The Left Destroys EVERYTHING It Touches

[Belinda]

I have met social anthropologists one of who was a government advisor and they were one and all people of integrity.

"Integrity"? Lucky you.

Most of them are not very smart and often not at all knowledgeable or competent in the fields in which they have been placed...particularly those allocated to Africa, who seem much more concerned with hovering around the embassy than they do meeting beneficiaries in the field.

You are very blessed.

Generally and where foreign aid is concerned a left wing government will be more partial to academia and less partial to their own personal prosperity.

Your evidence for this preposterous claim, dear lady?

Not all African politicians are bad men as you well know!

Perhaps. But you can find a dozen or more tinpot dictators in Africa for every well-intended but impotent national leader. Just go down the list, and you'll see: all the "big men" in Africa have been very bad men.

Now Apartheid is gone the main cause of sub-Saharan African underdevelopment is exploitation by multinationals.

That's one problem. But it's far from the biggest or the deepest one.

The biggest problem is tribalism. It's really the plague of Africa, and the main reason for all the nepotism, corruption and decay. There's no chance of Africa modernizing in a healthy way so long as the dominant paradigm in a region is one of ancient tribal hierarchies, beliefs and antipathies.

I am sorry about your bad experience with anthropologists who were disrespectful towards missionary or charity workers. In my very limited experience anthropologists love any effort to help the peoples whom they study with schools, hospitals, and all other means of alleviating poverty.

In some cases an anthropologist might help people by "hanging around an embassy" and making friends with the president and other dignitaries of the country.

I thought that Christianity and Islam had substantially attracted hearts and minds away from tribal affiliations, although I have heard that Africans are pragmatic about religions. I don't really know what you mean about tribalism being the problem, and I think you must know more than you have written.

Note to self: I must read up on tribalism in African politics.

[Immanuel Can]

I am sorry about your bad experience with anthropologists who were disrespectful towards missionary or charity workers.

Bad guess: they weren't.

The missionaries and charities that do the actual work on the ground find them totally irrelevant. The people they were disrespectful of were the poor, whom they treated as "cases" or statistical items to be counted and reported to their offices, so that they might move up the political hierarchy. They were short on compassion or even concern for the poor as people. Like all bureaucrats, they were only ever in it for their own careers, it seemed.

In my very limited experience anthropologists love any effort to help the peoples whom they study with schools, hospitals, and all other means of alleviating poverty.

Maybe some talk a good game. They don't deliver one.

In some cases an anthropologist might help people by "hanging around an embassy" and making friends with the president and other dignitaries of the country.

"Dignitaries." Yes, those are the ones they love to hang around. The unwashed and struggling poor are just their raw materials, so they can produce another study or report.

I thought that Christianity and Islam had substantially attracted hearts and minds away from tribal affiliations, although I have heard that Africans are pragmatic about religions.

Islam's totally tribal, for one thing. It literally divides the world itself into two warring tribes. It's also, historically, very racist. The Islamic slave trade, for example, the trans-Saharan one, is bigger and far more brutal and long-lasting than the relatively short and small one in America (which is also much smaller than the one in places like Brazil -- most people don't know that.) So Islam's no cure. And the things it's done in North Africa are truly horrendous. Just check into the doings of Al Shabaab or Boko Haram, and you'll be truly appalled.

But there are some pockets of actual Christianity in Africa. In a country like Zambia, some of those pockets have considerable influence. But sadly, most of Africa is largely still tribal in thinking, and its limited experiments with modernity have mostly been Socialist, and all been disasters.

I don't really know what you mean about tribalism being the problem, and I think you must know more than you have written.

If you live there, you know. I have lived there. The tribal way of thinking is deep rooted and vicious.

Note to self: I must read up on tribalism in African politics.

If you're interested, a good writer on the subject of Africa is Yale professor Lamin Saneh. He also has some interesting arguments about how Christianity is actually more sympathetic with African understandings than Western ones. Very eye-opening.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I have met social anthropologists one of who was a government advisor and they were one and all people of integrity.

"Integrity"? Lucky you.

Most of them are not very smart and often not at all knowledgeable or competent in the fields in which they have been placed...particularly those allocated to Africa, who seem much more concerned with hovering around the embassy than they do meeting beneficiaries in the field.

You are very blessed.

Generally and where foreign aid is concerned a left wing government will be more partial to academia and less partial to their own personal prosperity.

Your evidence for this preposterous claim, dear lady?

Not all African politicians are bad men as you well know!

Perhaps. But you can find a dozen or more tinpot dictators in Africa for every well-intended but impotent national leader. Just go down the list, and you'll see: all the "big men" in Africa have been very bad men.

Now Apartheid is gone the main cause of sub-Saharan African underdevelopment is exploitation by multinationals.

That's one problem. But it's far from the biggest or the deepest one.

The biggest problem is tribalism. It's really the plague of Africa, and the main reason for all the nepotism, corruption and decay. There's no chance of Africa modernizing in a healthy way so long as the dominant paradigm in a region is one of ancient tribal hierarchies, beliefs and antipathies.

Well they've certainly made a dog's dinner out of South Africa, so much so that they are leaving in droves to go and live in properly run countries. The catchphrase 'wealthy 'Western' countries' is just another agenda-laden bs political phrase. Is india 'Western'? It's a lot wealthier then where I'm from. Wealthy enough to have a nuclear arsenal... It's just another racist term to describe countries where the majority of inhabitants are 'white'. Assuming all 'white' people are rich is just another example of woke arsewipery.

[Immanuel Can]

The biggest problem is tribalism. It's really the plague of Africa, and the main reason for all the nepotism, corruption and decay. There's no chance of Africa modernizing in a healthy way so long as the dominant paradigm in a region is one of ancient tribal hierarchies, beliefs and antipathies.

Well they've certainly made a dog's dinner out of South Africa, so much so that they are leaving in droves to go and live in properly run countries.

That's a great example of what I'm suggesting is the deep problem.

A lot of Westerners believed that once Apartied was gone, peace and love would break out...there would be "truth and reconcilliation," and then a full-on Western democracy would follow.

But we can see how that's worked out.

The catchphrase 'wealthy 'Western' countries' is just another agenda-laden bs political phrase. Is india 'Western'? It's a lot wealthier then where I'm from. Wealthy enough to have a nuclear arsenal... It's just another racist term to describe countries where the majority of inhabitants are 'white'.

The fly in the CRT ointment are the Asians. The most successful, highest earning, highest educated populations per capita in North America are the Chinese, the Indians and other S.E. Asians, like the Koreans. According to CRT dogma, though, they don't count as "minorities." The proof is not that they were not historically discriminated against; it's that they are successful NOW, which means they are successfully climbing the "system" that CRT says is inherently "racist" and "white."

So Indians, Koreans and Chinese get to be what CRTers call "white adjacent." No kidding: that's their idiotic term. It means, "You're Chinese or Indian, but we're going to count you as 'white,' because you don't fit our narrative at all, otherwise."

Assuming all 'white' people are rich is just another example of woke arsewipery.

Sure is.

It's fascinating that there are only two constituencies keeping the idea of "race" viable at all. One would be the extreme Right, which is absurdly small and has practically zero influence on the public anyway; the other, and the one that has influence, is the CRT crowd, the extreme Left, which is large, political, media-backed and powerful in key areas like education and governance.

If it would seem that if it were not for the Wokies, the whole idea of "race" would soon be dead...as it should be.

[Belinda]

I am sorry about your bad experience with anthropologists who were disrespectful towards missionary or charity workers.

Bad guess: they weren't.

The missionaries and charities that do the actual work on the ground find them totally irrelevant. The people they were disrespectful of were the poor, whom they treated as "cases" or statistical items to be counted and reported to their offices, so that they might move up the political hierarchy. They were short on compassion or even concern for the poor as people. Like all bureaucrats, they were only ever in it for their own careers, it seemed.

In my very limited experience anthropologists love any effort to help the peoples whom they study with schools, hospitals, and all other means of alleviating poverty.

Maybe some talk a good game. They don't deliver one.

In some cases an anthropologist might help people by "hanging around an embassy" and making friends with the president and other dignitaries of the country.

"Dignitaries." Yes, those are the ones they love to hang around. The unwashed and struggling poor are just their raw materials, so they can produce another study or report.

I thought that Christianity and Islam had substantially attracted hearts and minds away from tribal affiliations, although I have heard that Africans are pragmatic about religions.

Islam's totally tribal, for one thing. It literally divides the world itself into two warring tribes. It's also, historically, very racist. The Islamic slave trade, for example, the trans-Saharan one, is bigger and far more brutal and long-lasting than the relatively short and small one in America (which is also much smaller than the one in places like Brazil -- most people don't know that.) So Islam's no cure. And the things it's done in North Africa are truly horrendous. Just check into the doings of Al Shabaab or Boko Haram, and you'll be truly appalled.

But there are some pockets of actual Christianity in Africa. In a country like Zambia, some of those pockets have considerable influence. But sadly, most of Africa is largely still tribal in thinking, and its limited experiments with modernity have mostly been Socialist, and all been disasters.

I don't really know what you mean about tribalism being the problem, and I think you must know more than you have written.

If you live there, you know. I have lived there. The tribal way of thinking is deep rooted and vicious.

Note to self: I must read up on tribalism in African politics.

If you're interested, a good writer on the subject of Africa is Yale professor Lamin Saneh. He also has some interesting arguments about how Christianity is actually more sympathetic with African understandings than Western ones. Very eye-opening.

I have done a little reading. Thanks for the recommendation. Here is a good one I have read:

https://africanarguments.org/2019/08/co ... cs-africa/

Having read it, I understand better how traditional Xianity in Sub-Saharan Africa is a force for universal values, cooperation between diverse peoples, and a channel for education which will empower poor people, so democracy functions not to increase personal autonomy not tribal amagmations.

BTW Boko Haram are islamists not Muslims.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

The biggest problem is tribalism. It's really the plague of Africa, and the main reason for all the nepotism, corruption and decay. There's no chance of Africa modernizing in a healthy way so long as the dominant paradigm in a region is one of ancient tribal hierarchies, beliefs and antipathies.

Well they've certainly made a dog's dinner out of South Africa, so much so that they are leaving in droves to go and live in properly run countries.

That's a great example of what I'm suggesting is the deep problem.

A lot of Westerners believed that once Apartied was gone, peace and love would break out...there would be "truth and reconcilliation," and then a full-on Western democracy would follow.

But we can see how that's worked out.

The catchphrase 'wealthy 'Western' countries' is just another agenda-laden bs political phrase. Is india 'Western'? It's a lot wealthier then where I'm from. Wealthy enough to have a nuclear arsenal... It's just another racist term to describe countries where the majority of inhabitants are 'white'.

The fly in the CRT ointment are the Asians. The most successful, highest earning, highest educated populations per capita in North America are the Chinese, the Indians and other S.E. Asians, like the Koreans. According to CRT dogma, though, they don't count as "minorities." The proof is not that they were not historically discriminated against; it's that they are successful NOW, which means they are successfully climbing the "system" that CRT says is inherently "racist" and "white."

So Indians, Koreans and Chinese get to be what CRTers call "white adjacent." No kidding: that's their idiotic term. It means, "You're Chinese or Indian, but we're going to count you as 'white,' because you don't fit our narrative at all, otherwise."

Assuming all 'white' people are rich is just another example of woke arsewipery.

Sure is.

It's fascinating that there are only two constituencies keeping the idea of "race" viable at all. One would be the extreme Right, which is absurdly small and has practically zero influence on the public anyway; the other, and the one that has influence, is the CRT crowd, the extreme Left, which is large, political, media-backed and powerful in key areas like education and governance.

If it would seem that if it were not for the Wokies, the whole idea of "race" would soon be dead...as it should be.

Excellent points. All of them. Wokies are OBSESSED with 'race'. They are the most racist group in modern society.

[simplicity]

Bullshit propaganda. My father went behind the so-called 'Iron curtain' (to Russia) at a time when almost no Westerners did. He was very impressed with the people, who he described as very dynamic and who loved their country. Not the downtrodden, depressed alcoholics you would like to believe they were. On the other hand he found the US to be a huge disappointment in every way (except for Disneyland, which he found to be exactly as it was protrayed). Unfortunately, Americans are incapable of differentiating a 'people' from a 'govt'. Perhaps it's a case of massively big-noting oneself. The reality is bound to be disappointing. Russians tend to be quiet, modest people in my experience, while Americans....

Perhaps you might want to do some research on the history of the Soviet Union. What you find might surprise you although I find it difficult to understand how somebody can be ignorant of one of the most tyrannical and murderous social experiments of all-time.

The US is what it is, but when you total up the good and the bad, please point out another country that has given more to the world than has America.

Human beings do not play nicely in groups...it's just the way it is.

[henry quirk]

Russians tend to be quiet, modest people in my experience, while Americans....

Tyrannized folks, I think, would naturally skew toward bein' quiet and modest. They don't wanna be targets.

Free folks, on the other hand, probably are loud and rowdy, to the point of being annoying.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Both proving my point that fools can't separate a people from a govt.

I am well aware of the difference between 'quiet and modest' and 'downtrodden and submissive'. The two don't even resemble each other. Modest and refined with a quiet confidence versus loud and obnoxious boasting, self-aggrandising, and 'protesting too loudly'...

[Immanuel Can]

BTW Boko Haram are islamists not Muslims.

What alleged difference are you thinking you're pointing to?

If you ask anybody in Boko Haram or Al Shabaab "Are you a Muslim," what do you think they say?

[Immanuel Can]

Wokies are OBSESSED with 'race'. They are the most racist group in modern society.

Indeed so. And proudly. For them "race" is the most essential, non-negotiable axis they know of. Gender and sexuality are distant seconds, but "race" is the basic reality in which they all most fervently believe.

[henry quirk]

I am well aware of the difference between 'quiet and modest' and 'downtrodden and submissive'.

Here's the difference: an individual can be quiet and modest; a whole people cannot. But a people can be downtrodden and outwardly submissive. Your pop was hoodwinked. He saw what allowed; believed what was convenient.

[Lacewing]

I am well aware of the difference between 'quiet and modest' and 'downtrodden and submissive'.

Here's the difference: an individual can be quiet and modest; a whole people cannot. But a people can be downtrodden and outwardly submissive. Your pop was hoodwinked. He saw what allowed; believed what was convenient.

Henry always knows the truth of things, regardless of what other people might know or experience, and regardless of Henry's crappy sources or primitive beliefs. Other people are 'hoodwinked', not Henry. If Henry thinks it and believes it, it is THE TRUTH. If Henry doesn't agree or see it, then people who think/see differently are wrong! Henry is the barometer of truth for the Universe. And that's because he's really, really smart. He reads all the memes and latest skewed propaganda. He has an eye for it. He can scan his computer with one eye, while his other eye is focused on pointing his shotgun out the window to rid his yard of any intruders. That takes skill, and more than a couple of brain cells. At least, that's the truth according to Henry.

[henry quirk]

Other people are 'hoodwinked', not Henry.

I get hoodwinked all the time. But not like veg's pop. He musta been a moron...or mebbe a fellow traveler.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I am well aware of the difference between 'quiet and modest' and 'downtrodden and submissive'.

Here's the difference: an individual can be quiet and modest; a whole people cannot. But a people can be downtrodden and outwardly submissive. Your pop was hoodwinked. He saw what allowed; believed what was convenient.

Bullshit. He was free to move around as he pleased. That was in Brezhnev's era. The only negative thing that happened to him was being out at night in Moscow and finding himself surrounded by street thugs. The second he uttered some words in English they took off like scared rabbits. Apparently that was a big 'no no' back then, messing with 'Westerners'.
He was also without 'belief', preferring evidence and observation.
If you have enough 'individuals' who behave in a simlar way, then yes, that is the overall impression that will be given out to the observer, hence the 'belief' that Americans are loud and boastful.