with rape insurance coverage. When asked about the policies, on-duty police officer Philadelphia Poulsen not only said she had never heard of such a thing, she asked for the name of a company that sells it and a phone number.

In this place, where it is the rare victim who could afford anti-retroviral drugs, "rape insurance sounds like a pretty good idea," Poulsen said.

Chief nurse Sally Mbulanheni waited patiently in the cheery yellow room where Baragwanath's rape victims are first received. In February, Baragwanath treated 110 women, 153 girls, 6 men, and 15 boys for rape. This afternoon is quiet.

"It depresses me, the conditions. To be hearing of rape, especially when it is a child. I have a two-year-old daughter myself," Mbulanheni said. "Put yourself in the situation of that person. You contract HIV and there's no help for you."

Baragwanath does not report how many of its rape cases involved multiple attackers, but Mbulanheni offered an informal sample. She flipped open the center's logbook and ran her finger down the first random page.

"Here's three men, then two, then four on the same day," she read. "Oh, and three days later, here's someone who was raped by 10. At the age of 20, raped by 10 men."

Rapes of white women by black men garner a disproportionate amount of media attention, but most victims are black women and girls attacked by black men, usually someone they know. Professionals give a litany of theories about why rape here is so prevalent: poverty and unemployment are endemic, women hold a low status in society, and with its roots in apartheid, the country has a unique tradition of violence.

"You can't understand rape, but you can understand some of the anger here," LifeSense's Potter said. "Kids here have seen people set on fire, seen their parents dragged off and tortured."

In the impoverished squatter camps of Alexandra, outside Johannesburg, poverty makes women vulnerable. Families live and sleep together in one room shanties, exposing girls to predatory older relatives. The streets are unlit, and women lucky enough to have jobs often have to walk long distances alone to get there.

Counselors also say some child rapes are attributed to an alarming urban myth: that a man can rid himself of HIV if he has sex with a virgin.

Prince Masina, an ex-con who now coordinates a prison project to reduce violence against women, said that rape in the townships is often committed by career criminals.

"It's the elite gangs, those that have got the money from robbing and stealing cars. What the statement they are making is, 'We control everything'," Masina said.

Or, as often happens, a man who feels slighted by a woman or girl will come back with his friends to punish her. "Since the 1980s, it's been fashionable to take women by force and use them," Masina said. "It's not about lust, or because these men cannot enter a relationship. It's about having the last word all of the time."

It's hard not to walk away from South Africa's crisis counselors without a distinct impression "” that a stranger could throw a stone into this Alexandra crowd and hit a woman with a horrific story of abuse to tell.

And in a way, that's the case. This first woman stopped on the street is Nothemba Sulupha, a bright 18-year-old student with closely cropped dreadlocks. Asked about rape, Sulupha clicked her tongue.

"Well, we all have our experiences," she said, reluctantly disclosing that she was sexually molested by her cousin. "It's happened to most of my friends, and most of the people I've come across. You're expecting it to happen, and if it doesn't, you're lucky," she said.

"Rape actually becomes boring. You can't sympathize with people anymore because it's overdone."

|
fro
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Black Viking:
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
You don't know what the hell people know about anything because you don't know any of us personally.

Actually, I think the only reason he doesn't know what people know about anything is because he simply can't read. His utter lack of reading comprehension becomes evident every time he posts stupidity like this...

quote:
Originally posted by Romulus Burnett:
After all those bigoted, pro black, extremist, separatist, anti-American, anti-christian, anti-nonblack arguments you negroes have fought over in the various forums on this discussion board,


Which is constant.

I find it hilarious really. With all the wide variety of opinions and positions on every topic on this board... and all the knockdown, drag out fights we've had over them over the years... he still finds a way to lump us all into that nonsense. Roll Eyes

Or...

It could be his complete and total lack of honesty and integrity. Such as when he sets parameters like this...

quote:
Originally posted by Romulus Burnett:
I'm talking about being a resident of a foreign country. And I don't want to hear shit about what you read online or in a book in a library or what somebody you know said about living there.


But America's so great because of something he read about somewhere he's never been...
quote:
Originally posted by Romulus Burnett:
I've never left the country but I did read this:

Fifty-thousand South Africans are insured by the LifeSense Rape Care policy, underwritten by Lloyds of London. After a rape, policy holders receive a triple cocktail of anti-retroviral drugs for 28 days and free HIV testing for one year. The policy also covers the morning after pill, counseling, alternative therapy, and security upgrades for the home. --A Market for Rape Insurance Emerges.

Either way... he's still FOS.


Exactly...
quote:
The debate over rape insurance is one that centers on class, and since much of the country's wealth is held by the white minority, the issue of class inevitably turns to race. Rape insurance is a new concept, but it follows an old trend, said People Opposing Women Abuse's director Nthabiseng Sepanya. People who can afford it, typically affluent whites, spend their money to opt out of the system all together. Meanwhile, the vast majority of the country's women are left with their lot.

Mad
quote:
for clarification....RAPE is NOT FGM. Apples and Oranges. And nothing in the article provided mentions remotely ANYTHING about FGM.


For clarification.....I WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT FGM. Apples and bananas. And the fact that RAPE would be so rampid in many areas of South Africa that women have to have insurance to protect themselves takes presidence over any kind of argument for or against these countries in South Africa. Last time I checked I've never heard of Allstate, State Farm, Prudential or anyone else in North America passing out rape policies.
quote:
Originally posted by Romulus Burnett:
quote:
for clarification....RAPE is NOT FGM. Apples and Oranges. And nothing in the article provided mentions remotely ANYTHING about FGM.


For clarification.....I WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT FGM. Apples and bananas. And the fact that RAPE would be so rampid in many areas of South Africa that women have to have insurance to protect themselves takes presidence over any kind of argument for or against these countries in South Africa. Last time I checked I've never heard of Allstate, State Farm, Prudential or anyone else in North America passing out rape policies.



For clarification ....

quote:
Originally posted by Romulus Burnett:

Female mutilation is so rapant in many parts of South Africa they actually have a company that has provided rape insurance policies for women. How sick is that to need corporate assistance to deal with such an atrocity?



Just for clarification of course ...
Originally posted by Romulus Burnett
quote:

For clarification.....I WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT FGM. Apples and bananas. And the fact that RAPE would be so rampid in many areas of South Africa that women have to have insurance to protect themselves takes presidence over any kind of argument for or against these countries in South Africa...


fro nono No No brotha...you said "Female mutilation is so rapant in many parts of South Africa they actually have a company that has provided rape insurance policies for women. How sick is that to need corporate assistance to deal with such an atrocity?" These are YOUR WORDS....NOT mine! fro
quote:
This argument is baseless since no one has said that they "HATE" America. It is the duty of a citizen to criticize the government, lest the govt become tyrannical. Supposedly America is founded on this principle to avoid returning to a Monarchy or theocratic form of govt.


Are you out of your damn mind? You've either got to be fucking kidding me or you're being selectively blind. But you people on this discussion board have this uncanny ability to wholeheartedly believe in and support your own biased opinions yet reject, ignore and minimalize any perspectives that are not in accordance with yours whether you're right or wrong. oshit asset waltzes around here spelling America A-M-E-R-I-K-K-K-A, ranting about imperialism/hegemony, and rants about how Canadians are better informed and have such great health coverage and a plethora of other anti-American trash. The only thing she's left out is to just straight up say America is hell on Earth. But yet she's 100% on guard about painting a picture of South Africa as a garden of Eden. Of course I'm fully aware of many areas of South Africa being very cosmopolitan and some areas even westernized but to overlook the barbarism, chaos, civil wars (hmmm. When was the last time there was a civil war on U.S. soil?), and political turmoil in South Africa yet shit all over your own country is straight mentally ill bullshit.

I was born and raised in America, been here since day one and never left. I'm completely and fully aware of America's strengths and weaknesses as well as America's oppressive past in the institutional racism inacted on minorities but what country on this planet hasn't had its growing pains? Blood has been spilled and evils have been committed against the peoples of nearly every civilization known to man by the people in power of those civilizations. Nobody said America was perfect. Nobody said America is the only place to be, and If anyone acts like anywhere on planet Earth is perfect, especially if you're black, is out of their damn mind. While individual
experiences may indicate a certain perspective you can't take one opinion, especially the biased opinions of some of you assholes, and make sweeping negative generalizations while simultaneously benefitting from the advantages of living in this country. It's really simple. You hate America that much, then what the hell are you still here for? I've never heard of anyone continuing to eat a meal in a restaurant that makes them ill.

You brag and boast about criticizing America's government being your civic duty not acknowledging the fact that this nation's constitution gives you that right. Let's not be selective--try openly protesting in some of these other countries and see how quickly your ass will get killed. I'm not even patriotic. I didn't serve one second in the armed forces even though my relatives have served in the Army and the Navy since WWI. I don't even care about July 4th but I'm glad to be an American despite America's shortcomings. I'm glad to be black, and I couldn't be made to be ashamed of feeling the way I do. Even with all I know about America how the hell is that supposed to change how I feel about living here? I'll tell you one damn thing for sure. If I hated America as much as some of you people do I would be interacting with you on this discussion board from a laptop somewhere in Japan, India or Australia.

quote:
Originally posted by ebonyrose:

You can take that "Go Team America" crap and shove it ... I know exactly what's so good AND what's so bad about this place ... and I'm not so *loved-up* about it that I can't (or won't) see/tell the whole truth! America is the best place on this planet to be a part of .. it also has some real f****d up ways of doing doing things .. and if you can't see that, then maybe YOU'RE the one who needs to live in another country for a while. Try one of the ones where we've backed a military coup, and the people there are living in poverty and terror while their implanted government rapes their resources and sends them here to make you so damn comfy!


...And on that note you know you need to close your mouth because you're shitting profusely from it. What country on this planet doesn't have fucked up ways of dealing with things? You're implying that there's somewhere else on this planet that is a virtual utopia in comparison. And what completely blows my mind is how all of you speak of the wrongdoings of America like the government is run by one guy wearing a big black hat and a smoking gun in each hand. The fuck's wrong with you people? Are you that narrow-minded and naive that you think any citizen is supposed to somehow feel responsibile for the actions of people I don't know and have no control over other than through voting?

The fuck you gonna do when if, for example, you take your ass to another country and you find out that country's government has done something to oppress their citizens whether directly or indirectly? You gonna whine and complain and run away from that country too? Ask me directly and I'll tell you straight to your face my conscience is clear. I haven't committed one single damn crime against humanity and I have no control over the actions of others beyond political activism. The question asked of this forum: Do you stand up for America? Hell yeah. You have a problem with it? You know I don't give a fuck. The world is big enough for all of us. Put your buckets down where you stand and shut the fuck up.
quote:
Originally posted by Kocolicious:
Originally posted by Romulus Burnett
quote:

For clarification.....I WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT FGM. Apples and bananas. And the fact that RAPE would be so rampid in many areas of South Africa that women have to have insurance to protect themselves takes presidence over any kind of argument for or against these countries in South Africa...


fro nono No No brotha...you said "Female mutilation is so rapant in many parts of South Africa they actually have a company that has provided rape insurance policies for women. How sick is that to need corporate assistance to deal with such an atrocity?" These are YOUR WORDS....NOT mine! fro


...And all of you try so damn hard to defend your position on a debate, argument or whatever the fuck you want to label it you try to build your argument off of an error in typing. I know exactly what the hell I said and I referred very clearly to two different subjects: FGM and RAPE. Because I didn't place AND in between the two doesn't mean I was equating both as being the same subject. FGM is sick in and of itself but the raping of girls as young as 5 years old, rendering permanent damage to a girl's urinary tract as well as her reproductive system to the point of uncontrolled urination, repulsive odor, and constant excruciating pain is uncomprehensionable.

Use what little common sense you have--the key term used was RAPE INSURANCE not FGM INSURANCE. It's fucking ridiculous on your behalf to distract and redirect the focus to try to one up yourselves based on an error when the bottom line is both rape and FGM are inhumane crimes against women and you fucking know that. What's worse is y'all don't give a fuck about the subject of FGM and rape as much as you care about acting like complete asses and fucking up a legitimate discussion on a serious discussion because, once again, not everyone wants to be an arrogant, indifferent, biased blowhard using any kind of tactic to dilute the argument by distracting and redirecting.
Last edited {1}
quote:
...And all of you try so damn hard to defend your position on a debate, argument or whatever the fuck you want to label it you try to build your argument off of an error in typing. I know exactly what the hell I said and I referred very clearly to two different subjects: FGM and RAPE. Because I didn't place AND in between the two doesn't mean I was equating both as being the same subject. FGM is sick in and of itself but the raping of girls as young as 5 years old, rendering permanent damage to a girl's urinary tract as well as her reproductive system to the point of uncontrolled urination, repulsive odor, and constant excruciating pain is uncomprehensionable.



fro What error in typing? The article you linked was about RAPE...not FGM-which was WHAT we were talking about initially. And you're WRONG again. You were NOT clear about two different subjects. You said "Female mutilation is so rapant in many parts of South Africa they actually have a company that has provided rape insurance policies for women." Where in this statement did you say anything about FGM? Confused BTW: I am NOT debating anything....I wanted clarification... is all. If you made the error....why not correct it? But you didn't. All you did...was get angry. Eek fro
quote:
Originally posted by Kocolicious:
quote:
...And all of you try so damn hard to defend your position on a debate, argument or whatever the fuck you want to label it you try to build your argument off of an error in typing. I know exactly what the hell I said and I referred very clearly to two different subjects: FGM and RAPE. Because I didn't place AND in between the two doesn't mean I was equating both as being the same subject. FGM is sick in and of itself but the raping of girls as young as 5 years old, rendering permanent damage to a girl's urinary tract as well as her reproductive system to the point of uncontrolled urination, repulsive odor, and constant excruciating pain is uncomprehensionable.



fro What error in typing? The article you linked was about RAPE...not FGM-which was WHAT we were talking about initially. And you're WRONG again. You were NOT clear about two different subjects. You said "Female mutilation is so rapant in many parts of South Africa they actually have a company that has provided rape insurance policies for women." Where in this statement did you say anything about FGM? Confused BTW: I am NOT debating anything....I wanted clarification... is all. If you made the error....why not correct it? But you didn't. All you did...was get angry. Eek fro


You said it yourself, genius, just as oshit asset said: The article doesn't say anything about FGM. It talks about rape. Therefore, Sherlock, rape is the main focus. Don't try to create a distractor because I didn't separate the two, FGM and rape, with and.

This is my original statement, which you so eagerly quoted:

Female mutilation is so rapant in many parts of South Africa they actually have a company that has provided rape insurance policies for women. How sick is that to need corporate assistance to deal with such an atrocity?

All I missed adding when I talked about both topics was:

Female mutilation is so rapant in many parts of South Africa AND they actually have a company that has provided rape insurance policies for women. How sick is that to need corporate assistance to deal with such an atrocity?

It's as simple as that and you, honestboy, and oshit asset are despicable enough to try to distract from the point of the article I linked as well as the emphasis of the article I copied, italicized and pasted because you keep wanting to turn threads into petty ass arguments over your own personal arrogance and vindictiveness.
fro For you info South Africa is not ON the list FOR countries that practice FGM. There are 22 countries that do: DRC (Congo), Djibouti, Egypt,Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Kenya, Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal,Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, and Uganda. And BTW: the conversation was NEVER about RAPE. You brought that in. So....WHAT WAS THE POINT of your article?-since the insurance policies[mentioned in the article] don't cover women who are mutilated...only those who are raped. What was the main focus of this article? Rape. Right? uh...weren't we intially talking about FGM? Confused Listen....I'm not the ONE distracting anything! It's YOU who's TRYING to twist things around...besides "WE" were not TALKING to you. You dived in this convo trying to APPEAR as if you KNEW what we were talking about-BUT....just like always you STUCK your foot in your MOUTH all by yourself. Now you're trying to clean it up and twisted like we can't read. young young....Brotha pleezzzzzzz! whatevaRoll Eyes...I'm DEFINITELY not gonna WASTE anymore brain cells on this. fro
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Romulus Burnett:
But yet she's 100% on guard about painting a picture of South Africa as a garden of Eden. Of course I'm fully aware of many areas of South Africa being very cosmopolitan and some areas even westernized but to overlook the barbarism, chaos, civil wars (hmmm. When was the last time there was a civil war on U.S. soil?), and political turmoil in South Africa yet shit all over your own country is straight mentally ill bullshit.[/qupte]

Actually, I NEVER MENTIONED South Africa on this thread. YOU did when you mistook FGM for rape. I mentioned West Africa. If you are gonna continually mention a perverted version of my name, get your facts straight.

RIF, but don't let that distract you from your latest meltdown/spin.
quote:
Originally posted by Romulus Burnett:
quote:
This argument is baseless since no one has said that they "HATE" America. It is the duty of a citizen to criticize the government, lest the govt become tyrannical. Supposedly America is founded on this principle to avoid returning to a Monarchy or theocratic form of govt.


Are you out of your damn mind? You've either got to be fucking kidding me or you're being selectively blind. But you people on this discussion board have this uncanny ability to wholeheartedly believe in and support your own biased opinions yet reject, ignore and minimalize any perspectives that are not in accordance with yours whether you're right or wrong. oshit asset waltzes around here spelling America A-M-E-R-I-K-K-K-A, ranting about imperialism/hegemony, and rants about how Canadians are better informed and have such great health coverage and a plethora of other anti-American trash. The only thing she's left out is to just straight up say America is hell on Earth. But yet she's 100% on guard about painting a picture of South Africa as a garden of Eden. Of course I'm fully aware of many areas of South Africa being very cosmopolitan and some areas even westernized but to overlook the barbarism, chaos, civil wars (hmmm. When was the last time there was a civil war on U.S. soil?), and political turmoil in South Africa yet shit all over your own country is straight mentally ill bullshit.


Where has OA painted South Africa as an Eden?

And WTF do you do other than sit here and jeer and thumb your nose at people who give a shit? What do you do except chant "America is the best country in the wurld and everywhere else in the world is shit. Love it ur leave it" like some sort of braindead redneck?

And WTF is an "anti-American"? Why do you conservative types never specify what is "American" and what is "anti-American"?

quote:
I was born and raised in America, been here since day one and never left.


Your point?

quote:
I'm completely and fully aware of America's strengths and weaknesses as well as America's oppressive past


AND PRESENT

quote:
in the institutional racism inacted on minorities


AND STILL ENACTED

quote:
but what country on this planet hasn't had its growing pains?


When have we kept quiet about what other countries do? You just can't stand some bad words about your beloved people in power.

quote:
Blood has been spilled and evils have been committed against the peoples of nearly every civilization known to man by the people in power of those civilizations. Nobody said America was perfect.


And no one expects it to be. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't say anything about its imperfections and do nothing about them.

quote:
Nobody said America is the only place to be, and If anyone acts like anywhere on planet Earth is perfect, especially if you're black, is out of their damn mind. While individual
experiences may indicate a certain perspective you can't take one opinion, especially the biased opinions of some of you assholes, and make sweeping negative generalizations while simultaneously benefitting from the advantages of living in this country.


Like Dissident said, any "advantages" from living in this country has been purely from our own effort and in spite of the laws of this land. Not because of it.

quote:
It's really simple. You hate America that much,


According to who?

quote:
then what the hell are you still here for? I've never heard of anyone continuing to eat a meal in a restaurant that makes them ill.


I've never heard of anyone who says "Hamburgers ain't shit" but never tried one before.

quote:
You brag and boast about criticizing America's government being your civic duty not acknowledging the fact that this nation's constitution gives you that right.


You really should watch that movie "Burn!". You sound like one of the field Negroes who is a die-hard loyalist to the British Empire criticizing other slaves for daring to criticize the "freedom" that the British have given them.

"If a man gives you freedom, it is not freedom. Freedom is not something any man can give to you. It is something that must be taken. Do you understand?"

*a field Negro shakes his head "No"*

"One day, when you are in my position and my age, you will understand."


You can't be "given" freedom. If freedom is "given", it's not freedom, it's an allowance.

quote:
Let's not be selective--try openly protesting in some of these other countries and see how quickly your ass will get killed.


Such as?

quote:
I'm not even patriotic.


Could have fooled me, G.I. Joe.

quote:
I didn't serve one second in the armed forces even though my relatives have served in the Army and the Navy since WWI. I don't even care about July 4th but I'm glad to be an American despite America's shortcomings. I'm glad to be black, and I couldn't be made to be ashamed of feeling the way I do. Even with all I know about America how the hell is that supposed to change how I feel about living here? I'll tell you one damn thing for sure. If I hated America as much as some of you people do I would be interacting with you on this discussion board from a laptop somewhere in Japan, India or Australia.


No one has claimed to hate America. Stop looking up Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity's talking points for a second and listen.

quote:
...And on that note you know you need to close your mouth because you're shitting profusely from it. What country on this planet doesn't have fucked up ways of dealing with things?


What country takes from the earth and other people as much as America?

NO, YOU NEED TO CLOSE YOUR MOUTH. Your ignorance is ugly.

quote:
You're implying that there's somewhere else on this planet that is a virtual utopia in comparison.


No one said that. That's you projecting your own insecurities onto other people.

quote:
And what completely blows my mind is how all of you speak of the wrongdoings of America like the government is run by one guy wearing a big black hat and a smoking gun in each hand. The fuck's wrong with you people?


Who the fuck said it was just one guy?

quote:
Are you that narrow-minded and naive that you think any citizen is supposed to somehow feel responsibile for the actions of people I don't know and have no control over other than through voting?


So let's see, you feel you should have no responsibility for the people you help but in power but -

quote:
The fuck you gonna do when if, for example, you take your ass to another country and you find out that country's government has done something to oppress their citizens whether directly or indirectly? You gonna whine and complain and run away from that country too?


We're supposed to be responsible for the people that people in other countries put into power? WTH? Confused

See, this is your cognitive dissonance. You have no responsibility for the wrongdoings of the people you put in power, but people with different viewpoints are supposed to be responsible to a T. Even for things they have no power over. You want to focus on everyone but yourself, you want to talk about the wrongdoings of every country but this one. You'll talk all day about what a monster some other president is, but ask you about this one, you'll close up tighter than a crab's ass.

Citizens are responsible for their own governments and people in "democratic" countries get the leadership they deserve. When it bites them in the ass, they are getting what they voted for.

quote:
Ask me directly and I'll tell you straight to your face my conscience is clear. I haven't committed one single damn crime against humanity and I have no control over the actions of others beyond political activism.


But yet we (who don't agree with you) are somehow responsible for the situation of other countries?

quote:
The question asked of this forum: Do you stand up for America? Hell yeah. You have a problem with it? You know I don't give a fuck. The world is big enough for all of us. Put your buckets down where you stand and shut the fuck up.


WTF does it mean to "stand with America". Who is "America"? And stand with them/it on what? Would I stand with "America" on supporting slavery? HELL NO.
quote:
Originally posted by umbrarchist:
quote:
My challenge remains Smile


If the entire concepts of nationalism and national loyalty are garbage then the challenge is irrelevant.

Nationalism means we are supposed to think like 6th graders. It is about the indoctrination of children, just like religion.

um
Observation: The laws of physics may not lie, but sometimes they can be defied. For example, I would read of newspaer stories that gave accounts of ,perhaps, a babysitter would leap from a high-rise New York apartment building, with the youngster supposed to be in her care. The sitter ended her life, the baby would survive. This scenario defies logical explanation.

One has to conclude, some things simply cannot be explained. Or, as Abraham Lincoln said, "Even a watch that does not run is right twice a day".
Okay fuck all these games. First of all, none of you are Africans as in born and raised anywhere on the continent of Africa. Secondly, as I've said before, many of you would be crushed to find out after a genealogical probe your bloodlines will dead end somewhere in Europe or South America rather than Africa. Thirdly, Africans, as in Africans born and raised on the continent of Africa, don't have such an affinity towards you as you do of them. And let's not forget the Portuguese and Spanish had help from Africans in the kidnapping of their own people as they were sold into slavery.

Y'all are so blind with bias, stupidity, rigidness, and full of cynicism and self-hate you would be quick to state the wrongdoings in America and have the mentality that something is wrong with the entire country. However, when the subject of Africa arises no matter how grusome and widespread the attrocities are y'all pull every trick in the book to try to marginalize, deny, and isolate the problems in Africa.

Fuck trying to use distractors to distract, redirect and dilute the opposing argument--fuck isolating North Africa from South Africa or isolating attrocities to one or even a few countries on the continent of Africa. We're talking about the entire continent.

When you criticize America you take one incident, no matter how large or small, and make that your justification for hating America. You want to use Katrina as your scapegoat to criticize the entire country but when it comes to talking about FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION you want to try and isolate the occurances to 22 (actually I counted 28 on the chart provided in the link) countries as if to say FGM only happens in a small portion of Africa, trying to minimize and isolate the issue. Katrina only affected three states in North America. We have 47 other states that were completely unaffected by Katrina. And what's so ignorant is Katrina was a natural occurance that happened on one occasion, regardless of the aftermath, not a man-made occurance, like FGM, that has been going on for over a decade and is still occuring. And you can bet your ass millions more women are affected by FGM than both men and women put together that were affected by Katrina.

According to the UN, at least 2 million girls a year experience genital mutilation globally, approximately 6,000 new cases every day-five girls every minute. In 26 of 43 African countries, female genital mutilation is generally performed on girls between the ages of 7 and 10 years old, but in several countries, it is being occurring earlier to reduce the trauma to the children. In Mali and Nigeria, women undergo FGM during early adulthood when marrying into communities that practice FGM. There is a 97 percent rate in Egypt, 94.5 percent in Eritrea, 93.7 percent in Mali and 50 percent in Central African Republic. In addition to African countries, ethnic groups in Oman, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen, as well as in parts of India, Indonesia, and Malaysia.

Come on with it. You want to make an itemized list of what's wrong with America. Let's make a comparison and contrast with the continent of Africa and see where we end up.
quote:
However, when the subject of Africa arises no matter how grusome and widespread the attrocities are y'all pull every trick in the book to try to marginalize, deny, and isolate the problems in Africa.


Nice generalization.

I haven't heard of people being burned alive in churches in the US.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/01/dozens-burned-...e-in-ke_n_79099.html

That doesn't change the 3,000,000 Vietnamese

Or the 600,000 Iraqis and counting.

Loyalty is a wonderful virtue in dogs. If you want loyalty buy a collie or a German shepherd. Since the US is really a European country since the land was invaded and taken over by Europeans it only really makes sense to compare it to other European countries.

Like Canada and Australia. lol

um
quote:
Originally posted by Romulus Burnett:
Okay fuck all these games.


You finally decided to stop spinning?

quote:
First of all, none of you are Africans as in born and raised anywhere on the continent of Africa.


Wrong again, Fagunwa is... RIF.

The rest of your post is so typically ignorant, it's not even worth a response. Continue foaming at the mouth...
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
quote:
Originally posted by Romulus Burnett:
Okay fuck all these games.


You finally decided to stop spinning?

quote:
First of all, none of you are Africans as in born and raised anywhere on the continent of Africa.


Wrong again, Fagunwa is... RIF.

The rest of your post is so typically ignorant, it's not even worth a response. Continue foaming at the mouth...


What the fuck does Fugunwa have anything to do with this? All the bullshit is coming from you. Just tell the truth. You're nothing but an arrogant, conceited, incorrigible child. Not only do you not have the capacity to create an opposable argument you waste time slinging insults because you can't keep up. It's all good. I surely don't give a fuck about the insults. This isn't about me this is about a comparison and contrast between North America and Africa.
Bureaucratic Corruption in Africa

Recent interest in the political dimension of economic growth has had a significant impact on the study of the behavior of bureaucrats and how their activities affect macroeconomic performance. Most of the research has been devoted to the study of bureaucratic compensation (Kimenyi 1987; Mbaku 1991a; Couch, Atkinson, and Shughart 1992) and bureaucratic corruption. Little attention, however, has been given the problem of corruption cleanups.

An effective cleanup program can be designed and implemented, but only if the researcher puts bureaucratic corruption in the right context. Unless it is understood that bureaucratic corruption is opportunistic (rent-seeking) behavior and is related to the scope and extent of government regulation of economic activities, cleanup programs are unlikely to succeed. This study examines bureaucratic corruption and cleanup strategies in Africa and seeks to advance the public-choice approach as the most effective and intellectually sastifying framework for corruption cleanup.

In Africa, bureaucrats attempt to increase their level of compensation by lobbying lawmakers and politicians and by engaging in other activites to influence the political system and maximize benefits accruing to them. Many civil servants also illegally increase their compensation by providing services to interest groups that seek favors from the government. Political coalitions seeking ways to subvert the existing rules to redistribute national income and wealth in their favor can achieve their objectives by bribing civil servants whose job is to enforce state regulations and implement national development plans. If bureaucrats discover they can earn more income from providing services to groups seeking state favors than from their regular (public) jobs, they may pay more attention to the demands of such interest groups than to the proper enforcement of state laws and regulations and the effective implementation of national development plans. In societies where civil service compensation levels are relatively low, a significant part of the public employee's total compensation may be derived from engagement in outside activities, resulting in a significant increase in bureaucratic corruption (Mbaku 1991a).

The rules that regulate socio-political relations in a country have a significant impact on the ability of civil servants to seek and secure (either legally or illegally) outside income. In nondemocratic societies, as has been shown by Mwangi Kimenyi (1987), bureaucrats are less constrained in their employment of public resources to lobby legislators and influence those individuals with direct responsibility for determining levels of compensation for the public sector. In fact, in many African countries, most civil servants are members of the politically dominant group and have significant influence over the allocation of resources. Under these conditions, civil servants behave like interest groups whose primary objective is to put pressure on the political system in an effort to redistribute wealth to themselves.

In countries with poorly constructed, inefficient, and non self-enforcing constitutional rules, opportunistic behavior (including rent seeking) are usually quite pervasive. In such countries, the rules that regulate socio-political interaction, have failed to adequately constrain the government. As a result, state intervention in private exchange is equally pervasive. Excessive regulation of economic activities creates many opportunities for rent seeking, including bureaucratic corruption.

Corruption has been an important subject of analysis by social scientists for many years. In the 1960s, however, two major events rekindled interest in the study of corruption, especially in developing countries. First, the development by Samuel Huntington (1968, 1990) and others of theories of modernization and political development renewed discussions on bureaucratic corruption and the role of laws and institutions in economic growth and development (Leff 1964, Huntington 1990, Myrdal 1990). Second, the economies and markets of the newly independent countries of Africa and Asia were overwhelmed by corruption, bureaucratic inefficiency, and incompetence. Since the early 1960s, researchers have devoted significant effort to the examination of bureaucratic corruption in the developing economies, paying much attention to the effects of the behavior of civil servants on economic growth and development. Despite this emphasis on the study of corruption in post-independence Africa, there has been insufficient attention paid to the problem of corruption cleanup in Africa.

The Concept of Corruption

Corruption in developing countries is often believed to arise from the clash or conflict between traditional values and the imported norms that accompany modernization and socio-political development. Bureaucratic corruption is seen by some researchers, then, as an unavoidable outcome of modernization and development (Alam 1989, Bayley 1966). David Bayley (1966: 720) argues that "corruption, while being tied particularly to the act of bribery, is a general term covering the misuse of authority as a result of considerations of personal gain, which need not be monetary." Herbert Werlin (1973: 73) defines political corruption as the "diversion of public resources to nonpublic purposes." In Africa many people see corruption as a practical problem involving the "outright theft, embezzlement of funds or other appropriation of state property, nepotism and the granting of favours to personal acquaintances, and the abuse of public authority and position to exact payments and privileges" (Harsch 1993: 33). Joseph Nye (1967: 419) argues that corruption involves "behavior which deviates from the normal duties of a public role because of private-regarding (family, close clique), pecuniary or status gain; or violates rules against the exercise of certain types of private-regarding influence.

Jacob van Klaveren believes that a corrupt bureaucrat regards his office as a business from which he is able to extract extra-legal income. As a result, the civil servant's total compensation "does not depend on an ethical evaluation of his usefulness for the common good but precisely upon the market situation and his talents for finding the point of maximal gain on the public's demand curve" (Klaveren 1990: 26). As part of his definition of corruption, Nathaniel Leff (1964: 8) includes "bribery to obtain foreign exchange, import, export, investment or production licenses, or to avoid paying taxes." According to Carl Friedrich (1990: 15), individuals are said to be engaging in corruption when they are granted power by society to perform certain public duties but, as a result of the expectation of a personal reward or gain (be it monetary or otherwise), undertake actions that reduce the welfare of society or damage the public interest.

Bureaucratic corruption provides civil servants with the opportunity to raise their compensation above what the law prescribes. Through the practice of corruption, private entrepreneurs are able to capture and maintain monopoly positions in the economy. Politicians, who serve as wealth brokers, obtain the resources they need to purchase security and continue to monopolize the supply of legislation. The biggest loser from corruption is society as a whole. Corruption allows inefficient producers to remain in business, encourages governments to pursue perverse economic policies, and provides opportunities to bureaucrats and politicians to enrich themselves through extorting bribes from those seeking government favors. Thus, corruption distorts economic incentives, discourages entrepreneurship, and slows economic growth (Mbaku 1992, Gould 1980).

In examining bureaucratic corruption in Africa, it is important to discuss the supply side. Unless entrepreneurs and groups seeking government favors supply the bribes, then most bureaucratic corruption would be limited to nepotism, illegal levies, and the illegal appropriation of public resources. In African countries, payments from entrepreneurs seeking state favors represent an important source of extra-legal income for civil servants. A society's laws and institutions have a significant impact on the level of bureaucratic corruption. State regulatory programs can place a significant burden on business enterprises and entrepreneurship and encourage investors to seek ways to minimize these state-imposed costs. Most intervention schemes, of course, create rents that are usually competed for through a political process. Paying bribes to civil servants has emerged as an important method to compete for those rents. For profit-maximizing enterprises faced with ruinous government regulations, bureaucratic corruption can be viewed as a survival mechanism (Mbaku 1992, Harsch 1993).

It is important to distinguish between political and bureaucratic corruption. While the latter involves efforts by civil servants to enrich themselves through illegal means, the former is used by political coalitions to capture the apparatus of state or maintain a monopoly on power. Political corruption usually includes activities such as vote-rigging, registration of unqualified, dead, or non-existent voters, purchase and sale of votes, and the falsification of election results (Goodman 1990).

David Osterfeld (1992: 204-18) has argued that in a heavily regulated economy, one can find two distinct types of corruption: "expansive corruption," which involves activities that improve the competitiveness and flexibility of the market; and "restrictive corruption," which limits opportunities for productive and socially beneficial exchange. This latter type of corruption, Osterfeld (ibid.: 209-10) argues, is characterized by redistribution of income and wealth in favor of individuals or groups. Most public-sector corruption falls in the restrictive category and involves illegal appropriation of public resources for private use (e. g. outright embezzlement by a civil servant) or the illegal use of an individual's public position for his own personal enrichment. Public-sector corruption hinders the proper functioning of the market system, retards economic growth, and thus is restrictive corruption. As examples of expansive corrruption, Osterfeld (ibid.: 212-17) mentions the bribing of judges, politicians and bureaucrats by members of the private sector. The payment of bribes to the right officials, he argues, can help mitigate the harmful effects of excessive government regulation and improve economic participation.

Although certain types of corruption may have beneficial economic and political effects, corruption can permit inefficient firms to remain in business indefinitely. Contrary to Osterfeld's (1992: 213) claim, the firms offering the highest bribes are not necessarily the most economically efficient ones but the ones that are efficient at rent seeking. Indeed, in a study of the Yucatan, Margaret Goodman (1990: 642-43) found that corruption did not benefit efficient producers, but instead protected incompentent entrepreneurs. The firms that survived under institutionalized corruption were those that had become efficient at rent seeking, not at properly and effectively servicing their markets. The expertise that improved their ability to survive was their knowledge of the political process, who to bribe, and how to effectively manipulate the political system to their advantage. In addition, Goodman found that corruption in the Yucatan did not ensure new groups or entrepreneurs opportunities to enter the market. Instead, corruption allowed the old and more established groups to totally dominate and monopolize markets. [1]

The primary emphasis in this paper is on the type of corruption that involves the purchase of state favors from bureaucrats who have been charged with the job of formulating and implementing national development plans, enforcing state regulations, and protecting private property rights. Thus, activities of interest include payment of bribes to obtain import and export licenses, foreign exchange permits, and investment and production licenses. To minimize costs imposed on their enterprises by the state, owners of capital may bribe civil servants and other members of the enforcement community in order to receive favorable tax treatment. Civil servants are also able to extort bribes from individuals and groups seeking access to government-subsidized goods and services. The resources expended by entrepreneurs on bribes represent an illegal tax on economic activity and can be viewed as an attenuation of property rights. In many African countries, incumbents do not seem to be genuinely interested in effective cleanup programs because corruption represents an important source of revenue and a means through which incumbents channel resources to supporters and to elites who use the threat of violence to extract rents (Mbaku 1992, 1994).

What Causes Bureaucratic Corruption in Africa?

Much research has been done to determine the causes of bureaucratic corruption in Africa. According to David Apter (1963), African civil servants may be obliged to share the proceeds of their public offices with their kinfolk. The African extended family places significant pressure on the civil servant, forcing him to engage in corrupt and nepotic practices. Bureaucrats are believed to exploit their public positions to generate benefits for themselves, their families, and their ethnic or social cleavage. Thus, in studying corruption in Africa, researchers have tended to place emphasis on the structural and individual conditions that contribute to corrupt behavior. Investigators have identified several structural factors that contribute to bureaucratic corruption in Africa. One such structural factor is the "soft state" that is said to embody "a weak or diffuse sense of national interest and the absence of a commitment to public service" (Gould and Mukendi 1989: 434). Many researchers have argued that there appears to be an absence of a commitment to public service among citizens of many developing countries and that excessive levels of bureaucratic corruption in these economies are related to the lack of devotion to serving the public interest. In many African countries, civil service employees view public service as an opportunity for self enrichment. Pita Agbese (1992: 229-30) has observed that in post-independence Nigeria, all political coalitions and groups have been engaged in determined efforts to capture the apparatus of state in order to use the state's redistributive powers to amass wealth for themselves. Soon after capturing the government, the incumbent regime usually erects significant barriers to entry and monopolizes the supply of legislation, thus making certain that other groups do not participate in the allocation of resources. For locked-out groups, participation in the economic systems must be obtained through payment of bribes to incumbent bureaucrats, all of whom are members of the politically dominant group.

Nigeria is not the only country in Africa in which the apparatus of government has become an instrument for the enrichment of members of the politically dominant group. South Africa, long regarded by many scholars in the West as a bastion for free enterprise in Africa, has for many years promoted laws that allowed the white minority to use the redistributive powers of the state to enrich itself while sentencing the black majority to perpetual poverty and deprivation (Hazlett 1988; Mbaku 1991b, 1993; Williams 1989; Doxey 1961; Hutt 1964). Throughout Africa, from Algeria to Zaïre, bureaucrats and politicians promote perverse economic policies, which while impoverishing most of society, provide concentrated and significant benefits to the national elites and interest groups.

Incompetence and inefficiency among civil servants have been given as other institutional issues associated with bureaucratic corruption in Africa. Sustainable economic and social development requires an efficient and professional civil service. To effectively carry out national development plans and promote entrepreneurship and innovation in the economy, the government bureaucracy must be responsive to the needs of the entrepreneurial class. Additionally, public goods and services should be delivered efficiently. The implication is that the nation's civil service must be competent and possess a significant level of professionalism. Hiring decisions should be based on merit and qualification, and senior positions should be awarded only to candidates who have distinguished themselves and possess the ability and expertise to efficiently perform the duties assigned them. Civil service positions should not be used as rewards for political support or swapped for bribes, or used to meet obligations to one's ethnic cleavage. Incompetent, unqualified, and unprofessional civil servants contribute significantly to failures in development and force the country to remain essentially underdeveloped.

Shortly after independence, many African countries adopted statism as their development model. This approach to resource allocation emphasized state control and eventually turned many African governments into major economic units. Today, African governments are the primary investors, exporters, importers, and bankers. In addition, the state also employs a significant proportion of the national labor force and is quite involved in income redistribution. Through a series of regulations and statutes, the state is able to extract wealth from the poorly organized rural farm sector for use in subsidizing the relatively well-organized and politically volatile urban sector. In many African countries the beneficiaries of excessive state intervention in private exchange have been public employees whose job it is to enforce the laws. Control of an enormous amount of public resources by bureaucrats has allowed them to manipulate public policies to amass wealth for themselves at the expense of the rest of society. In several instances, bureaucrats have created artificial shortages in order to extort bribes from prospective demanders. The enforcement of state regulations and statutes in most African countries is poor, arbitrary, capricious, and ineffective. As a consequence, individuals and groups affected by the regulations are forced to engage in opportunism, including the payment of bribes to civil servants. Several scholars have cited the transformation of the post-independence African state apparatus into an instrument for the enrichment of members of the politically dominant group as a significant contributor to corruption (Agbese 1992, Ihonvbere and Ekekwe 1988).

Pervasive and chronic poverty, extremely high levels of material deprivation, and severe inequalities in the distribution of resources also have been advanced as major determinants of corruption in the African countries (Leys 1965). Many regions of the world have made significant advancements in economic and human development during the past 40 years. Yet Africa has remained essentially poor and severely deprived. Evidence shows that Africa is today the poorest region of the world (UNDP 1990, 1995). The emergence of the African military, in the post-independence period, as an important force in the allocation of resources has further distorted income distribution. In many African countries, the armed forces receive a disproportionate share of the public budget. It is argued by many researchers that these post-independence developments have contributed significantly to increased corruption, underdevelopment, and pervasive poverty and deprivation (Mbaku 1994).

Some scholars believe that corruption in Africa and other developing regions arises from the existence of defective cultural norms and behaviors (Jabbra 1976). Other researchers believe that corruption in Africa is related to the clash between traditional and foreign norms that accompany modernization and industrial development. As such, corruption is seen as an unavoidable consequence of economic modernization and political development (Alam 1989, Bayley 1966).

In the majority of developing societies, individual rights are often subordinate to the rights of the group or social cleavage. As a result, loyalty to the ethnic group is considered more important than individual rights or personal accountability. In Africa, these particularistic attachments are quite strong and have been cited as important determinants of bureaucratic corruption. Individuals who become successful in the public sector or the exchange economy are expected to share the benefits with their extended family and their ethnic cleavage. Thus, a civil servant may engage in corrupt activities in an effort to meet personal obligations to members of his family or ethnic group (Alam 1989, Gould and Mukendi 1989).

In contrast, public choice theory contends that bureaucratic corruption is related primarily to government control and regulation of economic activities. Once constitutional rules have been selected and adopted, and a government established, political coalitions will try to use government to redistribute income and wealth in their favor. Unless the adopted rules effectively constrain the ability of the government to supply special-interest legislation, rent seeking will become pervasive as groups seek ways to enrich themselves at the expense of the rest of society. At the same time, civil servants will be able to extort bribes from entrepreneurs seeking ways to minimize the burden of state regulations on their enterprises and attempting to enter economic sectors closed by state intervention in markets.

Most Africans live in societies with weak, inefficient, and poorly designed constitutional rules, which provide the government with almost unlimited power to intervene in private exchange. In such economies, resource allocation is totally politicized and the civil service has replaced the market as the principal instrument for the allocation of resources. Civil servants are aware that lucrative monopoly rights created by government regulatory activities provide their owners with enormous monopoly profits. As a result, bureaucrats try to capture rents by extorting bribes from entrepreneurs who request them. Where government regulation imposes significant costs on a business, the entrepreneur can minimize those costs by paying bribes to members of the enforcement community. The bribe is expected to either exempt the business from the laws or to have the individual's enterprise taxed at a lower rate. If these restrictions on economic activity are eliminated, bureaucrats would be unable to extort bribes from entrepreneurs. Thus, bureaucratic corruption is primarily rent-seeking behavior, which is directly related to the level and extent of government activity in the economy (Mbaku 1992).

Traditional Strategies for Corruption Cleanup

The literature on corruption cleanup identifies four types of strategies to minimize or eliminate corruption. They include societal, legal, market, and political strategies (Gillespie and Okruhlik 1991: 80). Societal strategies place emphasis on the determination of a common standard of morality against which corrupt behavior can be measured. Vigilance by members of society and education to make it relatively costly for individuals to engage in corruption are also emphasized (Dobel 1978, Etzioni-Halevy 1979, McMullan 1961). It is believed that bureaucratic behavior can be constrained effectively by the law; special commissions of inquiry or special prosecutors can be chosen to investigate individuals and groups accused of corruption; and, where the evidence gathered points to corruption, the judiciary system can judge and punish the guilty according to national laws (Padhy 1986, Ali 1985). Market-related strategies for the cleanup of corruption are based on the belief that there is a relation between the structure of the market and the incidence of corruption. The prescribed remedy is less government regulation and greater reliance on markets for the allocation of resources. Such an approach, however, appears to emphasize the manipulation of outcomes within existing rules instead of proper reform of the rules. The fault is not with the market, but with the rules that regulate the market. Since rules define market outcomes, greater reliance on markets for the allocation of resources without reforming existing rules will have little effect on outcomes, including bureaucratic corruption. Unless there is effective reform of the socio-political rules within which the market functions, incentives for opportunism will remain and corruption will continue unabated (Bayley 1966, Macrae 1982, Rose-Ackermn 1978, Tilman 1968).

Political strategies for corruption cleanup emphasize the decentralization of the public sector. It is argued that corruption arises from the concentration of power in the hands of a few politicians and bureaucrats, and that a process which provides citizens with greater access to public institutions will significantly minimize opportunities for corruption within the country. Under this approach, an effective cleanup program is expected to emphasize political deregulation and the subsequent expansion of opportunities for citizens to participate in governance. Social scientists and policymakers who favor administrative reform as a way to minimize the incidence of corruption support increasing the legal compensation of bureaucrats in order to reduce the chances that civil servants will seek extra-legal income (Gillespie and Okruhlik 1991; Dobel 1978; Nas, Price, and Weber 1986; Wade 1985).

The impetus to cleanup corruption can be provided primarily by political exigency rather than by genuine interest in the efficient functioning of the nation's political and economic institutions. In several countries, including those in Africa, postcoup commissions of inquiry are usually designed to discredit the ousted government and help incoming elites gain recognition and legitimacy. Incumbents also use cleanup programs to help them stay in power and continue to monopolize the supply of legislation and the allocation of resources. An incumbent leader faced with deteriorating economic and social conditions and a challenge from opposition parties or groups may initiate a campaign to cleanup corruption within his administration in an effort to direct attention away from existing problems and the government's inability or unwillingness to provide effective solutions for those problems. Whether or not corruption cleanups are used for political exigency and how often is determined by several factors--including "the personal values of the head of state, challenges from a counterelite, and popular discontent arising from socioeconomic conditions" within the country (Gillespie and Okruhlik 1991: 82).

In several African countries, politicians regularly use cleanup campaigns to help them stay in power. Cleanup programs can be used to discredit members of a previous regime, to destroy the reputations of leaders of the opposition, and to improve support among the population for the incumbent regime. Even if a government seriously and honestly wishes to cleanup corruption, existing approaches suffer from at least one obstacle: their success depends on the effectiveness of the counteracting agencies. In Africa cleanup programs depend primarily on the police, the national judiciary, and the press, and assume that those agencies are appropriately constrained by the law and are free of corruption. In addition to the fact that few African countries have a press that is independent and free of government manipulation, the police and national judiciary systems of most African countries are pervaded by very high levels of corruption. As a result, a cleanup program backed by those agencies is unlikely to be effective. Present cleanup programs are based on the manipulation of behaviors within what are inefficient rules and as a result, are unlikely to be effective. The first step in an effective cleanup program is to select appropriate new rules, making sure that the new social contract is capable of generating the outcomes desired by society.

The Public-Choice Approach to Corruption Cleanup:

The Importance of Rules

Geoffrey Brennan and James Buchanan (1985) argue that the rules that regulate the activities of individuals within a society matter and are a major determinant of how individuals and organizations behave. The behavior of bureaucrats and the entrepreneurs who bribe them can be analyzed effectively only within the context of existing rules. Thus, without a clear understanding of a country's laws and institutions, any effort to analyze or understand corruption within that society would be futile. Any cleanup program that is designed without taking into consideration the impact of existing rules on the behavior of individuals (including bureaucrats, entrepreneurs, voters, and politicians) within the society would be ineffective. Rules define how individuals can interact with each other, provide a means for the settlement of conflict, and generally place constraints on individual behavior, as well as that of the group and collectivity (Brennan and Buchanan 1985).

Effective rules allow individuals to pursue their private ends in such a way that they do not infringe on the ability of others to do the same. The rules that regulate socio-political interaction can be explicit (e. g., a written constitution) or based on custom and tradition. Given an existing set of rules, corruption can be viewed as opportunistic behavior on the part of individuals or groups. In this vein, corruption can be seen as a problem of constitutional maintenance that can be handled appropriately only through rules reform.

In an effort to explain the relevance of rules, Brennan and Buchanan (1985: 13) return to the "tragedy of the commons," an illustration that is used quite often in economics. If, for example, the rules of a society require that agricultural land be owned communally, and farmers are assumed to be utility maximizers in the traditional sense, then overgrazing will be the outcome. The overgrazing is not a result of market failure, as is often assumed, but a problem associated with the nature of the rules that regulate socio-political relationships in this society, including the behavior of farmers. In other words, given the existing rules, utility maximization will lead to overgrazing. As is the case in many African societies, policing is usually the method employed to minimize the problem of overgrazing. Unfortunately, in the absence of privatization and appropriate institutions to protect and enforce property rights, efforts to force certain outcomes within the existing set of rules are rarely successful.

Present cleanup programs in Africa suffer from several problems. First, they are being carried out within inefficient and nonviable rules. Second, corruption cleanup involves efforts to manipulate outcomes within existing rules through policing. Third, the counteracting agencies charged with policing and enforcement of the laws and the bureaucrats who work in those agencies are not properly constrained by the laws. Finally, many bureaucrats are themselves corrupt and cannot be counted on to provide the leadership needed to run effective cleanup programs. Thus, effective corruption cleanup needs to begin with rules reform to make certain that the outcomes generated within the rules are those desired by society.

Efforts to cleanup corruption would be futile if the rules that regulate socio-political relations provide an incentive system that makes opportunism highly lucrative. If, as a result of the adopted rules, rent-seeking activities, as opposed to genuine entrepreneurship, are highly rewarding, entrepreneurs are likely to devote most of their time and effort to rent seeking. In such a case, using the police force to prevent individuals from taking advantage of lucrative rent-seeking opportunities is unlikely to be effective, especially if members of the police are corrupt and inefficient. Again, the fundamental problem is the absence of a rule of law, not the corrupt outcomes. Thus, appropriate procedures for effective control of rent seeking and other opportunistic behaviors, including bureaucratic corruption, is to reform the rules of the game and change the incentive system. Dealing with corruption and other opportunistic behaviors, according to public choice theory, is a problem of constitutional or rules maintenance. Besides corruption, opportunistic behavior includes shirking, adverse selection, moral hazard, and free riding (Ostrom, et al. 1993: 43-72). Even if individuals select an efficient set of rules (i. e., rules that generate mutual gains for all parties), opportunistic behavior (including corruption) would still be a problem for the post-constitutional society. Making certain that opportunism is minimized in the post-contractual society requires an efficient and effective enforcement system to ensure cooperation and compliance. Unfortunately, third-party enforcement of constitutional rules is usually unreliable, inefficient, and not particularly viable. Some scholars have suggested that the national judiciary and police be allowed to serve as counteracting agencies to enforce compliance and minimize opportunism. Those institutions, however, are themselves subject to interest-group pressure. In addition, in most African countries, those institutions are not properly constrained by the law and are pervaded by high levels of corruption. Consequently, the national judiciary and police are not appropriate instruments for corruption cleanup or enforcement of constitutional rules (Lowenberg 1992, Lowenberg and Yu 1992, Wagner and Gwartney 1988).

The problem of rules maintenance has been examined by several researchers. Emerging from these studies is a theory of constitutional maintenance whose main objective is to find ways to minimize opportunism in the post-constitutional society (Anderson and Hill 1986, Buchanan and Faith 1987, Aranson 1988, Niskanen 1990). It is generally believed that making the constitution or the set of rules selected self-enforcing will eliminate most opportunities for rent seeking and other opportunistic behavior. A constitution can be made self-enforcing by endowing it with principles and procedural rules that introduce, maintain, and enhance political and economic competition in the post-constitutional society. In other words, during constitutional negotiations, the rules are designed to make both political and economic markets competitive and accessible to all members of society. An important characteristic of a self-enforcing set of rules is its ability to constrain government and limit the exercise of government agency. If the state's ability to intervene in private exchange is constitutionally restrained, political coalitions will find it very difficult to engage in inefficient redistributions. Constitutionally constraining the ability of the government to engage in ex-post resource redistributions will significantly limit redistributions of income induced by majority vote and rent seeking. Once the constitution limits the ability of the state to redistribute income and wealth, interest groups are unlikely to invest in rent seeking, because such investments would either yield relatively meager returns or be unprofitable.

In addition to extorting bribes from individuals and groups seeking government favors, bureaucratic corruption includes the illegal appropriation of public resources by civil servants, nepotism, illegal taxation, and other illegal activities designed to increase the compensation of bureaucrats above the legal limit. Not all of these activities, however, qualify as rent seeking. Paying of bribes by an entrepreneur to a civil servant in an effort to lower taxes is a form of bureaucratic corruption and is also rent-seeking behavior. Although the illegal appropriation of state resources by a bureaucrat for his personal use is bureaucratic corruption, it is not rent seeking. If, however, civil servants lobby legislators in an effort to secure additional privileges for themselves, this behavior is rent seeking, but is not generally considered a form of bureaucratic corruption. To effectively minimize all the above forms of behavior, there must be real reform of existing rules.

Rules and Corruption Cleanup in Africa

Most African countries today operate under constitutional rules that were adopted at independence. Despite many attempts at post-independence rules reform, most African countries have not succeeded in designing appropriate laws and institutions, especially those that would guarantee the types of outcomes desired by members of society. Instead, what passes as constitutions in many African countries are basically adaptations of European constitutional models that have allowed politically dominant groups to continue to maintain a monopoly on power.

The institutions brought to the African colonies by the Europeans were primarily "structures of exploitation, despotism, and degradation" (Fatton 1990: 457). As argued by Michael Crowder (1987: 11-12), "the colonial state was conceived in violence rather than by negotiation." Thus, the rules established to regulate socio-political relations in the African colonies were not the outcome of negotiations among representatives of relevant population groups in those societies. Instead, those rules were imposed by Europeans and designed to satisfy their desired outcomes.

When it became evident that the colonies would be granted independence, the colonialists quickly developed a reform program that was unable to fully address fundamental issues related to the effective participation of the indigenous peoples in post-independence development. Robert Fatton (1990: 457) states that these last-minute reform efforts failed to allow for "fundamental transformation in the economic, cultural, or bureaucratic domains. Thus, the Europeans left behind rules and institutions that were weak and potentially unstable.

Most of the constitutional rules that African countries adopted at independence were developed abroad with the interests of the indigenous peoples represented by urban elites, most of whom had been educated in Europe and had accepted Western political norms and beliefs. In addition to the fact that these urban elites were not well informed on conditions in the rural sectors of their countries, they usually had objectives and interests that were significantly different from those of their peasant countrymen. Since the design of rules often excluded a significant part of national political opinion, the documents adopted were not efficient. [2]

Many African countries later abandoned the rules that they had adopted at independence and undertook constitutional reforms in an effort to design more efficient and appropriate rules. Unfortunately, constitutional discourse was still limited to a few urban elites with a significant part of national political opinion excluded from participation. In some countries, governance was by military decree with the constitution suspended. In fact, several African countries (including Ghana, Zaïre, Nigeria, Libya, and Somalia) have been ruled by military elites during most of their existence as sovereign nations.

In addition to the fact that constitutional discourse was dominated by urban elites, the process did not seriously consider the aspirations, desires, and needs of the rural populations, and the people were not enfranchised and provided the facilities to participate effectively in the selection of rules. In South Africa (until 1994), participation in rules selection was limited to whites (Cowen 1961). The constitutional rules produced by post-independence efforts produced Leviathan states, whose redistributive powers were used by political coalitions to amass wealth for themselves while impoverishing the rest of the people. Many Africans today live under rules that were not unanimously agreed upon by the relevant population groups within each country or by their representatives. To ensure that the outcome is an efficient set of rules, agreement must be unanimous and must be achieved voluntarily.

Since post-independence attempts at rule reform have failed to produce more efficient constitutions, the last several years have witnessed a tremendous increase in levels of bureaucratic corruption in Africa.

Conclusion

The purpose of this paper was to reexamine corruption cleanup strategies in Africa and seek to show why they have been ineffective. African countries, like many developing countries, have tried several strategies in an effort to minimize levels of bureaucratic corruption. These include societal, legal, market, and political strategies. All those approaches to corruption cleanup represent the manipulation of outcomes within a given set of rules and presuppose the existence of efficient counteracting institutions. The evidence shows, however, that most judiciary systems and police forces in the African countries are not properly constrained by the law and that most civil servants (including judges and police officers) are themselves corrupt. As a result, most cleanup programs in Africa have been unsuccessful.

Bureaucratic corruption is an outcome generated within a given set of rules. An effective normative evaluation of such an outcome can only be undertaken after a thorough understanding of the rules that generate the outcome. Thus, to understand why people engage in corruption requires an examination of the rules that regulate the socio-political behavior of individuals. Since these rules determine how individuals behave and relate to each other, they also determine the outcomes to be generated in the post-contractual society. Thus, effective corruption cleanup should not involve efforts to manipulate outcomes within rules. Instead, an effective approach should involve reform of existing rules and the subsequent selection and adoption of new rules that can generate the outcomes desired by society. Since the rules determine the incentive system that will prevail in the post-contractual society, society can effectively impose the outcomes it wants through rules design. For example, the problem of overgrazing of agricultural lands can be minimized by establishing private property rights in land during rules selection. Usually, the establishment of political rules and a political order precede the establishment of an economic order. The rules of political order include the "definition of the rights of persons, [and] can be legitimately derived only from the agreement among individuals as members of the polity" (Brennan and Buchanan 1985: 26). The rights of persons are not defined by the government. Instead, individuals or members of society form governments to protect and guarantee their rights as defined and agreed upon in the social or constitutional contract. Any attempt by the government to modify or abrogate those rights invariably violates the basic rules. It is important to note that problems of control in the post-constitutional society do exist. In establishing the polity, the government is granted the power to monopolize legitimate force. Once established, government may try to exceed the limits of the authority delegated it by the people--and if it does, it may render itself illegitimate.

Gary Becker (1994: 18) remarked that "corruption is common whenever big government infiltrates all facets of economic life, never mind the political and business systems." If the country's rules make the political system the primary determinant of firm profitability, then entrepreneurs are likely to devote most of their resources, including their time, to rent seeking. For example, if state subsidies, discretionary tax relief, and other forms of regulations--instead of managerial expertise, business acumen, and competition--become the primary determinants of the profitability of firms, rent seeking, including bureaucratic corruption, would become pervasive. Entrepreneurs in such an economy will devote a significant portion of their activities to lobbying and bribing politicians and civil servants in an effort to maximize profit levels.

Given the incentive system provided by existing rules, legal strategies and other forms of corruption cleanups are unlikely to be effective. In addition to the fact that manipulating outcomes within the rules is not an effective way to secure the outcomes desired by society, these strategies can only function effectively if the counteracting agencies and those who manage them are properly constrained by a rule of law and are free of corruption. Many of the police officers and judges who are called upon to cleanup corruption are themselves beneficiaries of the corrupt system of resource allocation. It is unlikely that those individuals will perform their jobs effectively. An effective corruption cleanup strategy must fundamentally weaken the link between the government and the economy. That is, the relationship between firm profitability and the state must be severed. The most effective way to achieve that objective, and thus guarantee the outcomes desired by society, is rules reform.
quote:
Originally posted by ricardomath:
quote:
Originally posted by Romulus Burnett:

What the fuck does Fugunwa have anything to do with this?


Fugunwa is a counterexample to a very specific claim that you made.

I was going to point him out to you myself, until I saw that Oshun Auset had already done it.


But you as well as oshit asset are trying to base what really goes on in the continent of Africa by what one person said? Fucking please. You seriously cannot be that naive or that lazy or biased that you would deny/ignore/marginalize the millions of acts of rape and the FGM committed in 28 countries in Africa since 1994 because one African said a woman's coochie would be safe in the countries he listed in his post? Too damn ridiculous. If anything I would commend Fagunwa for at least having the balls to speak in defense of his own continent, which is what many Africans would do, whereas, there are plenty negroes, particularly, the negroes in this thread, that would be quick to shit on the very country they were born and raised in.
quote:
Originally posted by Romulus Burnett:
quote:
Originally posted by ricardomath:
quote:
Originally posted by Romulus Burnett:

What the fuck does Fugunwa have anything to do with this?


Fugunwa is a counterexample to a very specific claim that you made.

I was going to point him out to you myself, until I saw that Oshun Auset had already done it.


But you as well as oshit asset are trying to base what really goes on in the continent of Africa by what one person said? Fucking please. You seriously cannot be that naive or that lazy or biased that you would deny/ignore/marginalize the millions of acts of rape and the FGM committed in 28 countries in Africa since 1994 because one African said a woman's coochie would be safe in the countries he listed in his post?


Wrong again spin master... RIF

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Kocolicious:
Originally posted Oshun Auset
quote:
I've been on an extended trip living with the people(and fellow Pan Africanist party members) of Ghana, Senegal, Cote d'Ivoire, and Togo, and I can assure... our coochies are safe(mine felt far safer BTW)


fro off Sista OA So....are you saying that Ghana, Senegal and Togo do not practice FGM? I read that it was STILL a serious issue in those countries. Believe me, I really don't want to get it twisted...if in fact, I'm wrong. From my understanding and study, there are 22 countries including those mentioned above that are active in FGM in some form. Inform/teach me. I'm always eager to learn new information. Is my data outdated? fro


There are instances of it. But unless you are a part of a rural tribal group that still practices it... A.K.A 'born into it' via immediate family practice, you really don't have anything to worry about... It's definitely on it's way out... particularly do to the urbanization of the population.


Are you ever gonna stop making ish up?

RB, on the Congo thread you showed your ignorance by stating it was a British colony... lol Please learn something about Africa and history before you even attempt to go on an anti-African propaganda campaign. You are just gong to make yourself look stupid.
quote:
Originally posted by umbrarchist:
quote:
However, when the subject of Africa arises no matter how grusome and widespread the attrocities are y'all pull every trick in the book to try to marginalize, deny, and isolate the problems in Africa.


Nice generalization.

I haven't heard of people being burned alive in churches in the US.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/01/dozens-burned-...e-in-ke_n_79099.html

That doesn't change the 3,000,000 Vietnamese

Or the 600,000 Iraqis and counting.

Loyalty is a wonderful virtue in dogs. If you want loyalty buy a collie or a German shepherd. Since the US is really a European country since the land was invaded and taken over by Europeans it only really makes sense to compare it to other European countries.

Like Canada and Australia. lol

um


Hold the fuck up. You're the one that was dumb enough to have served in Vietnam and I'm supposed to be the 'loyal dog'? The fuck outta here! HA HA HA HA HA!!!! And you're bringing about these numbers of casualities in Vietnam and Iraq to support what argument? I'm sorry but your argument is moot mainly because you speak as if I have taken the position of dismissing, marginalizing or even defending the wrongdoings of the U.S. government throughout history. For the 3,324,758th time I've never said America was perfect nor is it the only place to be. You can drop any kind of atrocity you want to drop about the U.S.A. and I'll kindly accept it and move on. That doesn't diminish my citizenship nor does it have any affect on my current career or financial outlook and so on and so forth.
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
quote:
Originally posted by Romulus Burnett:
quote:
Originally posted by ricardomath:
quote:
Originally posted by Romulus Burnett:

What the fuck does Fugunwa have anything to do with this?


Fugunwa is a counterexample to a very specific claim that you made.

I was going to point him out to you myself, until I saw that Oshun Auset had already done it.


But you as well as oshit asset are trying to base what really goes on in the continent of Africa by what one person said? Fucking please. You seriously cannot be that naive or that lazy or biased that you would deny/ignore/marginalize the millions of acts of rape and the FGM committed in 28 countries in Africa since 1994 because one African said a woman's coochie would be safe in the countries he listed in his post?


Wrong again spin master... RIF

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Kocolicious:
Originally posted Oshun Auset
quote:
I've been on an extended trip living with the people(and fellow Pan Africanist party members) of Ghana, Senegal, Cote d'Ivoire, and Togo, and I can assure... our coochies are safe(mine felt far safer BTW)


fro off Sista OA So....are you saying that Ghana, Senegal and Togo do not practice FGM? I read that it was STILL a serious issue in those countries. Believe me, I really don't want to get it twisted...if in fact, I'm wrong. From my understanding and study, there are 22 countries including those mentioned above that are active in FGM in some form. Inform/teach me. I'm always eager to learn new information. Is my data outdated? fro


There are instances of it. But unless you are a part of a rural tribal group that still practices it... A.K.A 'born into it' via immediate family practice, you really don't have anything to worry about... It's definitely on it's way out... particularly do to the urbanization of the population.


Are you ever gonna stop making ish up?

RB, on the Congo thread you showed your ignorance by stating it was a British colony... lol Please learn something about Africa and history before you even attempt to go on an anti-African propaganda campaign. You are just gong to make yourself look stupid.


Complete bullshit. I never said a damn thing about the Congo being a British colony. You're so played with your weak ass distraction/diversion tactics now you're trying to blend another thread into this one?

The primary excuse every separatist, fascist, elitist fool uses as a general justification, end all be all solution to the downfall of minority civilizations is British colonialism/French/Spanish colonization. fucking please. Now lets get back to the fact that you don't have shit to say to contribute to this thread other than beligerent foolishness.
quote:
Hold the fuck up. You're the one that was dumb enough to have served in Vietnam and I'm supposed to be the 'loyal dog'?


Me thinks you have a reading comprehension problem.

I said I lost the draft lottery for Vietnam and consequently did not WIN an all expenses payed vacation to Vietnam. I remember quite clearly sitting in the tube room at the frat watching those White morons play games with my life.

um
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
quote:
Originally posted by Romulus Burnett:
quote:
Originally posted by ricardomath:
quote:
Originally posted by Romulus Burnett:

What the fuck does Fugunwa have anything to do with this?


Fugunwa is a counterexample to a very specific claim that you made.

I was going to point him out to you myself, until I saw that Oshun Auset had already done it.


But you as well as oshit asset are trying to base what really goes on in the continent of Africa by what one person said? Fucking please. You seriously cannot be that naive or that lazy or biased that you would deny/ignore/marginalize the millions of acts of rape and the FGM committed in 28 countries in Africa since 1994 because one African said a woman's coochie would be safe in the countries he listed in his post?


Wrong again spin master... RIF

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Kocolicious:
Originally posted Oshun Auset
quote:
I've been on an extended trip living with the people(and fellow Pan Africanist party members) of Ghana, Senegal, Cote d'Ivoire, and Togo, and I can assure... our coochies are safe(mine felt far safer BTW)


fro off Sista OA So....are you saying that Ghana, Senegal and Togo do not practice FGM? I read that it was STILL a serious issue in those countries. Believe me, I really don't want to get it twisted...if in fact, I'm wrong. From my understanding and study, there are 22 countries including those mentioned above that are active in FGM in some form. Inform/teach me. I'm always eager to learn new information. Is my data outdated? fro


There are instances of it. But unless you are a part of a rural tribal group that still practices it... A.K.A 'born into it' via immediate family practice, you really don't have anything to worry about... It's definitely on it's way out... particularly do to the urbanization of the population.


Are you ever gonna stop making ish up?


What shit am I making up? The articles as well as the links to the articles I posted are there for everyone to read. The only shit that's being made up is yours. Every one of your responses are full of nothing but shit--diversionary tactics, childish cheap shots, distractors, and insults. Complete fucking bullshit. Not what I expected from someone that holds herself in such high esteem. Roll Eyes

I'm actually glad you brought this up. It's a pathetic attempt to shift away from the millions of cases of rape throughout Africa, marginalize them and justify marginalizing them by saying a woman's coochie is safe because FGM is only an "immediate family practice". Fucking ridiculous. So what about the millions of other women, namely young girls and boys, that get raped every 26 seconds? NEXT.
quote:
Originally posted by Romulus Burnett:
Complete bullshit. I never said a damn thing about the Congo being a British colony.


Really?...

http://africanamerica.org/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/67970854/m...091028954#9091028954

Than why the heck did you say...

"I'm sure that all of this can be spin-doctored into being America's fault if not British colonialism."

17 Does British colonialism have to do with the Congo?

quote:
The primary excuse every separatist, fascist, elitist fool uses as a general justification, end all be all solution to the downfall of minority civilizations is British colonialism/French/Spanish colonization. fucking please.


You forgot Belgium... You know, the country who colonized the Congo... the actual subject of that thread...

If you wanted to speak in general terms... then and now (the above), you should have said EUROPEAN colonialism. But you obviously don't know who colonized who/where, otherwise you wouldn't have made such a MAJOR blunder. Hence, you need to READ UP.

BTW, the term 'minority' does not apply to the people you speak of. Non-European people are not the global minority.

quote:
Now lets get back to the fact that you don't have shit to say to contribute to this thread other than beligerent foolishness.


Wow, talk about projecting! lol Continue making an ass of yourself. It's getting quite entertaining...
quote:
Originally posted by umbrarchist:
quote:
Hold the fuck up. You're the one that was dumb enough to have served in Vietnam and I'm supposed to be the 'loyal dog'?


Me thinks you have a reading comprehension problem.

I said I lost the draft lottery for Vietnam and consequently did not WIN an all expenses payed vacation to Vietnam. I remember quite clearly sitting in the tube room at the frat watching those White morons play games with my life.

um


You'll have to forgive me as your bland sense of humor escaped me. Nevertheless, your argument is even more moot than before. I watched Desert Shield and Desert Storm from the cafeteria widescreen at my alma matar and watched the Iraq war from my flatscreen in my den. So what's your point? A person can care about his or her country of origin yet not be blindly patriotic. NEXT.
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
quote:
Originally posted by Romulus Burnett:
Complete bullshit. I never said a damn thing about the Congo being a British colony.


Really?...

http://africanamerica.org/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/67970854/m...091028954#9091028954

Than why the heck did you say...

"I'm sure that all of this can be spin-doctored into being America's fault if not British colonialism."

17 Does British colonialism have to do with the Congo?


You can't be that stupid. Can you? I guess you are. You tried so hard to twist and turn my words you out smarted yourself. You took a simple cynical joke literally, accented with a smilicon at that, and tried to spin it into a mistake? What does British colonialism have to do with the Congo? Hell, what does America have to do with the Congo? Shit. Because it was a simple cynical joke. What else are you going to spin? You read in a thread somewhere where I referred to Africa as a state like America?



*telegraphing the weak ass comeback*

oshit asset: You're doing yourself a great diservice RB! America is not a state it's a country! lol
quote:
Originally posted by Romulus Burnett:
You can't be that stupid. Can you?


No, that's you...

quote:
You tried so hard to twist and turn my words you out smarted yourself.


I quoted you. You are the spin doctor... More projection I see...

quote:
You took a simple cynical joke literally, accented with a smilicon at that, and tried to spin it into a mistake?


Oh, now it's a joke... But you just defended your terminology... Why defend your terminology if you purposely meant to use the term 'British' for the sake of humor? Nice try at a spin... but you are only making yourself dizzy.

quote:
Hell, what does America have to do with the Congo? Shit.


You may also want to read up on Patrice Lumumba... who was assassinated courtesy of the CIA... You may also want to look into what multinational corporations that are resource raping their NOW... not to mention who is arming folks... Guns aren't manufactured in Africa... and who benefits from instability and war?... Iraq should answer that one for yah...

quote:
Because it was a simple cynical joke. What else are you going to spin? You read in a thread somewhere where I referred to Africa as a state like America?



*telegraphing the weak ass comeback*

oshit asset: You're doing yourself a great diservice RB! America is not a state it's a country! lol


In your world...

FGM = Rape

West Africa = South Africa

British = Belgian

Your ignorance has been demonstrated. But don't let that stop you from continuing to foam at the mouth...
quote:
Originally posted by oshit asset:

You may also want to read up on Patrice Lumumba... who was assassinated courtesy of the CIA... You may also want to look into what multinational corporations that are resource raping their NOW... not to mention who is arming folks... Guns aren't manufactured in Africa... and who benefits from instability and war?... Iraq should answer that one for yah...


I was waiting for you to fall back on the CIA involvement when the U.S. was trying to overthrow the undesirable regime that had ties with Cuba and, thereby, the rest of the communist party. But what you fail to state is if it weren't for U.S. intervention the Congo would still be lead by Marxist ideals, which is why the Congo eventually re-established a relationship with the U.S. and followed the U.S.'s multi-party democracy blue print. Come on. Throw something else at me. Please.
quote:
In your world...

FGM = Rape

West Africa = South Africa

British = Belgian



In your little world....

Your coochie is safe because Fagunwa said so--FGM is only practiced in families and is an outgoing trend but as to the millions of females that are raped every 26 seconds (women are 5 times more likely to be raped in Africa than in the United States) who cares because only girls and boys are being raped. Everyone knows raping little children cures HIV and makes men live long and prosper. Well, at least that's what the local witch doctors and priests profess.

West Africa and South Africa are two separate continents from North Africa.


British, French, Spanish, Portuguese, etc. = blue-eyed, cave-dwelling, sub-humanoid devils
quote:
Originally posted by Romulus Burnett:
You'll have to forgive me as your bland sense of humor escaped me. Nevertheless, your argument is even more moot than before. I watched Desert Shield and Desert Storm from the cafeteria widescreen at my alma matar and watched the Iraq war from my flatscreen in my den. So what's your point? A person can care about his or her country of origin yet not be blindly patriotic. NEXT.


lol 20 lol

No matter what is said you are right even when you get things completely wrong. lol

Human beings were born on this planet before any nations existed. Since almost all habitable land is claimed by some nation or other it is nearly impossible to not be born in some nation. Therefore it is absurd to expect people to feel obligated to be patriotic but most nations try to BRAINSOIL children into that retarded mentality. You will just have to accept that not everyone is retarded.

And of course you will have to forgive my bland sense of humor, AGAIN. lol

um

PS - What your watching things on a widescreen at your alma mater has to do with it completely escapes me. But alma mater is Latin for "nourishing mother". ROFLMAO It just demonstrates how Europeans really use schools for indoctrination. Watch the Babylon 5 episode, THE CORPS IS MOTHER, THE CORPS IS FATHER.

http://www.visi.com/~wildfoto/synopsis/513.html
Last edited {1}

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×