Comments
3,301 - 3,320 of 3,433 Comments Last updated Nov 23, 2012
Zew

Johannesburg, South Africa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3658
Nov 3, 2012
 
@Bigsmoke

From worshipping whites to worshipping Indians and Chinese, what a low negro bitch defacing threads with bulshit and exposing her foolishness on the world stage.

Go collect your welfare cheque, when you come back your English masters will still hate the EU like they did before joining it.

----------

Hahaha the case of Britain and the EU makes me laugh. And they went on to pump in billions of pounds into a structure they hate, turns out this was all meant to buy influence and vote, when they did not get their way they threatened to leave EU...this was in the 80s. John Major made the announcement that Britain was quitting the EU and that they wanted their money back. France refused to give them a penny..., Germany said they could have part, Britain wanted all or the EU must cease to exist. In the end the issue was between the three nations, Britain withdrew its resignation.

Demanding their financial contributions was a strategy to destabilise the EU and lead it to its early demise.

What almost broke the camel's back for Britain was the rejection of English as a common language and the pound as a common currency (they hate the Euro). French speaking European countries and Germany were opposed to that. Once again the English were not getting their way which led to more resentment of the EU because it was undermining the English pride and everything that symbolises the British Empire.

The English have a very serious problem accepting that the British Empire is no more.

USA should dump Britain and leave them to stand alone. They are already hated in Europe.

Britain is the reason USA does not have good relations with its Latin neighbours.

African countries and the Caribbean should leave the Commonwealth and that Francophone structure.

Level 5

Since: Feb 11

Romford, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3659
Nov 3, 2012
 
Zew wrote:
<quoted text>
I told you that and now you have repeated it a million times after me.
You are not original, parrot.
Yes SA is industrialised and will be part of industrialising SADC and then the rest of Sub Sahara Africa.
I can interject, interfere or intervene on matters African.
Dont tell me about the so called Africans who are howling bullshit from afar and who dont know half the story about their own countries. Their own people would rather mend and build relations with me than with them. Africa based Ghanaians, Senegalese, Zimbabweans, Nigerians, Kenyans, Congolese etc want to mend and build relations with South Africans than with their own overseas based people who are known to sneer at their countries and waiting in USA and EU for someone else to fix their countries.
Im in a much better position to speak FOR and ABOUT Africa than any of these people who fled to lick pussies overseas for Green Cards.
?
Zew wrote:
<quoted text>
You have no foot to stand on.
China and India are shitholes. Theres more poverty and massacres in India than in Sub Sahara Africa.
Chinese must open their country to international scrutiny, then we can talk.
Why are Indians and Chinese fleeing their countries in all directions if those are industrialised heaven on earth?
Indians and Chinese are unwanted scavengers in Africa's least developed countries. Why do they have to endure attacks and hate in Africa, why dont they fuck off back to their "industrialised, rich" countries?
Nobody even mentioned India a country which isn't exactly industrialized yet and is no different than most of Africa but one thing though they're not weak like Africa or a western pawn like many African countries.

Level 5

Since: Feb 11

Romford, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3660
Nov 3, 2012
 
Zew wrote:
@Bigsmoke
From worshipping whites to worshipping Indians and Chinese, what a low negro bitch defacing threads with bulshit and exposing her foolishness on the world stage.
Go collect your welfare cheque, when you come back your English masters will still hate the EU like they did before joining it.
----------
Hahaha the case of Britain and the EU makes me laugh. And they went on to pump in billions of pounds into a structure they hate, turns out this was all meant to buy influence and vote, when they did not get their way they threatened to leave EU...this was in the 80s. John Major made the announcement that Britain was quitting the EU and that they wanted their money back. France refused to give them a penny..., Germany said they could have part, Britain wanted all or the EU must cease to exist. In the end the issue was between the three nations, Britain withdrew its resignation.
Demanding their financial contributions was a strategy to destabilise the EU and lead it to its early demise.
What almost broke the camel's back for Britain was the rejection of English as a common language and the pound as a common currency (they hate the Euro). French speaking European countries and Germany were opposed to that. Once again the English were not getting their way which led to more resentment of the EU because it was undermining the English pride and everything that symbolises the British Empire.
The English have a very serious problem accepting that the British Empire is no more.
USA should dump Britain and leave them to stand alone. They are already hated in Europe.
Britain is the reason USA does not have good relations with its Latin neighbours.
African countries and the Caribbean should leave the Commonwealth and that Francophone structure.
Nobody is worshiping anyone but in your mad mind and now you're randomly bringing up India when nobody even mentioned them.

The EU shall expand, the UK shall remain part of it, the EU should take the next step and become a federation.

“Africa”

Level 7

Since: Jan 12

Oakland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3663
Nov 3, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

BigsmokE8 wrote:
<quoted text>
So I guess you've never heard of the ''Meiji period''...
Clearly you lack much knowledge in recent human history and what defines the modern world (Industrial Revolution).
It is all clear as day and you're highly ignorant on the matter hence why you're here promoting the stagnation of African development.
The Meiji revolution was about Japan PREVENTING itself from being oppressed. It had nothing to do with "adapting" to oppression and tyranny.

What defines the modern age is a revolution in science and technology, fool, which encompasses WAY MORE than just industrialization.

Industrialization does not define the modern age. A more advanced means of thought conceptualization concerning scientific, political, economic, cultural and technological means of societal progress is what defines it.

Stagnation? You can't name one thing I've said that will induce stagnation in anything.

You said that Africa needs to industrialize in order to develop. I refuted this with evidence, and you had no counter to it.

You haven't named one thing wrong or unsustainable about my approach, yet I've stated many things wrong and unsustainable about yours.

Investment in small farmers doesn't lead to stagnation. I've provided evidence to substantiate this. Investment in micro-enterprise doesn't lead to stagnation. It promotes entrepreneurship and innovation which is the antithesis of stagnation. Everything I'm saying has to do with innovation and entrepreneurship. This is the EXACT thing that is going to help develop African countries. Micro enterprising entrepreneurs and small farmers are way more innovative than factory workers and large scale farmers, so if anything is going to lead to any form of stagnation, it will be your approach, not mine.

LoL.. Now I REALLY want you to tell me how my approach even approaches likely stagnation.

“Africa”

Level 7

Since: Jan 12

Oakland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3664
Nov 3, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

BigsmokE8 wrote:
You clearly do not have a clue what you're on about what so ever.
You don't understand economics, human development, a thing called ''competition'', creation of jobs, value of exports, currency, globalization etc.
It is people like you who are responsible for why Africa is so behind. You actually think the likes of ''Kingdom of Nri'' which collapsed as they refused to adapt could survive today. LOL producing machines at home? You do you know how much time and energy that will take to produce just one, thus it will expensive and nobody will buy it compared to an industrialized country like China mass producing such machines.
You just don't seem to get it.
*smh*
And you haven't explained to me why they couldn't. I doubt you ever will be capable of doing so.

Oh!! And please tell me what it is that I don't understand about "economics, human development, a thing called ''competition'', creation of jobs, value of exports, currency, globalization etc." I would really like to know.

I guarantee you that everything I'm saying contributes to the development of economy, infrastructure, and personal well-being in addition to the promotion of sustainability.

Like I said, Africa has all the resources it needs to develop itself from the ground up. It does not need to attract any foreign investors and sufficient economic development does not necessitate industrializing major economic sectors with agriculture being the main one, followed by micro enterprise and services.

People like myself have never been present in the African seats of power; so what are you talking about?

Go ahead and outline how people like me have been responsible for Africa being "so behind". I wanna hear it.

I already went over job creation. Everything I'm saying speaks to putting more money in more peoples' hands and more innovative ideas out into the market.

Small farming, micro enterprise, services, merchant trade; all these things create money opportunities, and as a result of competition, encourages innovation and diversity in the economy.

In a period of only two years, there were a recorded 1,000 innovations in the agricultural sector in Africa. You know who these innovators were?

Were they the members of the national governments? No.

Were they the scientists? No.

Were they field agents? No.

They were the small farmers themselves. THEY were the primary ones responsible for the 1,000 innovations that were developed within only a two year time span. This innovation was due to farmers generating new ideas which they then shared with other farmers. Some developed local committees. All in all, they came up with solutions to problems the the scientists, field agents, and the national government programs couldn't, not because they weren't innovative, but because the ideas they proposed were too costly and did not fit the program of the farmers.

I don't have a clue about what I'm talking about, huh? Is that why I've been educating your illiterate ass about Africa, African affairs, and African needs all week?

Is that why I have successfully and easily discredited all your core arguments about what Africa needs to do and should places as top priority?

Is that why you still can't answer me why industrialization was not a "must" prior to the advent of industrialization, even though you had self sufficient, not only small communities, but entire cities and complexes of people. You had massive surpluses of goods continuously being exchanged and you had it without industrialization.

Why is that?

“Africa”

Level 7

Since: Jan 12

Oakland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3665
Nov 3, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Your argument is that industrialization should be made a top priority, yet agriculture does not necessitate any industrialization in order to achieve surplus, and agriculture is a primary sector of any economy, but especially Africa.

How can industrialization be top priority if agriculture, which is always the actual top priority, does not necessitate industrialization?

So like I said, fool, agriculture should remain in the hands of the small, more efficient farmers, farmers that do not require heavy machinery in most cases. This will not only increase the amount of productivity of African people, as well as food security, sustainability, creativity, etc., but also minimize the excessive costs of making or importing industrialized goods.

You talk about economics yet you don't seem to have care about a little something called "cost-benefit". What a joke.

In the tradition of educating you all week, I think it's high time for you to receive some more education:

"One of the main reasons why India is a member of the BRICS nations and is tipped to be the next global superpower is its rapid pace of industrialization. India’s industrial growth was recorded in 2010 at 16.8%, highest in 20 years. Thus it has a major contribution to India’s economic growth rate in 2010-2011 which is measured at about an impressive 8.6%. The rate of investment in India has been found to have exceeded 36% of the country’s GDP and this has happened because India is making progress in the industrial sector by leaps and bounds. Thus one realizes the importance of industries to sustain a country’s economy and stabilize it as well as strengthen the present government.

Throughout the year much preparation runs in the background to ensure that the country has an industrial output to boast about at the end of the fiscal year. But in their attempts to expand industries at a manic pace, the government seems to have forgotten, deliberately or otherwise, that about 80% of our population is dependent on agriculture for their livelihood. Recent figures have shown that India’s agricultural growth rate in 2010 was a meager 5%. That means unlike the industrial sector the agricultural sector cannot satisfy the current market demands as the government is keener to improve only industries.

When the government decides to implement any large-scale industrialization project WITHOUT THINKING TWICE as to whether it will actually benefit the people who’re ITS SUPPOSED BENEFICIARIES, it is these very people who end up suffering and losing the most. Most of these industries are often planned in the underdeveloped parts of the country where the people have been thriving on agriculture for several generations. When industrialization takes place without a proper understanding of the needs of these people, IT BENEFITS ONLY A HANDFUL, namely the companies, the investors and the government.

“Africa”

Level 7

Since: Jan 12

Oakland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3666
Nov 3, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

And in most cases, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Sometimes the government knows that unplanned industrialization will lead to chaos but in order to woo corporate houses and get them to make maximum investments in the country, they take away the lands of these farmers. The government in this case knows that the farmers have no basic knowledge of how an industry works and how they will be benefitted from the whole exercise. It takes advantage of their illiteracy and inexperience in dealing with crafty politicians and bureaucrats and feeds them all sorts of lies and false promises of more development and job opportunities to get them to sell their lands to the companies.

Sometimes the farmers don’t even get to do paperwork but have their lands unlawfully snatched away. Those displaced don’t get their promised jobs in the newly constructed factories because, let’s face it, these farmers have almost zero industrial skills and education. They can till lands like no other but to teach them to use complicated machines will take time. So the industries prefer employing people who have prior knowledge of working in factories to hiring these inexperienced farmers. And hence the country descends into anarchy when industrial development takes place with no measures for ensuring rehabilitation and securing job opportunities for the farmers.

The recent spate of violence in Ratnagiri over the Jaitapur Nuclear Power Plant project and the protests and resulting massacre in Nandigram and Singur indicate people’s frustration and anger at having their agricultural lands taken away for non-agricultural purposes. The Nandigram violence followed by the genocide, gang rape, police brutality etc. is a shameful chapter in the history of India where violent government cracks down on villagers protesting the construction of a Special Economic Zone is straightforward a violation of fundamental human rights. In Jaitapur, the government wants to build a 9900 MW nuclear power plant and claims that hundreds of thousands of Indian homes will be lit up as a result. But the villagers fear that the earthquake prone Madban plateau where the project will be built is a dangerous place for a nuclear power plant construction as the government has taken no steps to ensure proper disposal of nuclear waste or protection against any nuclear disaster. They are also seething in anger because their lands have been forcefully taken away and the project will also hamper not only the quality of the land and ultimately their traditional source of income, but will also ruin the natural biodiversity of the plateau.

“Africa”

Level 7

Since: Jan 12

Oakland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3668
Nov 3, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Personally, I don't really have a problem with industrialization itself. What I have a problem with the prioritization of industrialization or commercialization OVER PEOPLE, ENVIRONMENT, AND SUSTAINABILITY.

And as I said before, the prime focus, SHOULD NOT be on industrializing all the sectors of a given African country's economy. The priority should be placed on just how much can be done with MINIMAL industrialization.

After the primary sector of agriculture and food production comes the secondary sector of construction and manufacturing. This is where industrialization typically plays a more significant role, however, profitability can still be achieved with less or even none of it.

Micro enterprise is a manufacturing, and these types of goods can be made, as they have in the past, without industrialization, and no, just because these products are or can be made from home doesn't mean they will be expensive, nor does it mean that nobody will by them. Metalworking has historically been done, and continues to be done at a rate can achieve surplus without any heavy machines. Jewelry, pottery, ceramics, textiles, cloth making, baskets, blankets, quilts, cosmetics, and on and on are products one can make from home and sell for profit.

These all fall under manufacturing.

The tertiary sector of the economy is services. Services do not require the same level of raw material and energy as heavy industrializing either. Operations, maintenance, and management services, accounting, credit, collection services, insurance services, legal services, computer and data services, travel and tourism services, architectural, construction, and engineering services, education and training services, grooming services, health care services, and my personal favorite, information, online, and consulting services, are all services that do not require heavy machinery to get started, nor do they necessitate same investment and maintaining costs that factories do, yet can still be part of the economy and produce internal wealth.

But you don't think about these things, do you? You don't think about alternatives. One track mind. No actual usefulness though.

So please, by all means, tell me what it is that I don't understand about economics and human development.

“Africa”

Level 7

Since: Jan 12

Oakland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3669
Nov 3, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

BigsmokE8 wrote:
Europeans enslaved Africans in the Americas as the Native American populations were almost decimated due to smallpox which Europeans and Africans had built up immunity for over the centuries. Africans were brought to replace them. Africans were also used to tropical environments and cheaper to buy unlike Europeans so were the better choice to replace the declining Native numbers.
Pure economics all that racism which came latter was the effect of this all, its legacy.
That Atlantic Slave Trade created jobs, provisional banking and provided future free source of labour for the European powers involved. On the other hand it created warfare and mass deportations of Central-West Africans as those powers sold captive in return for firearms in order to expand.
This is where Central-West Africans began to fail and fall behind Europe and the west.
I don't know what you're telling me this for. I said slavery was not necessary, not Africans made the worst slaves. You haven't shown me how it was necessary, so I stand correct. Europeans could have survived and even thrived in America without enslaving Africans for four hundred years, just like they did when John Ralphe came there He and the other colonists prospered for twelve years before the first slaves were brought from West Africa, and even then it was a few, and they were not treated in the same manner as they would be for another forty years afterward.
BigsmokE8 wrote:
I guess the Japanese are ''white washed'' LOL! Even after whopping Russian azz and bombing Pearl Habour; two things which would of never happened if they like Africans, South Asians & Chinese refused to adapt (Industrialize) at the time. Africans, South Asians and the Chinese (partially) ended getting colonized while Japan didn't.
''White washed'' or not that country (Japan) is far ahead than anywhere in Africa so maybe it is time they got with the program.
All the Japanese did was increase the amount of money they internalized. Money is not mutually inclusive with industrialization or an overriding emphasis on industrialization. Africa doesn't need to industrialize the same way the Japanese felt they needed to. So why you keep bringing them up is curious. Africa's problems circumstances are not the same as Japan's was.

In this day and age, money can be acquired through various means. Africa can specialize in areas that do not require the same intensive industrialized manufacturing that those other Asian countries do. Personally, I feel services can play a more befitting role for certain African countries.
Zew

Johannesburg, South Africa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3670
Nov 3, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

@Bakari Neferu

In this day and age agriculture does need industrialisation if you are going to beneficiate your crop, produce a range of by-products, create jobs and grow your economy.

Agro is not enough, you need industries to process that and produce food for the local market and exports.

The problem with your approach is that it is a peasant, outdated approach that is limited to subsistence farming.

Intra-trade, Agricultural crop and Mineral beneficiation are the answers to Africa's woes.

“Africa”

Level 7

Since: Jan 12

Oakland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3671
Nov 3, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Zew wrote:
@Bakari Neferu
In this day and age agriculture does need industrialisation if you are going to beneficiate your crop, produce a range of by-products, create jobs and grow your economy.
Agro is not enough, you need industries to process that and produce food for the local market and exports.
The problem with your approach is that it is a peasant, outdated approach that is limited to subsistence farming.
Intra-trade, Agricultural crop and Mineral beneficiation are the answers to Africa's woes.
No, I disagree. Agriculture does not necessitate industrialization. You should back and read some of my arguments.

Here is an article supporting my view:

"I have three basic reasons for questioning the industrialization of agriculture. First, the logical, economic and social gains from industrialization of agriculture have already been realized. Those gains were significant, but there is simply very little left to be gained from industrialization... from further specialization, mechanization, and routinization of agricultural production and marketing. Second, there are rising costs -- environmental, social, and economic costs -- associated with the industrialization process. The marginal costs of industrialization may have exceeded its marginal benefits as far back as two or three decades ago. Third, and as a consequence of the other two, there is growing evidence the industrial era is coming to an end -- as it has already ended in many sectors of our economy. Industrialization was the model or paradigm for human progress in the twentieth century. But, it is rapidly becoming obsolete as we approach the twenty-first century. Its time has come and gone. We should focus our scarce public resources on exploring approaches that have possibilities for progress in century ahead, rather than on promoting a model whose century has passed."

http://web.missouri.edu/~ikerdj/papers/BRSM1-...

After you get done reading that, read this one:

"It is true that almost 500 million small-scale farmers, fishers and herders in the world are food insecure. But participants at the seminar were quick to provide a plethora of examples showing that many other small-scale farmers are not only successfully feeding themselves but also wider communities, regions and even whole countries.

P.V. Satheesh, founding member of the Deccan Development Society in India, described a network of 5,000 small-scale women farmers in India that is producing food beyond individual households.“Self-sufficiency … starts at the farming household — once that household becomes self-sufficient, it starts spreading to the community, local area and then the larger, regional area,” explained Satheesh.

In other countries, small-scale producers have been instrumental in supplying entire countries. Katarina Eriksson, from the Tetra Laval group, claimed that Kenya built its whole dairy industry with milk provided by smallholders for school meal programmes. And Kenya is not alone.“Last year, Tetrapak’s packages are used in school feeding programmes in 54 countries and in most cases, the milk distributed in schools was locally produced and came from smallholders,” said Eriksson."

http://www.iied.org/can-small-scale-farmers-f...

Go ahead and read 'em and then tell me what you think.

“Africa”

Level 7

Since: Jan 12

Oakland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3672
Nov 3, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Zew wrote:
@Bakari Neferu
In this day and age agriculture does need industrialisation if you are going to beneficiate your crop, produce a range of by-products, create jobs and grow your economy.
Agro is not enough, you need industries to process that and produce food for the local market and exports.
The problem with your approach is that it is a peasant, outdated approach that is limited to subsistence farming.
Intra-trade, Agricultural crop and Mineral beneficiation are the answers to Africa's woes.
Right now, my main concern is food security, not exporting food to other non-African countries. Personally, I feel that merchandise and services should be the main things exported from African countries. These things need not be heavy industry sectors, as many things can be made by people themselves, and especially when dealing with services. A lot of infrastructure can be built without heavy machines as well. Wires, power, plumbing, many things can be done without heavy machinery. The fact is, while a country like South Africa might be able to afford that stuff, other countries in Africa need to priority LOW BUDGET development. However low-budget doesn't have to me inefficient. The world existed before industrialization. There were flourishing societies before the 18th century.

My approach is not and never has been outdated. I'm not talking about subsistence farming, I'm talking about organic farming in a SMART way. Scientific advancements have been made in agriculture. There are ways to enhance productivity in crops, as well as seeds that produce large bounties, that do not require heavy machines or commercialization.

As I've already said, commercializing agriculture has lessons the vitality and fertility of the soil and wreaks havoc on the environment. Organic small scale agriculture generate biodiversity, are more resilient in the face of climate change, and are more sustainable and healthy for the environment.

I do agree with the idea of intra trade. I'm always promoting that. And it is why I say that Africa does not need foreign investment. It might be helpful, but Africans don't need to beg anyone to come and invest in them. There are enough ways in this world for one to generate capital without having to go into debt get outside loans, and the way African economies are set up, if foreign investment gets the best of some of these countries, they might end up like Jamaica, with every one else coming in and making money except the people who live there.
Zew

Johannesburg, South Africa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3673
Nov 3, 2012
 
Bakari Neferu wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I disagree. Agriculture does not necessitate industrialization. You should back and read some of my arguments.
Here is an article supporting my view:
"I have three basic reasons for questioning the industrialization of agriculture. First, the logical, economic and social gains from industrialization of agriculture have already been realized. Those gains were significant, but there is simply very little left to be gained from industrialization... from further specialization, mechanization, and routinization of agricultural production and marketing. Second, there are rising costs -- environmental, social, and economic costs -- associated with the industrialization process. The marginal costs of industrialization may have exceeded its marginal benefits as far back as two or three decades ago. Third, and as a consequence of the other two, there is growing evidence the industrial era is coming to an end -- as it has already ended in many sectors of our economy. Industrialization was the model or paradigm for human progress in the twentieth century. But, it is rapidly becoming obsolete as we approach the twenty-first century. Its time has come and gone. We should focus our scarce public resources on exploring approaches that have possibilities for progress in century ahead, rather than on promoting a model whose century has passed."
http://web.missouri.edu/~ikerdj/papers/BRSM1-...
After you get done reading that, read this one:
"It is true that almost 500 million small-scale farmers, fishers and herders in the world are food insecure. But participants at the seminar were quick to provide a plethora of examples showing that many other small-scale farmers are not only successfully feeding themselves but also wider communities, regions and even whole countries.
P.V. Satheesh, founding member of the Deccan Development Society in India, described a network of 5,000 small-scale women farmers in India that is producing food beyond individual households.“Self-sufficiency … starts at the farming household — once that household becomes self-sufficient, it starts spreading to the community, local area and then the larger, regional area,” explained Satheesh.
In other countries, small-scale producers have been instrumental in supplying entire countries. Katarina Eriksson, from the Tetra Laval group, claimed that Kenya built its whole dairy industry with milk provided by smallholders for school meal programmes. And Kenya is not alone.“Last year, Tetrapak’s packages are used in school feeding programmes in 54 countries and in most cases, the milk distributed in schools was locally produced and came from smallholders,” said Eriksson."
http://www.iied.org/can-small-scale-farmers-f...
Go ahead and read 'em and then tell me what you think.
Why do you have to use someone else' views to support yours?

And now a US based Senegalese is prescibing a foreign approach to African problem, not atypical.

You are a white man's disciple.

“Africa”

Level 7

Since: Jan 12

Oakland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3674
Nov 3, 2012
 
Zew wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you have to use someone else' views to support yours?
And now a US based Senegalese is prescibing a foreign approach to African problem, not atypical.
You are a white man's disciple.
What are you talking about? INDUSTRIALIZATION is a "foreign" approach.

Africans have always based their economies on agriculture, manufacturing, mining, and commerce. This is what I am prescribing; that African countries focus on exploiting their main traditional economic sectors for current economic development.

I don't see how even you could disagree with that. If these countries are already low in capital, it only makes sense that they should focus on internal development and stability before they go out trying to globalize and compete with America, China, and France.
Zew

Johannesburg, South Africa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3675
Nov 3, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Bakari Neferu wrote:
<quoted text>Right now, my main concern is food security...
Peasane mentality at its worst...!

If you were concerned with food security you would be in your country working at securing food for your people and yourself. You wouldnt be scavenging in the USA eating off other people's land when yours is lying fallow.

That first sentence nailed you to the cross as you cant guarantee food security without some form of industrialisation in the agro sector. You are a peasant from a non industrialised country whose definition of industrialisation is very narrow in that it excludes the agro sector. No wonder Senegalese sell humans to survive.

If you dont need industrailisation to secure food why are Senegalse starving? Not that they wont with the industrialisation of the sector.

Why am I surprised, you were here displaying your limitations starting with your inability to differentiate between civilisation and industrialisation, making unsubstantiated claims about Africa being industrialised in the stone age when nothing could be farther from the truth. Parts of Africa may have been civilised but they were not industrialised, SPOT THE DIFFERENCE if you can.

SA aside, the continent is till not industrialised in 2012.

What you think or feel is irrelevant since many of you non Africa based Africans are not wanted in their own countries. You are just wasting space on topix. Go put your peasant views to the test and see if you'd be welcome in Senegal, walking texbook that cannot stand on his feet without using others' views to back his argument. I dont need other people's views to support mine, I know what i see and what is happening here in SA and I know what is happening in the agro sector in the SADC region.

How can one talk food security when you cant turn the crops into a range of by-products?

Peasant mentality reigns supreme. These are not the dark ages where you used stone to crush maize. Population growth has to be taken into account

Cutting and pasting what others say doesnt prove anything.

You can barely talk about your country, which proves that you have lost touch completely, leaving me wondring who are you speaking for or preaching to because if you cannot preach to or speak for your own country then you cant speak for any African country. I can speak for SADC, can you speak for ECOWAS? I doubt it. When last were you in Senegal, for how long were you there? And what meaningful contribution did you make?

Not holding my breath...!
Zew

Johannesburg, South Africa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3676
Nov 3, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Peasane mentality at its worst

=

Peasant mentality at its worst
Zew

Johannesburg, South Africa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3677
Nov 3, 2012
 
Bakari Neferu wrote:
<quoted text>
What are you talking about? INDUSTRIALIZATION is a "foreign" approach.
Africans have always based their economies on agriculture, manufacturing, mining, and commerce. This is what I am prescribing; that African countries focus on exploiting their main traditional economic sectors for current economic development.
I don't see how even you could disagree with that. If these countries are already low in capital, it only makes sense that they should focus on internal development and stability before they go out trying to globalize and compete with America, China, and France.
Speak for Senegal, other countries want to grow.

You dont live in Africa and are NOT qualified to speak for any African country other than yours if they care to listen to you, so take your views to Senegal and put them to the test there. I am speaking for the whole of SADC and other countries that are outthere inviting investments in various sectors.

African countries arent waiting for you, you are not needed. Your views are irrelevant.

Cut and paste all you like, you are just wasting space?

What I post here is to a large extent based on what is happening here in SA and what your delegates say when they come here to try and lure these companies to invest in their countries. And what is happening in SA is what African countries want to copy.

It doesnt look like you know what industrialisation of the agricultural sector entails.

Stick to your stone age approach and watch Senegal being left behind if you are relevant there. You will scavenge for food in foreign countries for the rest of your miserable lives.

Dont tell me about the stone age approach when poverty drove you out of Senegal.

Waste of time.
Zew

Johannesburg, South Africa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3678
Nov 3, 2012
 
Bakari Neferu wrote:
<quoted text>
What are you talking about? INDUSTRIALIZATION is a "foreign" approach.
Africans have always based their economies on agriculture, manufacturing, mining, and commerce. This is what I am prescribing; that African countries focus on exploiting their main traditional economic sectors for current economic development.
I don't see how even you could disagree with that. If these countries are already low in capital, it only makes sense that they should focus on internal development and stability before they go out trying to globalize and compete with America, China, and France.
You are too THICK.

You dont get it.

Take your master Eriksson and his views and shove him where the sun doesnt shine.

Waste of bandwidth.

Importing bullshit foreign solutions to African problems, speak for Senegal.
Zew

Johannesburg, South Africa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3679
Nov 3, 2012
 
@Bakari

I would speak for East Africa before you can qualify to speak for ECOWAS.

Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda, DRC welcome the move towards industrialisation and that includes the industrialisation of the agro sector. Uganda's agro subsidies is gathering momentum, they want to get to a point where their farmers can use technology to better utilise the land, I dotn see why that should not be followed by beneficiation of the crop. This is not the stone age, Ugandans are not going to use stones to crush maize. They need machinery and production plants.

Burundi just received a loan to develop its economy, they have to pull up their socks because Rwanda is doing well in IT, you are not going to tell me that IT crazy Rwandans are going to use hands to harvest beans and stones to crush maize. In Zimbabwe the land is lying fallow because Zimbabweans do not have machinery and implements, they NEEEEEEEEEEEEEED machinery. Machinery is a step towards industrialisation.

Malawi and Zambia have doubled their production thanks to the government intervention and hiring out of implements, machinery and subsidising fertiliser.
Zew

Johannesburg, South Africa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3680
Nov 3, 2012
 
@Bakari Neferu

Dont judge my comments, come out...defend yourself and argue your case without dumping European, American and Asian views on African problems. Theres no one size fits all here.

You are not only mlimited in your definition of industrialisation, you dont live in Africa and have lost touch.

And, you are not needed. Your views count for ZERO.

Africa is not waiting for those who abandoned their countries.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••